Template talk:Moon spacecraft

Google Lunar X Prize
Should Google Lunar X Prize be include on this template as a "See also" item? Cheers

Doh...I see it now. E_dog95'  Hi ' 08:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation
I propose to order this as the Spacecraft missions to Mars table. That is to put each flyby, orbiter, lander or rover instead of only the programmes; and to mark active ones in bold letters. Any objection? Tom Paine (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ILN dead ?
Any short-term robotic exploration of the Moon seems to have disappeared from the NASA budget. So should we consider that the ILN is dead ? Hektor (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Images
I undid this edit by, which had increased the number of images in the right-hand column of the navbox from three to five. Although I did this to reduce the amount of whitespace in the left-hand column, I think it would be useful to have a discussion of which images best illustrate the subject of the navbox, and whether three images is too many for a simple navigation template. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just set it how you like it and see what happens. Its a wiki right? Fotaun (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but in some cases it can be helpful to have a discussion and find the best solution for everybody, rather than something which only suits me. In any case I'm not sure what the best image is, or what the right number to include would be. I just think that, for example, one of the images which you added might be better than having two images of the Moon itself. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are a lot of possibilities. Let me take another stab at it and lets see what you think. Cheers. Fotaun (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good -- W.  D.   Graham  10:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle out of scope
The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle was neither a "Moon spacecraft" nor a "Spacecraft mission to the Moon", and so does not belong on this template. It was not like Lunokhod 1 or 2, unmanned roving vehicles landed robotically,. It makes absolutely no sense to call it a spacecraft, which is commonly understood as a vehicle used to fly to outer space. (See the lead sentence of our Spacecraft page.) It makes no sense to call a utility ground vehicle, to be used by people once they get there, a "spacecraft". No reliable source calls it a spacecraft; putting it on this template constitutes WP:synthesis, WP:original research. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Makes scense. I think that the LRV should be listed under "See also", since it's such a recognizable part of Moon exploration. 4throck (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Missions in italics
Manned missions are presently in italics, which in most cases reverses the standard use of italics. Is there another way of indicating manned missions (boldfaced, a symbol following the entry, etc.) which would bring standard italics usage to the template? Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The standard italics use in this template series is actually for spacecraft that have personal names e.g. Sojourner rather than mission titles like Viking 1, which is standard for depicting vehicle names in articles. As there are no other templates containing crewed spaceflights in this series, it can't be said that the use here is the "reverse" of the other templates. That being said, you do have a point here that the usage is different, though other templates in other series have "non-standard" uses of italics for identifying things like extant species. We could either bring it in line with the "[planet] spacecraft" series by italicizing the handful of lunar spacecraft with personal names (Clementine, Hiten, etc.) and then distinguish crewed missions in another way, or we could leave it as is because there is a note explaining the non-standard italicization as there is in other templates that use italics for other than depicting vehicle names. Any opinions? I'd be okay with bolding crewed missions. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Failures
Existing precedent informed the decision to remove Beresheet from the template entirely after its failure, but is there any interest in modifying the template to include failed missions? The Mars spacecraft template has a section for missions that failed at launch and then places other failures in the category they were attempting to achieve with a dagger/cross marker to indicate failure. The larger number of missions and the complexity added by crewed missions (especially the failed but not fatal Apollo 13) might pose challenges to implementation, but does anybody have an idea for if/how this should be done? Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. I was thinking the same thing when I saw the deletion. TJRC (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Galileo
I added Galileo because, during the flyby, some significant science was done over the Lunar north pole. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)