Talk:Full moon cycle
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
"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.
- 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.