Talk:Apollo 16

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo 16 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 730 days

Apollo 16 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 27, 2021	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Orloff, Richard W. (2004). "Apollo 16 - The Tenth Mission: The Fifth Lunar Landing". Apollo by the numbers : a statistical reference. Washington, D.C.: NASA. ISBN 9781931641005. Retrieved December 13, 2021.

Call Signs

Perhaps it would be good to add why the call signs "Casper" and "Orion" were selected? ^[1]

Best, Viranga13 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-17_Call_Signs.htm

What's this for?

Richard W. Orloff. "Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference (SP-4029)". NASA.

The title is wrong? And this one feels kind of useless here.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in there for over 15 years, initially added as a general reference for all the numbers cited in the mission; it's a little odd to see it now being used solely to cite the WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS fact that this was a NASA mission. TJRC (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Surely that does not need to be cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. I did add it as a refideas entry above, since it's a great source and if no longer in use in the article is worth noting for future editors. TJRC (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Portable Magnetometer

"There, Duke took pictures of Stone Mountain and South Ray Crater while Young deployed the LPM", before there's only full name "Lunar Portable Magnetometer".--Jarodalien (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today featured article

Just a beautiful and comprehensive article. Well done User:Wehwalt, the featured article nominator. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A good deal of the work was done by Tyrol5, although they were not an FAC nominator, they should have been--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This one certainly has been a long-term team effort. Embodies the spirit of the project quite well, I think. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 16:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pretty ambitious topic to work with. Kudos to both of you guys, Wehwalt and Tyrol5. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a flat-earth debunking section?

Just a thought. JonesyPHD (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem odd to me to lend such weight to a fringe theory with no apparent direct connection to Apollo 16 in particular that I'm aware of, apart from more generalized conspiracy theories and the like that are applicable to the space program and modern Earth science more broadly. For that, we have Moon landing conspiracy theories and Modern flat Earth beliefs. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 16:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not worth including. Presumably we have articles on such fringe theories, let the interested go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of spacecraft and other equipment

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2023/pdf/1025.pdf 73.222.134.53 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thank you. If I've erred in summarizing it, please let me know. Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-17_Call_Signs.htm

[1]