On the moon? Surely the word geology only makes sense in reference to Earth.

What about calling it lunology instead?

Actually, 'selenology' is more successful than 'lunology':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenology

Will this information have any bearing on theories of the formation of the moon, or, has the theory of the moon having been formed from a collision of a Mars sized object with a still forming earth taken on so high a degree of acceptance that it's no longer questioned?

That all depends on you're definition of geology.

There definitions that define it as: the geologic features and processes occurring in a given region on the earth or on a celestial body

green cheeseology?

surely that's just the edge of the photo?

Shouldn't have any bearing on the theories of lunar formation whatsoever. Geological features occur as a result of surface processes, whatever the moon's formation process was, what we are seeing now on the surface is as a result of processes which occured once the surface was there to be acted upon. So whatever happened before the surface cooled sufficiently for geological processes to take place, we can't see.

All we know is small iron core, weird angular momentum, isotopic composition similarities to the earth. So any theory of lunar formation has to take into account the facts as we observe them, and the collision / glancing blow theory covers all the bases well.

Did anyone notice the squares?

Selenology, aerology etc sound cool and distinct from plain old earth geology ... but how far are you going to take it ? Plutology (Hadeology ?) Titanology ? Encladiology ? Ioology ? After a point it just gets silly, like english collective nouns. I say we stick with "lunar geology", "martian geology" etc.