Apollo 8 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2005, and on December 24, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 11, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 31, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 18, 2008 Featured article review Kept Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 24, 2007, December 21, 2008, December 21, 2011, and December 21, 2018. Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight FA‑class Top‑importance 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy: Solar System Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force. Template:WP1.0

Apollo 8 won the March 2005 International writing contest. Congratulations to all who worked on it that month!

In other articles (and in WP:SPACEFLIGHT), discussions resulted in converting manned to crewed, unless it is in a quote, or the official name of something (maybe some other exceptions that are slipping my mind). Does anyone have an objection for this article? I can find the discussions if necessary, although I would rather not have to hammer out this discussion on every article. @Hawkeye7, Wehwalt, Jonesey95, Randy Kryn, and Dicklyon:Pinging some people that have edited the article to try to expedite the discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 18:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever people think best, but we should be consistent across spaceflight articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agreed on "crewed", but I found it so jarring that when implementing it on the Apollo 11 article, I re-worded some parts to avoid it. The use of gender-neutral language is part of the MOS (WP:GNL). My only fear was that it would cover up the fact that while there were female cosmonauts, women were excluded from the US astronaut corps until 1978. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Crewed' is a ridiculous term. Last week some guy on Radio 4 (UK station) was banging on about a 'crewed' spaceflight and to the uninitiated it sounded as though he was talking about a 'crude' spaceflight. Only when he mentioned 'uncrewed' (another stupid word) would some people realise what on earth he was on about. Leave this article as 'manned'. I just came here from the main page and how refreshing to see that it has not been infested with PC nonsense. 'Manned' DOES NOT mean only men were on board. It's refers to man the species, which includes women, and not man the gender, which doesn't. We don't need to change. In articles generally I would suggest changing all mention of 'crewed' to 'manned'. Gender neutral writing is not an issue here. What is at issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of language and an attempt to appease the permanently offended. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This seems like a good survey question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. There are probably situations where "manned" would be required, e.g. when "Manned" is part of a proper name, but otherwise, this project should probably go with gender-neutral language, especially if a reliable source like NASA has switched their usage. I find "manned" natural to read, but jarring when I really think about it. I think that we could get used to "crewed". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can get used to anything. That doesn't detract from a term being unnecessary and unwieldy. As I intimated, used of 'manned' is not, or should not, be in the scope of gender neutral writing, so there's no issue here. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNL is an essay; guideline is at MOS:GNL. In any case, yes, following the guidance to use gender neutral language is OK by me, though we old farts may find the change jarring. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's NASA's own style guide: In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned). That language has been there since 2006 or before, so we are late to the party. But even the old farts at NASA are having a hard time switching their language. A quick search of their site finds both usages, even when describing Mercury and Apollo missions, and even on the same page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points - and apologies for going on about this: the WP:MOS makes no mention of terms like 'manned', as far as I can see. It's right about the NASA stuff; they are inconsistent, but here's one sentence I found - "NASA ultimately changed from an unpiloted, Earth-orbiting mission to a crewed flight around the Moon". Try saying it out loud. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds so stupid. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem, direct from the Crew page: "Traditional nautical usage strongly distinguishes officers from crew, though the two groups combined form the ship's company." Crew just doesn't fit Apollo spaceflights, so it not only sounds wrong but is inaccurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point. NASA did refer to their flight personnel as crews however, so they deviated from the traditional maritime usage. This was both in the past and present. Kees08 (Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_6#Use_of_gender-neutral_language_in_spaceflight-related_articles - result was to use manned for older spaceflight articles when the sources used that term, and crewed for newer spaceflight articles when sources use that term
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_7#Human_spaceflight_vs_Manned_Spaceflight - First proposal that I was aware of
• Talk:Human_mission_to_Mars#Requested_move_5_March_2018 - Result was to keep at Human Mission to Mars and not move to Manned Mission to Mars
• Talk:Apollo_11/Archive_3#Manned_->_Crewed - discussion for Apollo program, Apollo 11, and Apollo 12. Result was to use gender neutral terms

Will expand as I find more of them. Feel free to expand the list if you know of any. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC) That is all I could find for past discussions. Add more if you can find them. My opinion is that the term manned/unmanned (outside of quotes and proper names) could be unintentionally discouraging to women interested in spaceflight. The term crewed/uncrewed is not unintentionally discouraging. I personally do not find either of them stylistically superior, although that is an opinion. With that, the choice of crewed/uncrewed is the obvious choice for me. We could have a survey in a neutral spot to determine the current consensus, although the most recent consensus was for crewed/uncrewed to my knowledge, so I would prefer to change the article to that language until the new survey is completed. Kees08 (Talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some points here, and would prefer to maintain the status-quo, especially in light of one of the mentioned discussions, which came to the conclusion that established articles should not be changed to accommodate the proposed style. Concerning the suggestion that 'manned/unmanned' could be discouraging to women in some way is pretty insulting to women, I must say. It implies that they don't understand the real meaning of 'manned' and so an allowance has to be made by way of changing the language.

On a related matter, must we repeatedly use the word 'human'? It's self evident that a donkey or some other animal wasn't the subject, so please - just say 'people'. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this Slate article's conclusion that words matter. I do not think either of us will change our minds on this. Whether the article is 'established' or not does not change my mind, and I will note that is the oldest discussion I could find on the matter. Sounds like we should put this issue to rest by having a community-wide consensus; do any of you have experience formulating RfCs and advertising them in the appropriate place? Kees08 (Talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseam in various articles. WP editors don’t invent terminology, they follow the current or relevant historical usage. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was this comment for me? WP editors did not invent the crewed/uncrewed terms, and NASA's style guide (see here) advises to use those terms. Using manned/unmanned in a historical way is what I am advocating, so that terms like Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) do not change. I will try to formulate an RfC in the near future so we can get a better and current community consensus. Kees08 (Talk) 21:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that despite no consensus on 'crewed' versus 'manned' on this page, we've got to suffer the former on the main page for a day. If the article uses 'manned', why does some SJW take it upon himself to try and 'educate' the world by using this ridiculous word, that isn't even used in the featured article? I despair! 86.156.221.64 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expected the section on Earthrise to be predominantly about the photograph. However, only the first two paragraphs (and the first sentence of the third) are about the photo. Should the section be renamed or split into two? I'll leaving it to regular editors of this article to fix this (assuming it needs fixing at all). Merry Christmas, everyone! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently emphasizes that the capsule emerged from the moon's shadow for the first time "exactly on time". The emphasis in the article is important to counteract the impression left by many broadcast sources that it emerged late - presumably to create an impression of tension to raise interest to viewers. This tension is created from the repeated "Do you copies" from Houston without (apparent) response from the capsule, and comments from ground personnel that the capsule is late (see, for example, PBS American Experience Chasing the Moon for an example of this). This tension arises because (1) Houston starts calling a minute before the expected time, (2) Houston appears to have a technical problem in hearing the astronauts even thought the astronauts can hear Houston, and (3) maybe a couple of seconds due to light speed delay. See the official transcript for exact communication timestamps. https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap08fj/12day3_lunar_encounter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredroach (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may be reading this wrong, but there were 22 minutes between the Collins saying "Go for TLI" and when the third-stage engine was fired to accelerate the spacecraft towards the moon. @Hawkeye7: is a sentence mention warranted? @Kees08: the fact that Collins spoke the words "Apollo 8. Go for TLI" seems notable at Michael Collins.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows Apollo 6 with its white service module, not Apollo 8. The launch image correctly shows Apollo 8 with its silver service module. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.8.142.123 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--- Disregard. I have since seen a close-up of the Apollo 10 rollout and have seen that the SM is covered by a white fabric cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.8.142.123 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the present location of either the copy of the King James Bible or the paper(s) on which the printed verses appeared that was used by the crew members for their Genesis bible reading? This seems to be a major historical artifact, is it accounted for? Did each crew member have the verses he would read on an index card or something similar, or were they on a single sheet of paper or the actual book as indicated by the pauses between the time the two first readers ended their recital and the next began. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you'll see my response at Talk:Apollo 8 Genesis reading, but for anyone else looking in, it's on exhibit at the Adler Planetarium. I don't know if that's worth mentioning in this more general article, though. TJRC (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for your nice additions at the Apollo 8 Genesis reading page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria.

• I have attempted various fixes to deal with the MOS:SANDWICH created by the lengthy infobox and the table in the Framework section, but have not found anything that works. Also, I find the same sandwiching in most of the similar space articles, so a global approach would be better, and I'm not sure what that might be. I wonder if the table of Prime crew and Backup crew are necessary, or if they could be converted to prose to avoid the SANDWICH problem, or if it would be better to move the crew image out of the infobox to a different part of the article, but unsure where. I'd like to get this marked with its third "Satisfactory]] at WP:URFA/2020A so it can be Moved to FAR not needed. Can someone address the sandwiching here and in all the similar articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]