Talk:Full moon cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Notes on earlier objections[edit]

Hey, we went over this in 2003 when we wrote the page. One of the Wikipedia supervisors had the same objections and removed the article; I salvaged it for a while under my personal page. The adversary conceded when I could show some earlier literature that discussed regularities in the size and timing of the syzygies - still quoted at the end of the article.

All this stuff is factually correct, which is increasingly rare in the Wikipedia. Also at least 2 people (myself and Victor Engel) have been contributing and using this, so it is at least twice as big as a personal pet project. So why remove all this?

Finally, recently someone flagged this article as sub-standard. What exactly are the problems?

Tom Peters 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The later part of the article is about a project presented to CALNDR-L to make a lunar calendar that takes accounts of the fumocy to get a better match with moon phases.

This is at best original research and may be seen to be a pet project.

I'm not sure whether it should be included in wikipedia and move it here pending discussion about it.

--- Karl Palmen 12 April 08:35 UT

Isn't this a vanity article somehow[edit]

"The abbreviation fumocy was introduced by Wikipedia user Karl Palmen in the CALNDR-L mailing list in October 2002"

Brings me this to mind:


As it extends not only to articles but to information or "original research" within articles.

contributed from anonymous IP address and not signed - the opposite of vanity but not right either. Anyway:
  • this has been worked on by at least 3 people, so it's not just a personal pet|vanity thing; where do we draw a line?
  • stuff doesn't appear much in print anymore, so stuff developed on an Internet forum may be valid for an encyclopedia too
  • K.P. coined a word that could be documented; why not mention that fact? If a new thing gets named and catches on, it is often hard to find out where it came from, or there are priority disputes.

Tom Peters 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In response,
  • It does not matter how they feel about the article, it matters how the editing and adminstrating body of wikipedia feels.
  • It may be a valid source, but that is not the proper way to cite it.
  • When, and if, "fumocy" becomes of wide-spread use (even if only by a professional astronomer crowd), we will document it. Regardless, it is not in use, and even if it were, it would be encyclopedic only to mention not use, as it is an abbreviation of sorts.

So, I have removed these flaws, and made it a better article. I will bring attention to it, once I figure out how. Thanks for your contributions to this article, Tom. --Jmax- 09:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary and recommendations of failed 13 December 2006 deletion proposal[edit]

Could someone please summarize the results of the failed proposed deletion discussion? It was my impression that more than half of the participants who addressed the issue of whether or not this is original research suggested that the original research should be removed---irregardless of whether or not the page was kept. Thanks Lunokhod 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • AFAIK, It doesn't work that way--AFD is an up or down vote essentially--exception being they might administratively 'userfy' something, and that really is just an 'attitude' side effect on the part of the closing admin—more a matter of custom and courtesy rather than rules. Otoh, you can contact the participants and direct their attention here.

       Participants are priviledged (just like any lay party) to edit improvements into an article under discussion unmercifully, even during the AFD process, as they can during any xFD process.

       Many an AFD in the old days had numerous strikeouts and 'vote changes to keep' (amongst those taking the easy course and so wimping out and...) voting delete, whilst one or more of the really good editors, quietly went ahead and just improved the article to the point all that back-pedaling was necessary.

       From what I can see on this page, we're looking at a numeric method of solving an equation set that is derivative and essentially approximate, else it wouldn't need the fiddling resets every 18 cycles or so. Since I agree with Tom Peters that the qualification on OR are aimed at NPOV, more than such prosaic methods, I'm disinclined to jump into changing it.

       The proper venue would be to raise the point is in the WP:NOR governing talk page, or perhaps try to generalize your objections into a new guideline page proposal, where a focused discussion can be partaken by the many.

       You are quite welcome to raise the matter specifically with an alert 'spam' to the various participants that set that/those guideline(s) page(s) up back when. If you do so, please make sure you include links to all relavant pages, the VPP discussion, the AFD, etc. starting with a notice on that guideline talk which acts as your model 'alert'. I don't see how this article is harmful or controversial, and consider your strict constructionist interpretation on OR versus formula methodology at least as controversial in fact, but since both controversies have the potential to set precedent, you two should continue the discussion until some clear consensus is reached. Good luck to you both // // FrankB 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As I stated before, I would agree that the last part of the article (on using the cycle to compute the syzygies) contains "original research" by myself and others. However, that research was done and made public at some other place than Wikipedia. So I believe that the controversy for this article is (or should be) about what is acceptable reference material for Wikipedia in the Internet age. Especially since the procedure is outlined in detail and sourced in the article, so can be checked by anyone with moderate mathematical skills by just reading it. Tom Peters 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of Moon[edit]

Unlike the moons of other planets, the moon of the Earth has no proper English name other than "the Moon" (capitalized): see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30 PDF file. I suggest an article review and also moving the title to Full Moon cycle. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Moon should indeed be capitalized when used to refer to the object. But full moon refers to an event, not the object itself. Like the difference between sunset and Sun Saros136 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers are completely wrong![edit]

Check out: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the New Moon table for now, but the full moon tables are still the same, Karl if you're reading this please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous, you got it wrong. I am the author of the original table in the Wiki article as well as of the table that you link to, so please trust me to know what I am doing. The table that you link to counts time approximately the old-fashioned Jewish way, from sunset (fixed at 18:00 mean local solar time for my purpose). In the Wikipedia article I chose to limit complexity and confusion, and count time the conventional way from local midnight. The values for the accumulator, which is essentially the time of day of the syzygy, therefore differ by (49/24)*6 = 12; hence the accumulator for 6 Jan. 2000 is not 46 (as in the original table), but 46-12 = 34 . I hope this clarifies things. I'll try to revert. Also, it is not useful to list numerical values down to the nanosecond: the accuracy of the method is about half an hour, so 2 decimal days are appropriate precision. Tom Peters (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Full moon cycle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Proposed for deletion 13/12/06
  • Keep 23/12/06; but contains original research.

Last edited at 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)