Talk:Apollo 8/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Horrible second and third sentences
The thread above got rather hijacked by discussion about when it would appear on the Main Page, but now that we are only a few hours from that I hope something can be done about it. The repetition, victorious tone and lengthy listing are really not what we should be putting up as representative of our best content.
So Apollo 8 was the first manned mission "to leave low Earth orbit, reach the Moon, [and] orbit it" (first sentence) and also its crew were "the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit and ...directly see the far side of the Moon" (second and third sentences). They also managed to not only "escape the gravity of another celestial body" but also to "re-enter Earth's gravitational well." In the second sentence we are told that they " the first humans to ... enter the gravity well of another celestial body":I haven't been orbiting the sun once a year for my whole life then? The overall effect is that it sounds like a politically produced science magazine for 12 year olds. Surely we cannot believe this to be the best of our encyclopaedic style. Kevin McE (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- The gravitational well is a good point. The others seem fine, as they are interesting firsts for the human race. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't think it is ridiculous for the first sentence to say it was the first manned mission to do these things, and then separately that these people were the first to do the exact same things, or to list several items that are inevitable consequences of one event as though they were each individually significant achievements? This is only a small step up from saying that in raising the world long jump record from 8.35m to 8.90m, he also became the first man to leap 8.40, and 8.50, and did what no-one had done before in reaching 8.60, and became the first man to reach 8.70... It goes beyond encyclopaedic recording, and sounds more like boasting. Kevin McE (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Do you want to make the mods and see what it looks like, or maybe put the suggestion here? Also, I know I mentioned it earlier, but the use of 'human' - could not 'people' be used in some, or most, cases? 86.156.221.64 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Something like this would retain the info, without repetition or gloating, and is based on what Dank has put as the extract for the main page.
- Apollo 8, the second manned spaceflight mission flown in the United States Apollo space program, was launched on December 21, 1968, and became the first manned spacecraft to leave low Earth orbit, reach the Moon, orbit it, and return. The three-astronaut crew—Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders— were the first humans to witness and photograph an Earthrise and to escape the gravity of another celestial body. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I like it generally, but the ending is a bit puzzling possibly to the reader. As in, another besides what?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fair point:"a" rather than "another"? Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to put (the Moon) after body?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would be inclined not to: I would hope that the reader knows that the moon is the other body involved. But I wouldn't argue too much if you think it is necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, adding 'Moon' after 'body' seems redundant, and readers should get the implication immediately as to which celestial body is meant. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would be inclined not to: I would hope that the reader knows that the moon is the other body involved. But I wouldn't argue too much if you think it is necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- As it reads right now there are three mentions of "celestial body" in the first paragraph. One is fine, two was a bit much, and when I reached the third I came right here to point this out and agree with Kevin McE's language above. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Now 15 minutes before this goes to the main page as TFA, so we can't really delay any longer. I've just posted my slightly changed version of Dank's adapted extract. Kevin McE (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks. And it's showtime... Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- When I was much younger I was hitchhiking to Florida to visit my girlfriend and was picked up by a family in North Carolina who were driving down to see this launch. I sat up front with Dad and drank his beer while Mom and the two kids sat in back and mixed up some vodka things, which I also drank. We arrived about an hour before the launch and got a great view. Since this talk page is just for improving the article, I’ll ask, ‘Should my story go in the lede or later on?” Carptrash (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Depends. Did the drinking make you sleep through the launch, or did you actually see it? And did you write up a peer-reviewed article about it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Now, now, Carptrash. I'd be careful if I were you. You might just fall foul of the Wikipedia humour police, who might be along soon to revert your edit, like they did with mine [1] on another Talk page. Strange lot, these Wikipedians. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Depends. Did the drinking make you sleep through the launch, or did you actually see it? And did you write up a peer-reviewed article about it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- When I was much younger I was hitchhiking to Florida to visit my girlfriend and was picked up by a family in North Carolina who were driving down to see this launch. I sat up front with Dad and drank his beer while Mom and the two kids sat in back and mixed up some vodka things, which I also drank. We arrived about an hour before the launch and got a great view. Since this talk page is just for improving the article, I’ll ask, ‘Should my story go in the lede or later on?” Carptrash (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks. And it's showtime... Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Now 15 minutes before this goes to the main page as TFA, so we can't really delay any longer. I've just posted my slightly changed version of Dank's adapted extract. Kevin McE (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to put (the Moon) after body?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fair point:"a" rather than "another"? Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I like it generally, but the ending is a bit puzzling possibly to the reader. As in, another besides what?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Do you want to make the mods and see what it looks like, or maybe put the suggestion here? Also, I know I mentioned it earlier, but the use of 'human' - could not 'people' be used in some, or most, cases? 86.156.221.64 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't think it is ridiculous for the first sentence to say it was the first manned mission to do these things, and then separately that these people were the first to do the exact same things, or to list several items that are inevitable consequences of one event as though they were each individually significant achievements? This is only a small step up from saying that in raising the world long jump record from 8.35m to 8.90m, he also became the first man to leap 8.40, and 8.50, and did what no-one had done before in reaching 8.60, and became the first man to reach 8.70... It goes beyond encyclopaedic recording, and sounds more like boasting. Kevin McE (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Earthrise section
I expected the section on Earthrise to be predominantly about the photograph. However, only the first two paragraphs (and the first sentence of the third) are about the photo. Should the section be renamed or split into two? I'll leaving it to regular editors of this article to fix this (assuming it needs fixing at all). Merry Christmas, everyone! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Manned vs crewed
In other articles (and in WP:SPACEFLIGHT), discussions resulted in converting manned to crewed, unless it is in a quote, or the official name of something (maybe some other exceptions that are slipping my mind). Does anyone have an objection for this article? I can find the discussions if necessary, although I would rather not have to hammer out this discussion on every article. @Hawkeye7, Wehwalt, Jonesey95, Randy Kryn, and Dicklyon:Pinging some people that have edited the article to try to expedite the discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 18:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever people think best, but we should be consistent across spaceflight articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think we agreed on "crewed", but I found it so jarring that when implementing it on the Apollo 11 article, I re-worded some parts to avoid it. The use of gender-neutral language is part of the MOS (WP:GNL). My only fear was that it would cover up the fact that while there were female cosmonauts, women were excluded from the US astronaut corps until 1978. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- 'Crewed' is a ridiculous term. Last week some guy on Radio 4 (UK station) was banging on about a 'crewed' spaceflight and to the uninitiated it sounded as though he was talking about a 'crude' spaceflight. Only when he mentioned 'uncrewed' (another stupid word) would some people realise what on earth he was on about. Leave this article as 'manned'. I just came here from the main page and how refreshing to see that it has not been infested with PC nonsense. 'Manned' DOES NOT mean only men were on board. It's refers to man the species, which includes women, and not man the gender, which doesn't. We don't need to change. In articles generally I would suggest changing all mention of 'crewed' to 'manned'. Gender neutral writing is not an issue here. What is at issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of language and an attempt to appease the permanently offended. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This seems like a good survey question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. There are probably situations where "manned" would be required, e.g. when "Manned" is part of a proper name, but otherwise, this project should probably go with gender-neutral language, especially if a reliable source like NASA has switched their usage. I find "manned" natural to read, but jarring when I really think about it. I think that we could get used to "crewed". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- We can get used to anything. That doesn't detract from a term being unnecessary and unwieldy. As I intimated, used of 'manned' is not, or should not, be in the scope of gender neutral writing, so there's no issue here. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This seems like a good survey question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. There are probably situations where "manned" would be required, e.g. when "Manned" is part of a proper name, but otherwise, this project should probably go with gender-neutral language, especially if a reliable source like NASA has switched their usage. I find "manned" natural to read, but jarring when I really think about it. I think that we could get used to "crewed". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- 'Crewed' is a ridiculous term. Last week some guy on Radio 4 (UK station) was banging on about a 'crewed' spaceflight and to the uninitiated it sounded as though he was talking about a 'crude' spaceflight. Only when he mentioned 'uncrewed' (another stupid word) would some people realise what on earth he was on about. Leave this article as 'manned'. I just came here from the main page and how refreshing to see that it has not been infested with PC nonsense. 'Manned' DOES NOT mean only men were on board. It's refers to man the species, which includes women, and not man the gender, which doesn't. We don't need to change. In articles generally I would suggest changing all mention of 'crewed' to 'manned'. Gender neutral writing is not an issue here. What is at issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of language and an attempt to appease the permanently offended. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think we agreed on "crewed", but I found it so jarring that when implementing it on the Apollo 11 article, I re-worded some parts to avoid it. The use of gender-neutral language is part of the MOS (WP:GNL). My only fear was that it would cover up the fact that while there were female cosmonauts, women were excluded from the US astronaut corps until 1978. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever people think best, but we should be consistent across spaceflight articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:GNL is an essay; guideline is at MOS:GNL. In any case, yes, following the guidance to use gender neutral language is OK by me, though we old farts may find the change jarring. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Here's NASA's own style guide:
In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned).
That language has been there since 2006 or before, so we are late to the party. But even the old farts at NASA are having a hard time switching their language. A quick search of their site finds both usages, even when describing Mercury and Apollo missions, and even on the same page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)- A couple more points - and apologies for going on about this: the WP:MOS makes no mention of terms like 'manned', as far as I can see. It's right about the NASA stuff; they are inconsistent, but here's one sentence I found - "NASA ultimately changed from an unpiloted, Earth-orbiting mission to a crewed flight around the Moon". Try saying it out loud. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds so stupid. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Here's NASA's own style guide:
- Here's the problem, direct from the Crew page: "Traditional nautical usage strongly distinguishes officers from crew, though the two groups combined form the ship's company." Crew just doesn't fit Apollo spaceflights, so it not only sounds wrong but is inaccurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Past discussions:
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_6#Use_of_gender-neutral_language_in_spaceflight-related_articles - result was to use manned for older spaceflight articles when the sources used that term, and crewed for newer spaceflight articles when sources use that term
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_7#Human_spaceflight_vs_Manned_Spaceflight - First proposal that I was aware of
- Talk:Human_mission_to_Mars#Requested_move_5_March_2018 - Result was to keep at Human Mission to Mars and not move to Manned Mission to Mars
- Talk:Apollo_11/Archive_3#Manned_->_Crewed - discussion for Apollo program, Apollo 11, and Apollo 12. Result was to use gender neutral terms
Will expand as I find more of them. Feel free to expand the list if you know of any. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC) That is all I could find for past discussions. Add more if you can find them. My opinion is that the term manned/unmanned (outside of quotes and proper names) could be unintentionally discouraging to women interested in spaceflight. The term crewed/uncrewed is not unintentionally discouraging. I personally do not find either of them stylistically superior, although that is an opinion. With that, the choice of crewed/uncrewed is the obvious choice for me. We could have a survey in a neutral spot to determine the current consensus, although the most recent consensus was for crewed/uncrewed to my knowledge, so I would prefer to change the article to that language until the new survey is completed. Kees08 (Talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with some points here, and would prefer to maintain the status-quo, especially in light of one of the mentioned discussions, which came to the conclusion that established articles should not be changed to accommodate the proposed style. Concerning the suggestion that 'manned/unmanned' could be discouraging to women in some way is pretty insulting to women, I must say. It implies that they don't understand the real meaning of 'manned' and so an allowance has to be made by way of changing the language.
- On a related matter, must we repeatedly use the word 'human'? It's self evident that a donkey or some other animal wasn't the subject, so please - just say 'people'. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this Slate article's conclusion that words matter. I do not think either of us will change our minds on this. Whether the article is 'established' or not does not change my mind, and I will note that is the oldest discussion I could find on the matter. Sounds like we should put this issue to rest by having a community-wide consensus; do any of you have experience formulating RfCs and advertising them in the appropriate place? Kees08 (Talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseam in various articles. WP editors don’t invent terminology, they follow the current or relevant historical usage. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Was this comment for me? WP editors did not invent the crewed/uncrewed terms, and NASA's style guide (see here) advises to use those terms. Using manned/unmanned in a historical way is what I am advocating, so that terms like Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) do not change. I will try to formulate an RfC in the near future so we can get a better and current community consensus. Kees08 (Talk) 21:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseam in various articles. WP editors don’t invent terminology, they follow the current or relevant historical usage. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this Slate article's conclusion that words matter. I do not think either of us will change our minds on this. Whether the article is 'established' or not does not change my mind, and I will note that is the oldest discussion I could find on the matter. Sounds like we should put this issue to rest by having a community-wide consensus; do any of you have experience formulating RfCs and advertising them in the appropriate place? Kees08 (Talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I note that despite no consensus on 'crewed' versus 'manned' on this page, we've got to suffer the former on the main page for a day. If the article uses 'manned', why does some SJW take it upon himself to try and 'educate' the world by using this ridiculous word, that isn't even used in the featured article? I despair! 86.156.221.64 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Time between "Go for TLI" and TLI
I may be reading this wrong, but there were 22 minutes between the Collins saying "Go for TLI" and when the third-stage engine was fired to accelerate the spacecraft towards the moon. @Hawkeye7: is a sentence mention warranted? @Kees08: the fact that Collins spoke the words "Apollo 8. Go for TLI" seems notable at Michael Collins.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Timing of Emergence from Moon's Shadow
The article currently emphasizes that the capsule emerged from the moon's shadow for the first time "exactly on time". The emphasis in the article is important to counteract the impression left by many broadcast sources that it emerged late - presumably to create an impression of tension to raise interest to viewers. This tension is created from the repeated "Do you copies" from Houston without (apparent) response from the capsule, and comments from ground personnel that the capsule is late (see, for example, PBS American Experience Chasing the Moon for an example of this). This tension arises because (1) Houston starts calling a minute before the expected time, (2) Houston appears to have a technical problem in hearing the astronauts even thought the astronauts can hear Houston, and (3) maybe a couple of seconds due to light speed delay. See the official transcript for exact communication timestamps. https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap08fj/12day3_lunar_encounter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredroach (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)