This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
What's all this religious mumbo in an astronomical article? If there is astrological, traditional, religious or superstition aspect to the topic - this should be completely separate section at the end.
The formula
D = 5.597660 + 29.5305888531*N + 102.19E-12*N*N
is completely baffling at first because it looks as if E is a constant, like D, and -12*N*N is the final term. It could be made much clearer very simply, e.g.
D = 5.597660 + 29.5305888531*N + (102.19E-12)*N*N
I'll do that - but are there no conventions for writing formulae that would help here?
How many new moons are there per year? -Lommer | talk 04:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At least twelve and no more than thirteen, depending on what the year it is. --Eric Forste 05:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An average of about 12.36827. This has been approximated by 12 7/19 (Metonic cycle) and is more accurately by 12 123/334 or 12 130/353. -- Karl Palmen 21 Jan 2005 09:30 (UTC)
The picture at the top of the page doesn't have any context. It could be interpreted as an indication of what time of day different moon phases occur every day. The moon takes roughly 29.5 days to pass through each phase.
It would be a good idea to actually note what this diagram is indicating.--Jcvamp 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not to mention being just plain silly looking, it's just a circle in a square for crying out loud....maybe a photo of the actual event (a new moon) would be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In an astronomical sense, New Moon occurs at the instant when the Moon is in conjunction with the Sun. It's not a range of times.
This is why published information shows a date and time of New Moon. It's unlikely that anyone would see the Moon at its closest approach to the Sun (unless there's a Solar Eclipse), so it's become conventional to call the first visible crescent moon 'New Moon' - but this may be a day or two after the actual instant of New Moon. Pavium 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too am interested in the subjective duration of the new moon. If it is true that "the first visible crescent moon...may be a day or two after the actual instant of New Moon", then we can assume too that the last visible crescent moon may be a day or two before the actual instant of new moon. And together that represents potentially quite a few days when nothing is visible to the naked eye. Vince Calegon 14:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs)
The expressions have been taken from the papers of Chapront in 1985 and 2002, and the obsolete ones can also be found in Meeus' well-known "Astronomical Algorithms". The actual expressions are given in the "Approximate formula" section, the way they have been derived are given in painful detail in the "Explanation of the formulae" section for those who can stomach so many numbers. The two sources are listed at the bottom. The expressions are valid. Someone should not just put a big warning sign on them without indicating what might be wrong with them or why he even thinks that there is something wrong; that should be put in this discussion page first anyway. The referencing convention pre-dates the Wikipedia ref tag. I hate that new tag: it does not make a distinction between factual footnotes, and references. Also I very much prefer references as (author, year) in the text above a numerical reference, even if numbering is automatic. Tom Peters 09:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add the citations to the text in the appropriate places? There are currently no citations under approximate formula. Without citations, this appears to represent original research, which is not allowed by wikipedia policy, whcih is currently being discussed under the proposal for deletion of full moon cycle. Citations need to be added to the pages lunar phase and full moon as well. The citations should appear the time the formulas are given, and not later at the bottom. If you need help with the formatting of the refs, let me know and I'll take care of this for you. Lunokhod 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you want actual references of all constants mentiond. I'll do that by next week. What I did was re-compute Meeus' expressions (which are essentially 25 years old) with newer constants from the 2002 Chapront paper already referenced. I do not believe that that could be regarded as "original research" in the meaning of the Wikipedia policy, because that clearly exists to avoid discussions about interpretations and opinions. You cannot have an opinion about the result of arithmetic. However one has to know what one is doing (which I do). If you believe that Wikipedia should not contain such compilation of published material, I think we have a fundamental issue and we should take this to an appropriate Wikipedia forum.
Some historical considerations: lunar ephemerides have been a personal interest for a long time, and Meeus' compilations have been of great use. However there is no readily accessible reliable on-line source for even the most basic constants and expressions (unless you know exactly what you are looking for, where to get it, and how to interpret it). I don't drag my books with me, and the Wikipedia seems like the perfect place to to have this info easily available for everyone including myself. Originally I put the ELP2000-85 expressions from Meeus there, and that is still on the full moon page. When I had digested the latest Chapront paper I updated the New Moon expression, and thought it appropriate to add an explanation of the steps for those few people who care and actually know about such details - exactly to make the numbers verifyable. The data have been there for a few years and some people have done some formatting and additional clarifications, but everybode seems to have been happy with the stuff being here. Tom Peters 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are describing is definitely original research. Wikipedia is an encylopedia that only summarizes topics, you are not supposed to "improve" upon data or formulas in the process. On another topic, you may want to look into the JPL DE405 ephemerides. This is the standard used in the scientific community, and it is quite possible that someone published the asymptotic formulas for certain quantities. Lunokhod 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that this definately is not original research (litmus test: try to publish such things anywhere: it is not original enough and moreover it is not research), and does not in letter nor spirit violate the policy, which is there for a reason and not for its own sake. If such things were forbidden, then Wikipedia could only literally quote obsolete stuff that appeared in print. Look around: that is not how Wikipedia (or in fact any encyclopedia) works, and the quality will actually be reduced if you remove such compilation of sources. I say this is a fundamental issue and we resolve it in some Wiki-global forum. BTW I work with the DE ephemerides and Chapront actually has been using them to fit his parameters. Now fitting polynomials to DE ephemeride positions, that would be original reserach that would produce controversial results because these closely depend on some arbitrary choices in the procedures. Tom Peters 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"(litmus test: try to publish such things anywhere: it is not original enough and moreover it is not research)": These types of things are routinely published, though not always in scholarly journals. Publishing could include documentation for ephemerides, or a web site. As an active research scientist, I would readily consider this research. "Wikipedia could only literally quote obsolete stuff that appeared in print": If there has not been an update published, then it is not old and obsolete. As I scientist, I have to use those values that are published in the literature, and give references. If I make my own correction, I need to describe in detail how this was done, and this would be my original research. Let's say I wanted to publish an article on this topic; would it be appropriate for me to site wikipedia as a primary reference? Of course not. I have no idea how you came up with these numbers. I agree that fitting ephemerides to a polynomial is original research, and I do not see how you could also claim that listing "new" corrections and giving updated formulas without detailed discussion (or error bars) are not. Lunokhod 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read and understood this section? Meeus built a formula from the old ELP. Chapront published new data. I explain in quite some detail how to apply those new data to get an improved formula: but in all it's just plain arithmetic, of the category "it is easily shown that" or "it is left as an exercise to the reader". Why don't you try yourself? Tom Peters 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add the citations, or I will propose this section for deletion. "it is easily shown that" has no place in an encyclopedia. I do not doubt your calculations, but that is not the point. If you want a citation that says that sidereal pediod of the Moon is X, I can find it. You can not find a citation for your numbers without describing the calculations to the reader: Such a description is original research. Lunokhod 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I said that I would add relevant references by next week; the numbers have been there for years and I do not understand your hurry. Second, I doubt that this will satisfy you because you apparently are of the opinion that even the most trivial arithmetic operations applied to source materidal is ""original research" that would be forbidden by a Wikipedia policy. That is your very personal interpretation. I oppose because I have put a lot of time in these articles, maintained them against vandals and misguided passer-by's, and vow for their accuracy. You do not just drop in and decide what can or can not be done, and again I propose that we take this fundamental issue to the Village Pump to find out how the community thinks about the extent of that "NOR" policy.
A preview of my arguments: Indeed you won't find "it is easily shown that" in an encyclopedia: you find that in student's text books. Encyclopedias are written by people knowledgeable on the subject, they compile and condense information from various sources usually not available to and beyond the understanding of the intended audience. The information should be verifiable. Apparently your opinion is that every digit must be taken as an exact quotation from somewhere else. I believe that such a condition is too strict to work with. A Wikipedia article must be original work and possibly integrates various sources. Integrating newer information with existing models using established procedures in the field is perfectly valid when writing an encyclopedic article. Numbers are used for computation, and computation and algebra is the bread and butter of any scientist. If I apply the tricks of the trade to referenced public information, the result is verifiable. That is not "original research", that is just an expert doing his thing. Some of the differences you will find involve a change of units or epoch: too trivial to mention. You cannot publish an article every time you manage to get a result on your calculator. Even peer-reviewed scientific journals only require that the experiments, results, and inferences from them, are presented in such detail that they can be duplicated and verified by competent scientists knowledgeable in the field. They do not require you to write a laboratory manual that someone without training could follow. Even then Wikipedia "is not" a scientific book. The best that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can be is an expert synthesis of authorative sources, and that requires substantial processing. If it is just going to be a bunch of links to existing sources it becomes pretty useless. Tom Peters 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose, for example, I write in a Wikipedia article about author X that "author X wrote five books on subject Y", and I use as my source a listing of author X's publications. Will Wikipedia scream "original research" because I had the audacity to count to five? 75.40.137.17 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how to derive the expression for the time of mean New Moon from Delauney's parameter D (= mean longitude of Moon - mean longitude of Sun). Apparently this is not trivial to most astronomers contributing in the Wikipedia. I don't want to clutter the main page so I put it here on Talk.
From J.Chapront, M.Chapront-Touzé, G.Francou: "A new determination of lunar orbital parameters, precession constant and tidal acceleration from LLR measurements", A&A 387, 700..709 (2002) [1], Table 4:
This has the form p/(1−f), and to first order of approximation this can be re-written as p×(1+f) . This is accurate for our purpose because f is very small (8 orders of magnitude smaller than the main term):
P = 29.530588860986 + 252.381E-9×t − 364.49E-12×t2 + 2.346E-12×t3
Change unit from t (Julian centuries of 36525 days) to N (lunation of 29.530... days) by multiplying by (29.530.../36525)n :
P = 29.530588860986 + 204.051E-12×N - 238.26E-18×N2 + 1.2400E-21×N3
D is 0 modulo 1 after (1−0.8273616437)×29.530588860986 = 5.098112 days after the epoch. Integrating now with this offset as the integration constant yields:
N=0 for the first mean New Moon in 2000, and that is actually the epoch of the formula. At that time (0.17262308 revolutions after J2000) the period has already increased to 29.530588861021 days, so round to 10 decimals.
Add 0.5 days to the constant to shift the zero point to midnight instead of noon (epoch 2000.0 is JD 2451545 falls at noon), and subtract 0.000451 days to correct for light time as explained on the main page: this yields 5.597661 days after midnight of 1 Jan. 2000 (TT).
Compare Meeus' formula ("Astronomical Algorithms", formula 47.1) derived from the ELP2000-85 :
The quadratic term from Meeus when expressed in lunations becomes 133.7E-6×(29.530.../36525)2 = 87.40E-12, and this is indeed 14.63E-12 smaller than the newer expression, as deduced on the main page.
I hope no one minds, but I redirected New Moon (both words capitalized) to New Moon (Elliott Smith album), because it stands to reason that if someone capitalizes both words, they're looking for the album. Notahippie76 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that new moon occurs when "the Moon ... lies between the Earth and the Sun", which is a bit woolly if you ask me. The moon's orbit is tilted roughly 5 degrees to the ecliptic, so the diagram is of course a simplification. The moon never passes exactly through the line connecting the Earth and Sun (although it gets very close to this during a lunar eclipse of the Earth) and so it is never exactly "between the Earth and the Sun".
So how do we define the new moon more accurately? I would guess that it is the lunar perihelion, i.e. the closest approach of the moon to the sun on each orbit. Can anyone clarify or confirm this?
I guess this only matters if you are interested in defining a time of new moon to quite high accuracy, which seems to crop up in some religious calendars and/or astrological calculations.JominyDave (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent geocentric longitude of the Moon is the same as the Sun's. From Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms, 1998 Saros136 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not the Moon's closest distance to the Sun. The next new moon, for example, is March 26 at about 16:06 UT . Minimum Moon-Sun distance is March 23 at 15:58 UT. Solex 10.0. It's complicated by the fact that the Moon-Earth system is moving away from the Sun at the same time. Saros136 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New moon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I'm having trouble rendering the first sentence of the article into meaningful English. "In astronomy, new moon is the first phase of the Moon, when it orbits not seen from the Earth, the moment when the Moon and the Sun have the same ecliptical longitude.[1] The Moon is not visible[note 1] at this time except when it is seen in silhouette during a solar eclipse when it is illuminated by earthshine. See the article on phases of the Moon for further details." Is it perhaps supposed to say "when its orbit is not seen from the Earth"? Thanks. --Thistledowne (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on New moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Separating sections: Lunisolar Calendar and Lunar Calendar[edit]
This article has been factually misleading for quite a while. The Babylonian, Hebrew, and Chinese calendars are lunisolar, and shouldn't be put in the same category as the Islamic lunar calendar. I'm going put an {{in use}} tag for half an hour and reorganize the article.Jaredscribe (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaredscribe:, my apologies, I've only just seen this notice. By pure coincidence, I happened on this article and thought 'what a horrible mess' and dived in. Feel free to revert my changes if it helps your clean up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a 2 new sections: #Lunisolar Calendars, for the Hebrew, Chinese, Hindu, and Babylonian calendars (and possibly others) #Lunar, for the Islamic, and #Solar calendars with moveable feasts, for the Ba'hai. This could also include Gregorian with some info on the Easter computus. I also added some relevant wikilinks to each of these sections, and I added the important point at the top of #Islamic calendar, that it is exactly 12 lunar months for a year length of 354 or 355 days. Why was all this missing? I think the Cartesian method of geometrically thinking, a "mainstream" habit of thought by natural philosophers in the west, has caused editors to neglect some of the most important facets of this topic, and make fundamental, serious factual errors and oversights that went uncorrected for over a decade. Meanwhile they apparently obsessed over mathematical precision, of the sort that matters to people who operate rocketships. After editors insisted that the "religious mumbo jumbo" get put down at the bottom. That is unacceptable in an Encylopedia. Meanwhile, the Jewish editors, unwelcome as usual, reverted to "Yinglish" and went and started another article called Rosh Hodesh, leading to a POV fork, impoverishing us all of relevant knowledge. The new moon is important to women all over the world, not just Jewish women. There are traditional observances in Chinese and Indian culture, and Indigenous American cultures, which could be included here. This article shows that the priorities and judgements of mainstream "scientism," in addition to creating systemic bias against women, against traditional religion, and against cultures outside the Graeco-Roman white supremacist world of solarian imperialism - enforced here as WP:Academic Bias under the retarded non-neutral and dubiously necessary WP:CHOPSY test, does not necessarily lead to truth. If you agree, consider this: WP:CSB. I also agree with John Maynard Friedman that this is WP:NOTAMANUAL, although it would be nice to have an abstract with one or two major equations, and a link to the manuals home on another wikiproject. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree broadly with your main point, but I don't agree that the Rosh Hodesh article (and its equivalent articles for other religions) is a WP:FORK. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is not a book: the narrative does not have to be linear, it can be a multi-dimensional Russian doll. So the top level article should summarise the religious customs and beliefs associated with a natural phenomenon and these can be fully detailed in their dedicated articles. [But there is no excuse for crass errors like you found re the Islamic year]. By the way, this is equally true of more detailed scientific explanations: this summary article should not get into the details of gravitational bending or neutrino opacity. I don't see that this is being "mainstream" as you put it, but rather than that it aims for a logical, layered structure that facilitates 'drilling down'. Otherwise the result is that visitors decide wp:too long, didn't read and abandon, which we definitely don't want.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with John Maynard Friedman that TLDR is a potential problem. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is good overview of the WP structure you describe as "multi-dimensional russian doll". I retract my concerns about WP:FORK. For section #Hebrew calendar, #Chinese calendar, etc. I'd like to see more on the cultural, traditional, or religious new moon practices and observances, more so than on the calendar system generally, but this latter can be excerpted.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since this is a teachable moment - I fully support WP:Verify standards and use of scholarly sources. I criticise "scientism" when it becomes a popular way of uncritically relying on certain conclusions of western academia to justify scoffing at Asian civilizations (and Judaism) as "lunatic charlatans" without even understanding them, while failing to think critically about Islam or understand what a lunatic really is. And prior to April 2021, this article incorrectly lumped #Chinese calendar, #Hindu calendar, and #Hebrew calendar, which are actually lunisolar calendars and the #Bah'ai calendar which is is solar, in with the Islamic lunar calendar. The "solarian" POV in the west - that of the Roman empire, the kingdoms of Europe, the "catholic" church, and the secular modernism that supposedly replaced it - is reflected in Academia and on wikipedia, and is not neutral. Science is good, ignorant prejudice is not. I'm not WP:SOAPBOXing for lunisolarians or lunatics here, so much as working to restore WP:NPOV. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:John Maynard Friedman, User:Jaredscribe: I drop in late, after not working on Wikipedia for several years. I think a "solarian" POV is a non-issue. Different calendars of different types are and have been in use for millennia, and AFAIK any discussion on which is "better" is rather academic and depends on which criteria that you like best. We don't need al this polarization: just factually describe what is in use. That said, I now propose to remove the religious calendar details altogether from this article, and just link to the separate pages that describe them. Tom Peters (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The length of a lunation is about 29.53 days. Its precise duration is linked to many phenomena in nature, such as the variation between spring and neap tides (the most and least profound tidal variances respectively).
An approximate formula to compute the mean moments of the new moon (conjunction between Sun and Moon) for successive months is:
where N is an integer, starting with 0 for the first new moon in the year 2000, and that is incremented by 1 for each successive synodic month, and the result d is the number of days (and fractions) since 2000-01-01 00:00:00 reckoned in the time scale known as Terrestrial Time (TT) used in ephemerides.
With the year and the month, to calculate the N (should be an integer), enough following a hint (an adaptation) from Astronomical Algorithms by Meeus, pág. 349-350, formula 49.2:[1]
N = (year — 2000) x 12.3685
where the “year” should be taken with decimals by (adaptation) the expression from the Polynomial Expressions for Delta T by Espenak & Meeus:[2]
year = year + (month − 0.5) / 12
For example: If value N is negative (-282.87), then N will be an integer (- 283); If value N is positive (283.15), then N will be an integer (283).
To obtain this moment expressed in Universal Time (UT, world clock time), add the result of the following approximate correction to the result d obtained above:
days
Periodic perturbations change the time of true conjunction from these mean values. For all new moons between 1601 and 2401, the maximum difference is 0.592 days = 14h13m in either direction. The duration of a lunation (i.e. the time from the new moon to the next new moon) varies in this period between 29.272 and 29.833 days, i.e. −0.259d = 6h12m shorter, or +0.302d = 7h15m longer than average.[3][4] This range is smaller than the difference between mean and true conjunction, because during one lunation the periodic terms cannot all change to their maximum opposite value.
See the article on the full moon cycle for a fairly simple method to compute the moment of the new moon more accurately.
The long-term error of the formula is approximately: 1 cy2 seconds in TT, and 11 cy2 seconds in UT (cy is centuries since 2000; see section Explanation of the formulae for details.)
Explanation of the formula
A waning crescent Moon seen low in the sky as the Sun rises
The moment of mean conjunction can easily be computed from an expression for the mean ecliptical longitude of the Moon minus the mean ecliptical longitude of the Sun (Delauney parameter D). Jean Meeus gave formulae to compute this in his Astronomical Formulae for Calculators based on the ephemerides of Brown and Newcomb (ca. 1900); and in his 1st edition of Astronomical Algorithms[5] based on the ELP2000-85[6] (the 2nd edition uses ELP2000-82 with improved expressions from Chapront et al. in 1998). These are now outdated: Chapront et al. (2002)[7] published improved parameters. Also, Meeus's formula uses a fractional variable to allow computation of the four main phases and uses a second variable for the secular terms. For the convenience of the reader, the formula given above is based on Chapront's latest parameters and expressed with a single integer variable, and the following additional terms have been added:
For UT: at 1 January 2000, ΔT (= TT − UT ) was +63.83 s;[note 3] hence the correction for the clock time UT = TT − ΔT of the conjunction is:
−0.000739 days.
quadratic term:
In ELP2000–85 (see Chapront et alii 1988), D has a quadratic term of −5.8681"T2; expressed in lunations N, this yields a correction of +87.403×10–12N2[note 4] days to the time of conjunction. The term includes a tidal contribution of 0.5×(−23.8946 "/cy2). The most current estimate from Lunar Laser Ranging for the acceleration is (see Chapront et alii 2002): (−25.858 ±0.003)"/cy2. Therefore, the new quadratic term of D is = -6.8498" T2.[note 5] Indeed, the polynomial provided by Chapront et alii (2002) provides the same value (their Table 4). This translates to a correction of +14.622×10−12N2 days to the time of conjunction; the quadratic term now is:
+102.026×10−12N2 days.
For UT: analysis of historical observations shows that ΔT has a long-term increase of +31 s/cy2.[10] Converted to days and lunations,[note 6] the correction from ET to UT becomes:
−235×10−12N2 days.
The theoretical tidal contribution to ΔT is about +42 s/cy2[11] The smaller observed value is thought to be mostly due to changes in the shape of the Earth.[12] Because the discrepancy is not fully explained, the uncertainty of our prediction of UT (rotation angle of the Earth) may be as large as the difference between these values: 11 s/cy2. The error in the position of the Moon itself is only maybe 0.5"/cy2,[note 7] or (because the apparent mean angular velocity of the Moon is about 0.5"/s), 1 s/cy2 in the time of conjunction with the Sun.
^Jawad, Ala'a H. (November 1993). Roger W. Sinnott (ed.). "How Long Is a Lunar Month?". Sky & Telescope: 76..77.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^Meeus, Jean (2002). The duration of the lunation, in More Mathematical Astronomy Morsels. Willmann-Bell, Richmond VA USA. pp. 19..31. ISBN978-0-943396-74-3.
^formula 47.1 in Jean Meeus (1991): Astronomical Algorithms (1st ed.) ISBN0-943396-35-2
^M.Chapront-Touzé, J. Chapront (1988): "ELP2000-85: a semianalytical lunar ephemeris adequate for historical times". Astronomy & Astrophysics190, 342..352
^Derived Constant No. 14 from the IAU (1976) System of Astronomical Constants (proceedings of IAU Sixteenth General Assembly (1976): Transactions of the IAU XVIB p.58 (1977)); or any astronomical almanac; or e.g.Astronomical units and constantsArchived 2017-02-22 at the Wayback Machine
^formula in: G.M.Clemence, J.G.Porter, D.H.Sadler (1952): "Aberration in the lunar ephemeris", Astronomical Journal57(5) (#1198) pp.46..47; but computed with the conventional value of 384400 km for the mean distance which gives a different rounding in the last digit.
^F.R. Stephenson, Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation. Cambridge University Press 1997. ISBN0-521-46194-4 . p.507, eq.14.3
Per MOS:ERA, the era notation (AD/BC v. CE/BCE v AM v AH etc) should not be changed unless there is a consensus that the pre-existing notation is inappropriate to the article and should be changed. Given that the new moon as defined by sighting of the first crescent is especially significant in Islam and Judaism but only marginally so in Christianity, and that the article discusses its significance to the Baháʼí Faith and Buddhism, it seems to me to be invidious to retain the Christian notation in preference to any of the others. Accordingly I propose that the article uses the neutral CE/BCE notation. Are there any objections? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For most readers of this article the section on lunation numbers immediately after the lede is probably rather esoteric. I propose to move this section to the bottom of this article for those users who are actually interested in counting individual new moons in the calendar of their choice. AstroLynx (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on this page way back (and most of my contributions have been removed). I now see that in the past few years a lot of text has been added about various calendars that happen to have a lunar month. While respecting the effort that went into that, I think this is mostly off-topic, because this article is about the New Moon lunar phase and not about religious calendars in detail. So I propose to remove the elaborate texts and just add a list of (religious) calendars - possibly classified as lunar, lunisolar, solar as they are now - with wikilinks to the pages that deal with them in detail.
Tom Peters (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The discussion above, to me, make good arguments regarding WP:WORLDVIEW to keep the text. However, I do agree with you that much of the text is off-topic. I think that the text should be refocused to be about the significance/use of the new moon in said various calendars as there's a bit of extraneous text about the calendars themselves. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree too. If there were any significant deviations into WP:fork territory, I would agree with a cull but I don't see anything obvious. All seem to about the significance, the special significance, of the New Moon in determining the operation of the calendar. If the article were to be restricted to the field of astronomy, it would be very thin indeed: as astronomical phenomena go, it is pretty trivial. Its real interest is the way that it has determined human timekeeping for millennia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
