Talk:Mare Moscoviense

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Moon / Solar System Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Discussion of the different names lifted from Mare Moscovrae talk page (since turned into a redirect): --JTN 04:07, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hold on - is this Mare Moscoviense? Evercat 02:38, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd better mention that my source for what I wrote in the article was:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lunae3.htm

Evercat 02:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I believe so. See a Usenet post from a while ago where there's a link to a map (on a USSR stamp) showing Russian versions of the old names for features (Sea of Dreams, Bay of Astronauts etc); this shows the Mare Mockba (scuse my Cyrillic) in plausibly the same location as modern maps show Mare Moscoviense. --JTN 03:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course, it'd be great if someone could do some actual proper research with tools other than Google to find the background of this and other names like Mare Desiderii :) --JTN 04:07, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

State of mind?[edit]

Our article quotes Audouin Dollfus in a Nature article, who claimed that "Moscow" is a state of mind. Was that a diplomatic compromise, or a plain joke? If he was serious, we should link to the article Moscow (state of mind) (once we have written it).

--Austrian (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only know what is in the article, but Nature is a 100% reliable source, the highest level journal in natural sciences.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Nature is a reliable and serious journal. But my question remains: Was Dollfus serious? --Austrian (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, I am not an astronomer. We can attribute the statement to Dollfus explicitly in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow is VERY mad state of mind... Ultima Thulean (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]