![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect to Supermoon. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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
"The abbreviation fumocy was introduced by Wikipedia user Karl Palmen in the CALNDR-L mailing list in October 2002"
Brings me this to mind:
[ [1]]
As it extends not only to articles but to information or "original research" within articles.
Tom Peters 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Check out: http://the-light.com/cal/FuMoCyNewMoons_199012_202312.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.122.171 ( 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 41.131.122.171 ( talk) 06:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
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
|
Last edited at 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect to Supermoon. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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
"The abbreviation fumocy was introduced by Wikipedia user Karl Palmen in the CALNDR-L mailing list in October 2002"
Brings me this to mind:
[ [1]]
As it extends not only to articles but to information or "original research" within articles.
Tom Peters 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Check out: http://the-light.com/cal/FuMoCyNewMoons_199012_202312.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.122.171 ( 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 41.131.122.171 ( talk) 06:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
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
|
Last edited at 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)