Talk:List of men who walked on the moon

Why do we need this when we have List of lunar astronauts? - Hephaestos 01:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Two different things. The "space race" was to get a man on the moon, not to get one "real close" to the moon. -- Someone else 01:26, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Someone else said: "duplication: not a bad thing. Redirection to non-synonym: a bad thing when avoidable. List of men who walked on moon: useful: list of "lunar astronauts": not gonna be looked up.)"

Lunar astronauts might be looked up, and even if "men who walked on moon" is looked up, the redirect will take them straight to the information they want. Duplication is a bad thing because any edits to the information on one page may not be reflected in the other. -- Daran 01:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * By the same reasoning, we should redirect the list of lunar astronauts to "List of astronauts by name", or "List of astronauts by selection. They're all duplicated on it. And then move all the astronauts to the (I think hypothetical) "List of humans who have been in space". And all the humans to "List of organisms that have been in space". All the information will be there. There's a compelling reason to have a list of men who walked on the moon, and a somewhat less compelling reason for a list of astronauts who have been on lunar missions (not "lunar astronauts"). There's no reason to have just one list. -- Someone else 01:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC


 * The information is not duplicated on the List of astronauts by name, which doesn't identify which astronauts walked on the moon. I'm not about to data mine the list of astronauts  by selection to determine if the data is there or not, and neither should a reader have to.  A redirect to list of lunar astronauts, by contrast, takes the reader to precisely the information he is looking for.


 * Information is not data. Different lists are justified if they provide different information about the same data, by presenting it in different ways.  In this case, the information on this list is the same as on List of lunar astronauts], hence should be replaced by a link.  -- Daran 02:24, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is duplication.  As an experiment (which I just tried): load this page, hit the link for List of lunar astronauts, then hit the back and forward buttons on your browser a few times. - Hephaestos 02:48, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. This should redirect. Angela 02:53, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is duplication: the duplication is at "Lunar Astronauts", and appeared at the title of "men who walked on the moon" before it was moved there. There's no particular reason that makes a list of who got close to the moon "interesting", while there clearly is an interest in who walked on it. Yes, it's duplicate. Yes, it's available elsewhere, and not just one elsewhere: there's an article on each lunar mission. A rational decision-making process, as opposed to moving/expanding/renaming/redirecting willy-nilly would put this list here. That said, it's not worth squabbling or a lengthy debate, and I'll content myself with the observation that it's silly to expand a list and rename it if in so doing you make the list LESS interesting. -- Someone else 04:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as being less interesting; all the pertinent information is up top. Somebody browsing will get it at a glance; anyone who wants to go more in-depth will have to use the scroll bar. - Hephaestos 06:35, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, and I disagree. I believe you will find more "lists of men on the moon" than "lists of men near the moon" in books of lists. But it's moot, as it's redirected to the less interesting list at present. -- Someone else 06:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * P.S. As to which list is more "interesting" I would note that 12 of the 12 who walked on the moon have articles, and 2 of the 12 who "got close" do (as of now, anyway). -- Someone else 07:10, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)