NavList:

Brad:

I wouldn't know that from Wikipedia because I was the last person to edit that table earlier this morning.

I started off and on researching the info I changed or added when I saw what had been done 2 yr ago and wasn’t impressed with the table. I didn't want to step on toes here or start an edit war so I held off until what I saw from Frank and Tony ealier then I went ahead.

I considered adding more this morning but stuck to methods that had achieved some continuing awareness in the english-speaking CelNav community at large. Specifically I considered HO-218 [1941, 14 volumes)/Astronomical Navigation Tables/A.P.#1618 in UK, (1938-44), 15 volumes, Lat 0-79^o] which didn't seem to gotten much saturation after introduction, was rapidly supplanted by 229 & 249 and had little residual awareness.

As Stan pointed out I should have included Weems. And on further consideration Bygrave which had significant penetration for a while and still has residual awareness. My excuse is that this morning I was mostly straightening up what was already there and including alternative names and variants where appropriate.

If anyone can think of an english-speaking method that achieved some saturation that I missed let me know, we can talk about it and I can put it in. I am trying to walk the line between the splitters and lumpers (didn't know the terms until today but instinctively understood they existed).

I am thinking about including info about accuracy of results, the number of table openings and the number of mathermatical steps to give an indication of why certain methods are favored in certain uses. And paragraphs explaining that to the layman.

Actually I would consider revamping the whole article but would want a lot of input from the folks here.

Anyway, Brad, tell me about HO-203/204, don't recall hearing about it previously.