Talk:Full moon cycle

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes on earlier objections

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Isn't this a vanity article somehow

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summary and recommendations of failed 13 December 2006 deletion proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalization of Moon

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers are completely wrong! 

message: Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment