Contents

Talk:Lunar Orbiter 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lunar Orbiter 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 23, 2004.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hmm, a lot of pages have this exact wording. Is there some setup whereby NASA stuff is public domain, or something? Evercat 19:27 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Yep. Taxpayer dollars, and all that. Could've lifted the pic too. Stan 21:12 23 May 2003 (UTC)

The only citation I can find for the launch time does not specify that it went off exactly at 00 seconds, so I have changed the value in the start date template. Apparently, the template still emits 0Z without seconds specified [1]. Workaround is to purposely introduce an empty parameter #6.

{{start date|1966|08|10|19|26||Z}} this syntax achieves the correct visual result

The claim (see Botreq remark) that the above template's syntax is less error prone is difficult to understand, especially when examining usage examples such as this one. Compare to the new template syntax:

{{start-date|19:26, August 10, 1966 (UTC)}}

WYSIWYG is goodness and light. Which is easier to edit? Which is less error prone? -J JMesserly (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no comment, I shall proceed with the revert to the wysiwyg version using the format of the date[2] prior to the use of {{start date}}. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, you have reverted this change with no comment. Can you please explain your rationale? -J JMesserly (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. My edit summary (typos corrected): rv - removed "bday" property from hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion. Your edit reverted the wysiwyg start-date and end-date templates in favor of the much less readable {{start date}}. Your response refers cryptically to "bday", and ignores the argument presented in favor of a readable template. Please be clear about what your objection is. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) This is an instance of a class of dispute regarding the encoding of events. Further discussion may be found at Wikiproject Microformats talk page. Bring some popcorn. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing chooses not to discuss his position, and instead elects to revert other edits on similar obscure grounds[3]. His edit is reverted, and should remain so until good reason is provided for the revert. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]