Talk:Blue Moon (spacecraft)

Requested move 11 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t 桜 c) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Blue Origin Blue Moon → Blue Moon (spacecraft) – Hi! I thought it would be nice to have a discussion on the naming of this article. Recently (May 2019) Blue Origin has unveiled the "Blue Moon". Here's a link to Blue Origin's Page on the lander. Although I can change the name using the Move feautre (WP:Be Bold). I thought it might be ok to have a discussion on the name change. Here are the Wikipedia policies that would support this name change: "Consistency", "Conciseness", and "Precision"

• Consistency - All of the articles related to Blue Origin are not titled "Blue Origin //so and so//" instead they seem to be called by their WP:Offical Names (such as New Glenn and New Shepard). They do not have the company name in their titles. Other spacecraft like Beresheet 2 also use their official names. Other landers also do not have company names in their tiles. In these cases given all of the "official names" seem to be the "common names". For the Blue Moon spacecraft it might be too early to tell if "Blue Moon" will be a common name or not but still that's the official name. (but thus far "Blue Origin Blue Moon" does not seem that common [1], [2], )
• Precision - As you may have noticed added "(spacecraft)" would deviate from consistently, but is needed to distinguishes it from other uses of "Blue moon" (see disambiguation). It could be possible that saying "Blue Moon" (with the M in caps) could distinguish though. In most cases specifying in "()" seems to be the norm for most Wikipedia pages. (I do give credit that adding "Blue Origin" in the title does make the name precise though)
• Conciseness - Adding "spacecraft" is enough, it does not need the manufacturer name, adding it makes the title seem to long (especially because in this case the company name is two words unlike SpaceX Dragon)
• Just an opinion - Having 'Blue' twice in the title just seems odd, I might have not suggested a name change if the title did not have 'Blue' twice in the title.

Although these are not "rules" but are good points (how I applied them may not be good). Other name coulds be "Blue Moon" or "Blue Moon (lunar lander)" or "Blue Moon lunar lander" or "Blue Moon (lander)" or "Blue Moon lander". Thanks! OkayKenji (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NATURALDAB. This is a product of the company called "Blue Origin", the product is called "Blue Moon". This is the same as how other company products are disambiguated. Boeing 747, Lincoln Town Car, Microsoft Windows, etc. This is consistent with other product pages. The examples you cite of "New Glenn" and "New Shepard" are not disambiguated, so are therefore not consistent with your request, since your request carries a disambiguator. The list of landers is also not consistent with your request, since those are individual objects, while this is a class of spaceship, like the difference all Boeing 757s and "Trump Force One", a specific 757. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Ok, so I looked up this again and so it should be like Apollo Lunar Module? And since the article mentions a mission called “Blue Moon” so in that case we will not need to use the company’s name in the tile? Apologies for my misunderstanding OkayKenji (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is about a class of spacecraft, so it would be like the Apollo Lunar Module and not like Eagle from Apollo 11. There is a mission listed, but this article isn't a mission article, it is a spaceship class article. (like the Apollo Lunar Module article) The name of the first mission isn't evident from the sources (and one of the sources isn't accurate, since in that source it claims that New Glenn is a passenger spaceship, instead of a launch rocket) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• SUPPORT the requestor's proposal take the actual name of the spacecraft (Blue Moon) and disambiguate it in the ordinary way (parenthetically, with the addition of "spacecraft") Seems exactly right. Moreover, this is consistent with the naming convention for many many articles under the purview of WP:WikiProject Spaceflight, and is more concise. Finally, the article move as proposed would avoid the confusion of the double use of the adjective "Blue" without the uninitiated being able to discern from the title words that the existing article title is made up of two, two-word nouns, each of them having a "Blue" worked in, and needing to somehow understand that the first pair is a compound modifier for both of the second pair of words. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support We aren't entirely consistent (e.g. Boeing CST-100 Starliner), but in general the manufacturer's name isn't part of the title (e.g. Dragon 2 and Dream Chaser.) I think we should put an emphasis on consistency with the manufacturer and common usage. The Blue Origins web page just says, "Blue Moon."Fcrary (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Those examples are not disambiguated, so do not match up with this request. It doesn't say "Dragon 2 (spacecraft)" or "Dream Chaser (spacecraft)" in the article titles. The LaFerrari is a car from Ferrari, with an undisambiguated title, since it doesn't need disambiguation, but other cars need disambiguated title, and have company names attached. Undisambiguated article names don't show why we snouldn't follow WP:NATURALDAB since they are not disambiguated. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I really see the two changes as linked. If we take the manufacturer's name out of the title (and I think we should) then the title becomes highly ambiguous. So if the title becomes "Blue Moon", we have to add "(spacecraft)." Or at least something, and I don't believe I've ever seen "(launch vehicle)." Fcrary (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What really is bothering me is have 'Blue' twice, I guess we could decide whats best to put in the parenthesis. OkayKenji (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Using English grammar rules, the "Blue Origin" is a attributive term, so can be reformulated as Blue-Origin Blue Moon, though that seems a bit odd. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you there. OkayKenji (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Blue Origin Blue Moon sounds dumb, and doesn't add clarity --Spacepine (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Their toy, their name. The builder does not have to be part of the name. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Italicization of Blue Moon is disputed

Here, the Blue Moon is italicized. However, on all articles, Blue Moon is not italicized. Please italicize the Blue Moon. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is it italicised? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of de-italicising Blue Moon. Sub31k (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Blue Moon Mk2

@Sub31k I see you are treating the "new blue moon" as a Mark2. Do you have a source for that? I can't find much on this. All I see is that NASA mentions the name "blue moon" in their press release but we have very little data as far as I can tell. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Right now a lot of the articles have yet to come out. In the presser Couluris (Blue Moon PM) was referring to the human lander as Mark 2, and that's been repeated in Berger's writing. Still in the process of aggregating stuff right now. Sub31k (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok! Don't rush into it too much until we have some solid sourcing WP:NODEADLINE. Do you have a source for Mark 2? We need published reliable sources or we can run into WP:OR problems. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

p.s. sorry for the conflict just go ahead and I'll read once you are done :-) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That's alright. Personally, "family" feels kind of "wrong" to me, too....

On the other hand, I don't know if these two things with the same name be split, especially when the 2017 Blue Moon is now being framed as a demonstrator for the SLD Blue Moon.

Simultaneously, the two of them are so dissimilar that grouping them together feels really weird. I don't know what's going to happen with Blue Origin CLPS, but that poses the possibility of both existing alongside each other. For now, with what's existing (some decent articles to go off of) I'm just trying to get the basics in and clean up a little, since the existing page was not exactly great. Sub31k (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, don't refrain from editing. I won't be here all day and any help is appreciated! Sub31k (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cited Berger, who repeats the words Couluris uses.

Also, I'm sticking with "family" for now, since there are two Blue Moons out there, which are extremely dissimilar to each other. Sub31k (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is just an evolution of the concept (as the name indicates) so family is definitely overkill. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The original lander is still, as far as is public, undergoing work. It is (in terms of advertised capabilities) radically different, and they are marketted for different things (CLPS vs HLS-SLD). So, to me, the moniker of "family" would be appropriate. Sub31k (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would try to avoid WP:OR. Let's stick to the sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

https://spacenews.com/technical-strengths-and-lower-cost-led-nasa-to-select-blue-origin-lander/

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/05/blue-origin-wins-pivotal-nasa-contract-to-develop-a-second-lunar-lander/amp/

Use of "Mark 1" and "Mark 2" here. Mark 1 flies as technology maturation in 2024.

https://www.blueorigin.com/lunar-transport/

All the renders are outdated, but near the bottom of the page, it is written that the larger variant of Blue Moon has been designed to land an ascent vehicle, and is a part of the HLS National Team integrated system chosen by NASA to return humans to the Moon. Doesn't that imply that Blue Moon is a family with multiple variants? Sub31k (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides supporting the wording of multiple variants: These are really interesting references worth adding to the article. I think they are not included yet, right? Zae8 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Both the Foust and Berger articles are cited.

The Blue Origin website is not. Sub31k (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those sources support the idea that this is a "family". None of the sources use that word (not even Blue Origin's page) so I don't think it is correct. Reaching that "conclusion" when sources don't say it would be WP:OR. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Image

We really need to find an image to add here. The most recent one I found is here, but it doesn't seem to be public domain. Anyone can find one? Cocobb8 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

That image is company proprietary. Someone I know is creating an illustration (and will release it CC-BY-SA); I will add that when they're finished up. Sub31k (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the update! Cocobb8 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sub31k, I was just wondering if you had any news as to if that illustration had been completed? Thanks! Cocobb8 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)