Jump to content

Talk:Apollo 16/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Profanity in quotes

Please quote correctly. There is no point in having a quote saying "Oh <profanity>, I've broken the <profanity> thing!" when the whole quote is about <profanity>. In this case, substituting <profanity> for the actual profanity is hypocritical. If you feel that some readers will be offended by that profanity, omit the quote. If you feel it is important for the article, do not mutilate the quote. IMHO, nobody will be hurt by the correct quote. --Tob 14:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there *is* a correct quote - Young muttered "oh my god" a couple of times, says te Lunar Surface Journal...
121:21:45 Young: Charlie.
121:21:46 Duke: What?
121:21:47 Young: Something happened here.
121:21:48 Duke: What happened?
121:21:49 Young: I don't know. (Brief Pause) Here's a line that pulled loose. (Pause)
121:21:57 Duke: Uh-oh.
121:21:58 Young: What is that? What line is it?
121:22:02 Duke: That's the heat flow. You've pulled it off.
121:22:05 Young: I don't know how it happened. (Pause)
121:22:11 Young: (Walking toward the Central Station) Pulled loose from there?
121:22:12 Duke: Yeah.
121:22:14 Young: God almighty. (Pause)
121:22:17 Duke: Well, I'm wasting my time.
121:22:20 Young: I'm sorry. I didn't even know...I didn't even know it. (Pause) Agh; it's sure gone.
...
121:23:02 Young: I'm sorry, Charlie. God Damn...
but that's as close as it gets to "<profanity>". I've removed the quote. Shimgray 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Succession box

How do I find information on creating succession boxes? I'd like to link Apollo/Gemini/Mercury/Skylab/Apollo-Soyuz to each flight, for example, Apollo 15 and 17 for the Apollo 16 article. I've hunted in edit but it is not immediately obvious where it is. GBC 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Photographs not art?

"As a photograph, it could not be interpreted as 'art'" -- huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.7.36 (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read this article again ..

... and let's all agree that it could use a re-write with some better organization. To my eye, it's disjointed. 68Kustom (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This and the Apollo 17 article need serious work. Andy120290 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


This article has its priorities reversed

I don't think it is a mission of wikipedia to spread profanities people said 30 years during off-color moments. This may even be a WP:COI There is almost no detail of the science conducted on the mission, or what the results were of that science. The whole page needs to be scrapped and rewritten.PB666 yap 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What? What conflict of interest is there, exactly? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Propogations of profanities or off-color remarks is not an AIM of providing encyclopedic content on wikipedia. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."PB666 yap 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
IOW the promotion of the use of profanities because one thinks it funny or adds color to a character is not neccesarily in the interest or making a good page. Whereas researching important projects involved in A16 and synopsing that information with references is. Alot of time spent arguing what is relevant quotes of profanities is of lower interest relative to time spent on discussing the research aims of the project and the results.PB666 yap 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the purpose of WP:COI. That someone thinks a quote is funny and that the article would benefit from it does not mean that one personally benefits from its inclusion, which is what a conflict of interest is. I'm fine with discussing the suitability of the quote from a neutral copyediting perspective, but first let's agree that it isn't actually a policy violation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the quote in the interest of the encyclopedia, or not? I think it is not in the interest, as with most of what is on the main. Funny is not a substitute for content, is joking on wiki-pages content? Answer one simple question, based on reading this page what experiments did Apollo 16 conduct, what new equipment was tested, where the any publications that resulted from the mission, about what? Leaving the quote aside, does the main serve a purpose, and inserting the quote it appears the author has a conflict of interest or minimally misdirected priorities. Take a little hint from someone who was on an open internet forum much longer than wikipedia has existed, that little road of content erosion only slides downhill. People who place profanities attract those who also do. Compare:Sharon Osbourne imagine they got through the whole article with barely a mention of profanities, hmmmmmm, yep, priorities here are reversed.PB666 yap 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
hints:
  1. Experiments on Apollo 16 spacecraft
  2. What is ALSEP-Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP)
  3. The descent stage base was the core of ALSEP, house equipment and was an information bus that operated after the ascent stage left
  4. What is different about this device relative to Apollo 15, 14, and 12
Summarily what is in the article versus what is not in the article-'that should be mentioned' is a good indication of the COI.PB666 yap 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to this discussion I have: added a [citation needed] tag to the quote, since it can't stay without a cited reliable source, and down-graded the article from B-class to C-class for WikiProject Space because the article does not adequately cover the topics mentioned above. (That said, there doesn't seem to be any evidence the low quality of this article results from what wikipedians call a "conflict of interest". It might result from one or more wikipedia editors having poor judgement about what should be included, but that isn't the meaning usually given to "COI" in wikipedia discussions!) (sdsds - talk) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a good editor to work in latest news

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/durham-county/2011/jul/08/durham-teen-discovers-piece-shuttle-history-lands--ar-1190778/

A large piece was just returned to NASA. Since I am not exactly the most competent editor, I shall defer this to one who is better. Ethelred Cyning (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This has just been placed into the article; thanks, Tyrol5. Is there some reason we can't/shouldn't mention Kevin Schanze's name? He's mentioned in the news article, so I think his privacy can be presumed released; and no one's suggesting giving him his own Wikipage, so WP:NOTE shouldn't come into play. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added his name into the article. At the time, I didn't see any persistent need to mention his name, but it couldn't hurt. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Apollo 16/Archive 1/GA1

Dates

I'm not sure if I'm missing something obvious, but on what date did the craft return to Earth? --Chickenfeed9 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

July 24th, 1969 source205.175.123.207 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Try reading more carefully, genius. That was Apollo 11, the first landing. It may have been added since your question, but the date Apollo 16 returned is now in the infobox: July 27, 1972. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sub-satellite

We could use another sentence or two about the sub-satellite: it's intended function and purpose and whether it achieved any of it. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mortar Deployment

I'm wondering why the article doesn't mention that they used mortars for ground sounding? That seems like important news, firing a military weapon off planet. 98.240.135.248 (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Fryboy11

The device on Apollo 16 wasn't a weapon. But, if that sort of thing is of particular interest to you, look up Salyut 3. It was one of the early Soviet space stations, and its history includes what might possibly be the first use of a real military weapon in space. As an experiment, an existing cannon was mounted to the Station's exterior. This was when the Cold War was still in full swing and defense against an American attack was considered a legitimate potential issue. The gun was test-fired by remote-control after the Station's final crew had departed. As far as I understand, this is the only time such a thing was tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While including a link to the surface experiments certainly couldn't hurt, it's a huge mischaracterization to say it was "firing a military weapon off planet". These are not the same type of mortars that are used in warfare. These sit on the ground and are set off to set up vibrations in the surface. Those vibrations are recorded, and can be used by geologists to determine various soil and rock characteristics. It's one of the techniques used here on Earth to find oil.Almostfm (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Apollo 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_16/Archive_1&oldid=1147457025"