The result was redirect to Supermoon. Clear consensus not to keep. Editorial discussion may determine whether there is any non-OR content that can be merged from history. Sandstein 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be pure Original Research. Fails GNG. Probable HOAX. Carrite ( talk) 03:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 17:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
*Strong delete: This page is pure pseudo-scientific cruft that has no references to the actual fake science and was obviously not written by someone with even a basic grasp on the subject of astronomy.
DARTHBOTTO
talk•
cont 23:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
First, this is not a hoax. There is a cycle of about 412 days that appears in the apparent size of the Full Moon, and also is useful for predicting eclipses. Also see Eclipse cycle: many such cycles can be constructed and some have been described and named only in the past century. As for this cycle, this became a topic of discussion in a mailing list on calendars (CALNDR-L) but apparently was unnamed. Karl Palmen coined the name "Full Moon Cycle" in 2002. One needs a name to talk about something, and neologisms pop up all the time. For example Snowclone is exactly the same as cliché, or "template" as English speakers would call it, and the practice can be found in literature since the 3rd millennium BC: but someone found it necessary to coin a new name for it in 2004, and apparently it caught on and got a lemma in Wikipedia.
@ User:DarthBotto: your assessment as pseudo-science and fake science shows lack of insight. Not all astronomy is about black holes or lunar geology. Positional astronomy was all there was to astronomy before the 19th century; but the origin of the science, and indeed of science itself, was looking for regularity in natural phenomena like this.
If and to what extent the cycle was known and used in history is unknown. It was superseded by better longer cycles like the saros and the cycle of 251 lunations, which is very present in Babylonian astronomical texts but in 3 millennia also has not received its own proper name. The FMC is 1/16th of a saros and this division appears on the Antikythera mechanism as described by Alexander Jones c.s., as referenced in the FMC article.
I do argue that the cycle is of some current interest because of the regular media attention to supermoons. This FMC article explains why those occur.
Much of the article is about using the FMC to find the date and times of full moons (and new moons) and for predicting on which ones an eclipse can be expected; most of that is from my hand. This has been called "original research" and people question why it has not been published. The fact is that the FMC article describes a very simplified, dumbed down version of an algorithm published by Jean Meeus in his Astronomical Formulae for Calculators (ca. 1980) and his Astronomical Algorithms (1991, 1992, 1998), which I do cite as the reference in the FMC article. Meeus took the method from a paper by Paul Ahnert Hansen from Leipzig in 1857; Hansen published tables on the motion of the Moon who were the best of those days, but he hasn't got a Wikipedia article. Meeus filled in modern parameters for the lunar motion. I tried to publish a paper on the method with modern parameters back in 1985, but it was considered not sufficiently novel or of general interest for a scientific publication. So the chance of getting the approximation described in the FMC article published in a peer-reviewed journal (paper on electronic) is zero. There is a nasty chasm between what science editors consider too trivial to publish, and what Wikipedia guardians consider not trivial but "original research".
In the end encyclopedia's are written by people who know stuff for people who don't know. I understand that the content must be verifiable, but I find the criteria that people enforce on Wikipedia unworkable. Why must every number be published on paper before we are allowed to use it in Wikipedia? Why is it called "original research" every time I use a calculator? In the FMC and elsewhere (e.g. New moon) I provide my sources and explain the derivations in painful detail. Everybody with a secondary education should be able to follow the arithmetic and verify its validity. Why must the outcome be published on paper? It is trivial so not "original research" and impossible to publish. On the other hand it is tedious to have to derive the same number every time you need it, so there is merit to record the result once and for all. If you need verification, do the math if you are competent. If you are not, don't criticise.
As another example, there are some misconceptions on Easter which I have tried to address in Computus, giving the canonical reference, with the Latin text, and my translation. The Latin was removed because we are not allowed to use Latin that almost no-one understands in the English Wikipedia, and my translation because it was considered "original research" and|or unverifiable. Fact is that much old material has never been printed in an English translation. For example, Hansen's thesis from 1840 was still in Latin. And recently I learned that Wikipedia policy forbids using primary sources, anything you write must be from secondary sources. This means that much knowledge will be lost.
I imagine that rules such as these are introduced because the directors want EVERYONE be able to easily verify the validity of the content. However I think it is sufficient if SOMEONE can do the validation. Otherwise, Wikipedia can only contain things understandable by the least educated user, and will be of no interest to most people. Tom Peters ( talk) 07:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Supermoon. Clear consensus not to keep. Editorial discussion may determine whether there is any non-OR content that can be merged from history. Sandstein 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be pure Original Research. Fails GNG. Probable HOAX. Carrite ( talk) 03:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 17:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
*Strong delete: This page is pure pseudo-scientific cruft that has no references to the actual fake science and was obviously not written by someone with even a basic grasp on the subject of astronomy.
DARTHBOTTO
talk•
cont 23:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
First, this is not a hoax. There is a cycle of about 412 days that appears in the apparent size of the Full Moon, and also is useful for predicting eclipses. Also see Eclipse cycle: many such cycles can be constructed and some have been described and named only in the past century. As for this cycle, this became a topic of discussion in a mailing list on calendars (CALNDR-L) but apparently was unnamed. Karl Palmen coined the name "Full Moon Cycle" in 2002. One needs a name to talk about something, and neologisms pop up all the time. For example Snowclone is exactly the same as cliché, or "template" as English speakers would call it, and the practice can be found in literature since the 3rd millennium BC: but someone found it necessary to coin a new name for it in 2004, and apparently it caught on and got a lemma in Wikipedia.
@ User:DarthBotto: your assessment as pseudo-science and fake science shows lack of insight. Not all astronomy is about black holes or lunar geology. Positional astronomy was all there was to astronomy before the 19th century; but the origin of the science, and indeed of science itself, was looking for regularity in natural phenomena like this.
If and to what extent the cycle was known and used in history is unknown. It was superseded by better longer cycles like the saros and the cycle of 251 lunations, which is very present in Babylonian astronomical texts but in 3 millennia also has not received its own proper name. The FMC is 1/16th of a saros and this division appears on the Antikythera mechanism as described by Alexander Jones c.s., as referenced in the FMC article.
I do argue that the cycle is of some current interest because of the regular media attention to supermoons. This FMC article explains why those occur.
Much of the article is about using the FMC to find the date and times of full moons (and new moons) and for predicting on which ones an eclipse can be expected; most of that is from my hand. This has been called "original research" and people question why it has not been published. The fact is that the FMC article describes a very simplified, dumbed down version of an algorithm published by Jean Meeus in his Astronomical Formulae for Calculators (ca. 1980) and his Astronomical Algorithms (1991, 1992, 1998), which I do cite as the reference in the FMC article. Meeus took the method from a paper by Paul Ahnert Hansen from Leipzig in 1857; Hansen published tables on the motion of the Moon who were the best of those days, but he hasn't got a Wikipedia article. Meeus filled in modern parameters for the lunar motion. I tried to publish a paper on the method with modern parameters back in 1985, but it was considered not sufficiently novel or of general interest for a scientific publication. So the chance of getting the approximation described in the FMC article published in a peer-reviewed journal (paper on electronic) is zero. There is a nasty chasm between what science editors consider too trivial to publish, and what Wikipedia guardians consider not trivial but "original research".
In the end encyclopedia's are written by people who know stuff for people who don't know. I understand that the content must be verifiable, but I find the criteria that people enforce on Wikipedia unworkable. Why must every number be published on paper before we are allowed to use it in Wikipedia? Why is it called "original research" every time I use a calculator? In the FMC and elsewhere (e.g. New moon) I provide my sources and explain the derivations in painful detail. Everybody with a secondary education should be able to follow the arithmetic and verify its validity. Why must the outcome be published on paper? It is trivial so not "original research" and impossible to publish. On the other hand it is tedious to have to derive the same number every time you need it, so there is merit to record the result once and for all. If you need verification, do the math if you are competent. If you are not, don't criticise.
As another example, there are some misconceptions on Easter which I have tried to address in Computus, giving the canonical reference, with the Latin text, and my translation. The Latin was removed because we are not allowed to use Latin that almost no-one understands in the English Wikipedia, and my translation because it was considered "original research" and|or unverifiable. Fact is that much old material has never been printed in an English translation. For example, Hansen's thesis from 1840 was still in Latin. And recently I learned that Wikipedia policy forbids using primary sources, anything you write must be from secondary sources. This means that much knowledge will be lost.
I imagine that rules such as these are introduced because the directors want EVERYONE be able to easily verify the validity of the content. However I think it is sufficient if SOMEONE can do the validation. Otherwise, Wikipedia can only contain things understandable by the least educated user, and will be of no interest to most people. Tom Peters ( talk) 07:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)