Talk:Coordinated Lunar Time

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force.

These two articles have a great overlap in information, and since CLT doesn't seem to be expected to be a thing for at least another 2 years, I don't see how it is relevant enough outside of the topic of timekeeping on the Moon to warrant its own article — IмSтevan ^talk 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue Coordinated Lunar Time is the article title to keep. It will be the title people will be seeking for in the future, not Timekeeping on the Moon. IlkkaP (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a

WP:TOOSOON as noted on the draft version of this page, and merge. However, I do think that it would be generally acceptable to have this a separate page as "timekeeping on the Moon" is a more general and broader topic and overview of the subject, and may include pre-Apollo and Apollo-era ways of timekeeping. Just thinking out loud here, of course, though! --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 00:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Another vote for keeping both articles. While Coordinated Lunar Time is envisioned to become what UTC is on Earth today, there definitely is a place for an article that covers the history of time on the Moon, which is what I would expect 'Timekeeping on the Moon' to become in time. Coordinated Lunar Time would then in coming years discuss only the specs of the standard as they are finalized and agreed upon Thistheyear2023 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This claim seems to be unsupported by the source cited, which doesn't mention anything about CLT. Panglossolalia (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, referenence to Billionnaire Space Race should be removed. IlkkaP (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The billionaire space race (alongside a big NASA push via some lucrative contracts) arguably has been the greatest push for the direction of a new lunar time zone. The greatest example of this is the debate between SpaceX's HLS Starship and Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander. It's a race followed closely by some experts (as seen here and here), and expected also to extend to Mars and beyond. Therefore, it's a good idea to, at least, mention it. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 00:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be true, but not in the sources so

WP:NOR (specifically prohibiting any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources) and should be removed IlkkaP (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

That’s been fixed. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thanks for the reply. Panglossolalia (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 20:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the reason why I changed the link to that target is it seems to be the only article specifically talking about the most recent (2020s) muster in the Scramble for Space. The Space Race article, on the other hand, opens in the past tense. Anyway, thanks for the sourcing improvements. Arlo James Barnes 02:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]