Talk:Lunar Orbiter 1

Hmm, a lot of pages have this exact wording. Is there some setup whereby NASA stuff is public domain, or something? Evercat 19:27 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Yep. Taxpayer dollars, and all that.  Could've lifted the pic too. Stan 21:12 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Time of launch
The only citation I can find for the launch time does not specify that it went off exactly at 00 seconds, so I have changed the value in the start date template. Apparently, the template still emits 0Z without seconds specified. Workaround is to purposely introduce an empty parameter #6.
 * this syntax achieves the correct visual result

The claim (see Botreq remark) that the above template's syntax is less error prone is difficult to understand, especially when examining usage examples such as this one. Compare to the new template syntax:

WYSIWYG is goodness and light. Which is easier to edit? Which is less error prone? -J JMesserly (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With no comment, I shall proceed with the revert to the wysiwyg version using the format of the date prior to the use of start date. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pigsonthewing, you have reverted this change with no comment. Can you please explain your rationale? -J JMesserly (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. My edit summary (typos corrected): rv - removed "bday" property from hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion. Your edit reverted the wysiwyg start-date and end-date templates in favor of the much less readable start date.   Your response refers cryptically to "bday", and ignores the argument presented in favor of a readable template.  Please be clear about what your objection is.  -J JMesserly (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This is an instance of a class of dispute regarding the encoding of events. Further discussion may be found at Wikiproject Microformats talk page. Bring some popcorn. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pigsonthewing chooses not to discuss his position, and instead elects to revert other edits on similar obscure grounds. His edit is reverted, and should remain so until good reason is provided for the revert.  -J JMesserly (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)