Talk:February 2008 lunar eclipse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article[edit]

EDIT: Nevermind, I noticed your note. Sorry to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.250.247 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article for the upcoming lunar eclipse. I added some graphics, and linked to some references with more detail. I'm glad if anyone wants to improve it! Tom Ruen (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great page idea! I'm glad you connected it to a Saros series. I just think they're so cool. Saros136 (talk) 06:05, January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, glad you like it. I was thinking the upcoming eclipse was a good excuse to try to generate good content for lunar eclipses and what information is best to include. Probably too boring to well include as a featured article, but maybe Image:Lunar_eclipse_from_moon-08feb21.png is worth nomination for a featured picture, OR maybe information can be extracted into a Wikinews article? Well, I don't much care, but anything to generate interest is good, and maybe others can help improve articles - I'm better at data and pictures than writing.

I do have an idea to build a Saros-set database using templates, where the stat table can be generated from a keyword, and then we could expand articles rapidly for each eclipse OR more dynamic tables which can reuse the same data. Well, I helped do it with the polytope articles, but still annoying enough to not take the time for it. Lots of potential still! Tom Ruen (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very ambitious, good luck. I've been doing some work on the transit articles myself, The Transit of X from Y series. I also started the Aug 16 eclipse article if anyone wants to jump in. Think we should use your table for contacts/duration/etc.? Saros136 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tom, good to see that you're working again on eclipses and that defending the previous articles from a VfD was the first step towards a fantastic series. Keep up the good work! This is really the best demonstration of how much damage deletionism can do to Wikipedia --DarTar (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia really need articles for individual lunar eclipses? I mean, they're all the same, right? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show time zones?[edit]

I wonder, since this is an english page, is it worth putting in a table of local eclipse times based on specific time zones (like for U.S. and Europe?) Well, just trying to think how to make the page more useful even if temporary before the event. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like this, stolen from NASA page: Tom Ruen (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC) [1][reply]

Total Lunar Eclipse
Event North America and South America
Evening of February 20, 2008 		Europe and Africa And Asia West Australia
(*) Morning of February 21, 2008
EST CST MST PST AST GMT GMT+1 GMT+2
U1 Partial Eclipse Begins: 08:43 pm 07:43 pm 06:43 pm 05:43 pm 04:43 pm 01:43 am* 02:43 am* 03:43 am*
U2 Total Eclipse Begins: 10:01 pm 09:01 pm 08:01 pm 07:01 pm 06:01 pm 03:01 am* 04:01 am* 05:01 am*
Mid-Eclipse: 10:26 pm 09:26 pm 08:26 pm 07:26 pm 06:26 pm 03:26 am* 04:26 am* 05:26 am*
U3 Total Eclipse Ends: 10:51 pm 09:51 pm 08:51 pm 07:51 pm 06:51 pm 03:51 am* 04:51 am* 05:51 am*
U4 Partial Eclipse Ends: 12:09 am* 11:09 pm 10:09 pm 09:09 pm 08:09 pm 05:09 am* 06:09 am* 07:09 am*
That looks like a fine idea to me. Saros136 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These table extensions are getting a bit unreasonable. Even assuming it was valuable to extend up a local timing table for a past event, additions are places the eclipse isn't even visible! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Table Error[edit]

Great page! Thanks for taking the time to do it.

I believe the end times are off by one hour. It looks like the last row got shifted over one time zone. For example the end time for CST is 11:09.

Thanks again for the work it required to put this page together. It looks very nice. L Coyote (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Looks like there was on error in the Nasa table as well, but I caused more when I swapped the column order from west to east. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixes[edit]

When this goes on, can someone get some ? Much of the US will be affected by lousy weather. Also did you know that a lunar eclipse on the moon will depict the Earth as a dark disc with a ring of light around it ? One day, people will go to the Moon, set up colonies and bases and see this themselves. That is really cool. 65.163.115.203 (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weather is supposed to be great where I am on the 21st, so I was gonna try and get some. No promises with my POS camera, though. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone can get some pixes with a decent camera instead of a POS camera. 65.163.115.237 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, anyone is welcome to. I'm sure some user will. If not there'll probably be some by NASA that we can use. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will! It should be a good one; I have a 7.1MP camera. --ginbot86 Update: The pictures are too bright. Maybe like ÐeadΣyeДrrow said: Maybe NASA has some pics. :-(

(UTC)

Yeah, I just tried, but I coudln't get a high resolution for a picture. Too blurry. Sorry. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saros cycle[edit]

There seems to be an inconsistency. In the ==Other lunar eclipses== section, it says,

This eclipse is part of series 133 of the Saros cycle, which repeats every 18 years and 11 days... It is the 6th of 21 total lunar eclipses in series 133. The first was on December 28, 1917. The last (21st) will be on July 1, 2224.

However, the interval between December 28, 1917 and July 1, 2224 (306.5 years) is only 17 Saros cycles long, so it would appear that it could encompass only 18 total eclipses. Perhaps there is an explanation on the NASA web site, but I am unable to access it; the Saros cycle article has no useful information either. Matchups (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the last was on 8-3-2278, according to Hermit Eclipse There are 21. I'll change it. Saros136 (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pix[edit]

Took this with a not so great camera and freezing cold hands, this was the only good 1 out of 20. You could use it if you like, I'm sure NASA will have great photos soon!

File:Feb 2008 eclipse.jpg
My pic

Very cool stuff! Stepshep (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar eclipse diagram removal[edit]

I do not feel that the diagram lunar eclipses is really relevant in the article. This article is about a specific lunar eclipse, not about lunar eclipses in general and how they occur. Previous similar articles (e.g. 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse) all do not have the said diagram. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Took this a couple of minutes before totality. Not the greatest photo in the world, so I didn't presume to put it in the article body without giving others a chance to see it. Dppowell (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) align=right[reply]

That's not a bad photograph at all! Perhaps you should consider including it? --Hobmcd (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I eventually added one taken during totality, about 30 minutes later. Dppowell (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article cries out for a photo, not some complicated line art. Let's see what people have already submitted. 71.110.133.213 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totality?[edit]

Ummm...I can still see almost 40% of the moon. Maybe it's my loose grasp of eclipses, but that doesn't seem like totality to me. 96.231.42.246 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Moon doesn't darken during a total lunar eclipse. Light scattered by the Earth's atmosphere reaches it. Saros136 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see it![edit]

This sucks! I had a real nice view of the last eclipse, but this time there's so much cloud, I can't make out the moon at all. Ah well, I stayed up for nothing! At least you all have a nice bunch of photos, so I can see what I'm missing! :) --Hobmcd (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Search[edit]

For those that couldn't see the eclipse for themselves, here is a Flickr Search result that organizes recent images tagged with 'lunar eclipse'. 38.99.101.133 (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar eclipses on the weekend and in good weather.[edit]

Been looking out of my bedroom window all night; saw insertion and now, extromission. It started on my left, in the lower quadrant, and exited in the upper right quadrant. My first total lunar eclipse was in San Francisco, California, in the early 70s, on Nob Hill, walking down California Street. The Moon turned orange (color). The current event was all black and white. I did see Regulus in the left lower quadrant (or is this Saturn, also said to be visible this night of nights).--Ace Telephone (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective comments.[edit]

I'm here in Waukon, Iowa, in the Driftless Area. The day in question was one of a brilliant blue winter sky shining down on huge quantities of weeks-and-weeks of perpetually-plowed snow (we have had a severe, snowy winter). The eclipse, locally, really was in black-and-white. I've given testimony to the orange one in San Francisco, and acknowledge the photo array that give other colors. I think local atmospheric pollution colors an eclipse. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this statement, and will someone fix it, please?[edit]

"It was the first of the two predicted lunar eclipses in 2008, and the only total eclipse of the two. The next total lunar eclipse occurs..." Thank you, Shir-El too 08:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct, a total lunar eclipse is different than a 'normal' lunar eclipse. Amtyo (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery thoughts?[edit]

Lots of good photos on the gallery, but lots of poor ones too. Does anyone have any ideas (or know any Wiki-policies on the usage of galleries)? I don't want to make anyone feel bad about taking away their moment of glory in sharing on Wikipedia but there are other good places online to post photos too - like [2]. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the number of pictures on the page should be reduced. Not all of the images are necessary, in my opinion. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the questioned in a general way since the answer applies also to the outburst of comet Holmes which also needs a cleanup, but time-extended events will have some great quality but also unique views in a changing scene worthy to keep. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eclipse_2007.jpg It's got a watermark advertising someone's website, plus it says 2007, when this happened in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.234.66 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual shadow pre-eclipse?[edit]

At 19:27 UTC - I was taking photos of the moon "pre-eclipse" outside my house in Bristol, UK. As you can see from the photos there was an unusual shadow that appeared and swept across the moon. Can anyone explain this? What could possibly be big enough to cause such a shadow? [3] < Static image showing shadow across moon [4] < Time-lapse animation (1.3Mb) Thanks --~Xytram~ (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a contrail to me. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Very clear images. Nice. Shir-El too 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to sound really daft but I've looked at contrail and understand the concept behind it. I'm guessing this was a contrail on the side of the earth high in the atmosphere, therefore it cast the 'shadow' as it passed over the sun? It was exceptionally freaky at the time because by the naked eye the weather was misty so the trail cut through the 'aura' the moon was producing. The images uploaded are purposely brightened to make the trail stand out - but do you reckon the still image can be used as a contrail example? --~Xytram~ (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The contrail is visible just like any cloud. It is lit by moonlight and also darkens the moon when in front of it. Oh, the light around the moon is Corona (meteorology). The coronal defraction must occur higher than the contrail since it is also being obscured by the contrail. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the contrail is kind of faint, likely in the dark you just couldn't see it. Then the moon simply passed behind it illuminating it. It's a nice image. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utahns (and others) couldn't see it...[edit]

I'm from Utah, and none of us could see the eclipse at all due to the huge cloud cover at the time. Would it be all right if I made a section on the people who couldn't see it? Or is the general opinion that the topic isn't relevant? I could use articles from the local newspaper as a source, and there are probably more I could find...

Your opinions are appreciated. -Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested to read whether the folks in southwest Wales were able to see it? I'd say this is more or less irrelevant information? Any other opinions? --Dschwen 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it in black and white.[edit]

It was a glorious eclipse. I must again testify the moon was not orange in the Driftless Area (we had a gloriously clear, blue-skyed cold winter day with huge quantities of snow plowed against and over our curbs; there was no wind). I just watched it from my open east-facing bedroom window.--Ace Telephone (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?[edit]

This is probably a little bit unrelated to the article, but what do people think of seeing the eclipse (those who saw it, of course). That is, personal anecdotes and feelings about the whole thing. Because, I have to say, it was a pretty amazing thing to see. The Last Melon (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went out to a soccer field with a local astronomy club, but we were only able to see the first half, as some clouds covered the moon completly, unfortunately. Perhaps off-topic is the fact that Saturn was really bright that night, and one could clearly see rings protruding off the planet, and in my opinion, that was more amazing than the lunar eclipse. Miggyb (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title change[edit]

I was wondering why the title was changed. The original one seemed to be fine. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's more unottable than the Lost episode article.[edit]

nuff said. --Leladax (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er...unottable? The Last Melon (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures[edit]

I understand that many of the pictures are taken from different places, but is it really necessary to have so many? Most of them look very similar. It's my understanding that huge image galleries are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. --Bando26 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a previous section on the gallery Talk:February_2008_lunar_eclipse#Gallery_thoughts.3F. I also lean toward some decision on reducing it, but I'm not going to remove images without wider discussion. At least I cleaned them up a bit - sorted them by time and cropped a few. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images[edit]

As many of us know, this article contains too many images. It is also apparent that many of the images could be deleted. I propose that we should start considering which images should be kept and which ones should be deleted. In my opinion, we should try to limit the total number of images in the gallery (excluding the composites) to about 6, with two of each stage (pre-umbral, totality, post-umbral). We might also consider the removal of one of the composites. I believe that when we consider which images to include, we should strive for images taken from different parts of the world, rather than utilizing images taken near each other (e.g. images all taken in Eastern U.S. and Eastern Canada). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look later tonight if I have some time. Agreed good to pick by geographic locations as much as quality and timing. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more, since the composites show the sequencing so nicely, how about organizing single images entirely by geography - by continent/region first, and quality second? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea. However, we should not keep too many images in locations that are near each other (e.g. two images were taken in Victoria, BC at around the same time). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a first pass, no deletions yet, just regrouped for evaluation. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, there's a big gallery on commons!? [[5]] SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template database test[edit]

I replaced the stat table with a template version, a first test of a generalize database for lunar eclipses. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See more at: User:SockPuppetForTomruen/saros_project

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on February 2008 lunar eclipse. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Title[edit]

So the image here https://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses/20feb08e/John-Doukoumopoulos2.jpg appears to be almost identical to the one here https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/lunar-eclipse-21-Feb-2008_Sounion_PoseidonTemple_640x480.jpg.

The second image is titled "Moon Eclipse by Poseidon's ancient temple Sounion Greece | John Doukoumopoulos".

Sky and Telescope has no license terms listed.

DarklitShadow (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_2008_lunar_eclipse&oldid=1201952056"