Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Eclipses task force

Now that there is more than one Wikipedian on the project...
Since you are no longer the sole member of the Eclipse WikiProject, I thought perhaps now it can have a proper page. However seeing as the project page has been twice deleted, I don't want to go forward if you think that would be a bad idea, I was just going to copy User:Tomruen/Project solar and lunar eclipses to the dead link at WikiProject eclipses. --TimL (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good idea to me. -- Glenn L (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BIG TODO
✅

make this project page more user friendly to new users. Make it clearer what needs to be done, etc. This section itself is sort of a stub, I haven't even looked at the project page very closely yet. --TimL (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

BIG TODO II
✅

There are a TON of articles that need the WikiProject Eclipses template. Need to find a bot that can do this, or some automated process. --TimL (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A request has been made here.

lunarsolar saros twins
Evidently each solar saros has a lunar saros as a twin, with events alternating one sar (half saros) apart. Solar saros x is the twin of lunar saros (x-7). It is unfortunate they have different saros numbers. They start at roughly the same time, peak centrally at the same time, have almost exactly the same number of members and are otherwise intimately intertwined, each event alternating 9 years with the other. Why the (x-7)? Seems like it would make sense to give each pair the same saros number. Since we have charts for most of the solar and lunar saros perhaps they should be cross-linked. --TimL (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. However, |The Periodicity of Solar Eclipses states: "The numbering system used for the Saros series was introduced by George van den Bergh in his book Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses (1955). He assigned the number 1 to a pair of solar and lunar eclipse series that were in progress during the second millennium BCE based on an extrapolation from Theodor von Oppolzer's Canon der Finsternisse (1887)." It's unlikely, especially due to widespread use by both Fred Espenak and Jean Meeus, that the system will be changed in the near future. -- Glenn L (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

eclipses
does this cover eclipes other than Earth-Moon-Sun / Moon-Earth-Sun? Occultations, transits? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From our banner at the top of this page: "This project provides a central approach to solar and lunar eclipse related subjects on Wikipedia." So I would say the answer is no. It could be expanded to include such things, but the project is already very large as is. --TimL (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering where to discuss coverage of the upcoming March 20 occultation of Regulus by 163 Erigone. No, this isn't the place. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

saros, inex, tritos, metonic templates
I´ve been a Wikipedian from the beginning but they keep introducing new techniques and change conventions that I am unfamiliar with. So about templates. I do notice that at individual eclipses, there are references to templates for its place in saros series etc. OK. But I see for many eclipses references to the tritos series (which I believe is a novelty - nobody bothered to track tritoses before AFAIK), while the relevant saros series is missing. I think adding the proper saros series template(s) should have highest priority, over tritos, meton, eclispe season and what have you. Anyway, excellent work that you are doing here. Tom Peters (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this too and totally agree. I'll put it on the as-yet-to-be-created official TODO list. The editor who did most (all?) the effort on this project is on. Wikibreak for a time. --TimL (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Solar eclipse
nominated Solar eclipse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. --TimL (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
If the infobox-style panel on May 2013 lunar eclipse could be made into a proper infobox template, it would facilitate future editing, and the emission of metadata. Is anyone up for developing such a template? Or does one exist already, somewhere? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wow, I have no idea. I know next to nothing about infoboxes nor did I create the templates. Could you point me in the right direction? also, if the templates exist, I'm pretty sure they are undocumented, so it would probably be better for me to create them from scratch. --TimL (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I created them, copied from somewhere else. There's better ones for solar eclipses, so perhaps that could be copied and remade for lunar eclipses? The solar eclipse tables are superior also for using recursive templates as a database, like Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 and Template:Solareclipse195_db used with Solar eclipse of August 11, 1999. I was meaning to go back and redo the lunar eclipses based on this system, but haven't gotten around to it. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, we should merge Infobox Solar eclipse and Infobox Solar eclipse2. Then, do we need a separate lunar eclipse box, or could one box serve both purposes? How many of the parameters are the same, or different? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox Solar eclipse2 uses Infobox Solar eclipse, but gets parameters from the template database file, so they're both needed. I'm sure solar and lunar eclipses should have separate parameters. For making a list of parameters, the NASA listing (listed from ), contains a "complete" list of eclipse events and stat data. For the solar eclipses I divided the catalog by saros cycle numbers to keep database files from being too large. I'd do the same for lunar eclipses, and its a high priority for me, but won't be doing soon. Converting to a new  Infobox Lunar eclipse file is a good start, and the database approach can be done second. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete Information
On the Lunar Saros 145 page there is little more than a table. On other Saros pages there is also little more than a table. Why is the table incomplete? I am guessing that is because the missing data does not occur. But the table does not describe what it is showing. The columns are labeled
 * Cat., Saros, Mem, Date, Time UT (hr:mn), Type, Gamma, Magnitude, Duration (min)
 * Contacts UT (hr:mn)
 * Greatest, Pen., Par., Tot., P1, P4, U1, U2, U3, U4

I have checked several lunar saros pages, the Besselian Elements page, the Solar eclipse page, the saros page, and found nothing. If someone will post an image with all of these elements shown and labeled, I will undertake to post that image to all of the many lunar saros pages. I will at that time improve the one sentence with a detailed description of the table and image. Nick Beeson (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Saros eclipse set info
Template:Saros eclipse set info has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Image for 13 Nov 2012 eclipse
✅

I wanted to add File:Nasaeclipse13nov2012.png to the infobox on Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012, but it is too complicated for me. So I am informing you of the image's existence and will let someone who knows how to add it. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed a dead link that's probably used elsewhere
See Talk:List of 17th-century lunar eclipses. Thanks. 68.165.77.249 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Lunar eclipse
Infobox Lunar eclipse has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Solar eclipse2
Infobox Solar eclipse2 has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Key needed for maps
The maps like File:SE2013Nov03H.png really could use a key. As a layman, I can figure out the significance of the grid lines, but the pink lines and P1...P4 have me baffled. You are probably looking at needing a template that can be inserted under each occurence of these diagrams. Thanks. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Systematic error
In the lists of solar eclipses for the Xth century (this one for example) I found that all dates in June were listed as July. I corrected this for the 4th and the 10th century, using the NASA-tables (this one and this one) but do not feel the urge to correct all other centuries all by myself. I just leave a message here so someone may take notice. Wiki klaas   15:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed to merge WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force with WikiProject Eclipses. Please join the discussion on whether we should merge these two articles here. MartinZ02 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What makes eclipses notable?
Please see Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of May 12, 1706. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorting on Category:Total solar eclipses
Articles in Category:Total solar eclipses are categorized without regard to sort order. This means, for example, that Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005 sorts prior to Solar eclipse of July 11, 1991, because Solar eclipse of A... comes before Solar eclipse of J... alphabetically.

I am undertaking to add a date parameter to the category tag, so that the articles sort in date order on the category page. That's already being done on other eclipse-related categories, e.e. Category:20th-century solar eclipses (note the sorting on that page). If I were doing this from scratch, I would probably use a format like "1991-07-11", but since the existing sorting uses "1991 07 11", I'll follow that example.

A typical edit is at. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TJRC (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

List of films featuring eclipses
Hello, I've created List of films featuring eclipses and added this WikiProject's template to the talk page. If this topic is considered to be out of scope, please feel free to take out the template. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I love Eclipses!
I'll join!

-Out of this World Adventure 🌎

Lunar eclipse module
Is there any plans of a module for lunar eclipses? The solar eclipse module(Module:Solar eclipse) is very helpful for porting articles to other languages. -- 04:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Lunar Saros 130 article
I somewhat randomly visited the Lunar Saros 130 article and was initially confused, because throughout the article it listed Saros 137, not 130. I felt this was probably a copy/pasting mistake from when the article was created, and indeed, the Lunar Saros 137 article lists entirely different data. So I used a regex search&replace to swap 130 in for 137 only where needed, leaving alone instances where 137 appeared within other text like the year 2137.

Looking in the edit history, rather than a mistake, it seems User:96.233.56.128 went through and vandalised the article back on 6 February 2016. The user apparently has a history of bad-faith edits of eclipse articles going back to 2015, when User:Oshwah asked the user to stop on the user's talk page. However, the user did the same number-changing thing on other Saros articles, Lunar Saros 131 (to 138), Lunar Saros 136 (to 143), and Lunar Saros 138 (to 145), as well as the Saros (astronomy) article, which I've vandalism-reverted. A number of the Solar Saros articles were vandalised as well, but those were fixed by User:Tomruen.

I believe that fixes all of this user's vandalism to the eclipse articles; although the user made many changes to Divisibility rule, I've had enough fun with this tonight. ☽Dziban303 »»  Talk☾  07:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the look! Its better to do a DIFF and undo than correction. I think you accidentally changed a correct 137 duration to 130, which I fixed. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, I saw the ping here and thought I'd swing by :-). It looks like this issue has been resolved - let me know if you two need my help with anything and I'll be happy to do so. Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Image used in the August 2017 eclipse article
The image used at the incipit of Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 has one clear issue, the rotation of the moon. At the very last step of validation for Wiki Science Competition, we found this mistake, see the discussion here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Day of the week
There's been something of a slow motion edit war at Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024, with editors adding and removing the day of the week the eclipse falls on. I would have thought that the particular weekday isn't important, but I guess some people disagree. wisely suggested we seek guidance from members of the WikiProject on eclipses. It makes sense to set some sort of standard, if one doesn't already exist. Is the day of the week considered significant? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Timescales used in eclipse articles
After reading some of the articles, I realized that there may have been confusion of timescales with the general circumstances timings shown in most pages. Some timings appear to have been based on Universal Time (UT1), while others use Terrestrial Time (TT), and the description states Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

As an example, the page concerning the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024, as well as the Solar Saros 139 page, states a Greatest Eclipse time of 18:18:29. The section says "Times (UTC)", however that timing of Greatest Eclipse is expressed in Terrestrial Time, as can be verified on NASA's Eclipse website page for that particular eclipse. Looking at the other timings mentioned in the same section, (concerning penumbral and umbral contacts, P1, U1, U4, P4), they correspond to those expressed in NASA's Fred Espenak's global eclipse map, but those timings are expressed in Universal Time. I did not check all the articles, but there appears to be a similar issue with other pages, like the one for the Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017.

The difference between UT1 and TT being rather significant (69.3 seconds as of today), I would suggest reviewing the timings to avoid inconsistencies.Fsimard91 (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Eclipse image galleries
I notice that in a large number of eclipse articles, there are indiscriminate collections of images, under a "Gallery" section heading. Some relevant parts of the image use policy:


 * In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons
 * One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons
 * Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images
 * Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery

A gallery of the phases of an eclipse would be entirely valid content in the article about solar eclipses; it's a pity it does not have one. But a dozen very similar images of an individual eclipse adds nothing to the reader's understanding of that eclipse. These galleries should in general be removed. 37.152.231.66 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a certain IP (37.152.231.66) going around and mass-deleting all gallery images indiscriminately from every total eclipse article that they edit. However, I know that it is standard practice of this WikiProject to include a small gallery for each total solar and lunar eclipse in the Contemporary era. The IP says that articles should not have galleries at all, according to his reading of a Wikipedia policy. However, as eclipses are largely visual events, small samplings of images are very useful to readers who come across these articles. So my question is: Should we maintain galleries as we do right now, or get rid of them altogether? My belief is that we can keep them under WP:IAR, but whatever we agree on, we have to be consistent.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I see, the IP has already listed their arguments above. But my points still stand, and I still see unilateral changes, without consensus, as purely disruptive.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:IG does allow images galleries for subjects where "illustrating the subject otherwise would be extremely difficult" (my paraphrasing). in my opinion, total eclipses would definitely qualify. But enough from me, I would like to hear what other editors think.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mass-deleting, hardly. I edited four articles. Indiscriminately, not at all. I considered each case, obviously. But this user doesn't appear to want a productive discussion; they abused their rollback tool to undo my edits, and they falsely accused me of vandalism in a serious abuse of process to try to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. I hope there will be some good faith input from other editors. 37.152.231.66 (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * This is a blatant misuse of rollback. If you want to keep the tool, you should avoid doing this sort of thing again.
 * "unilateral changes, without consensus" are not at all disruptive. That you disagree with them is not cause to report the editor for vandalism.
 * Edit-warring, as you've both done, is not acceptable and will lead to you both being blocked. Doesn't matter if you're "right".
 * As to the meat of the issue, the IP is correct; image galleries are not meant to be filled with very similar images (as for instance, this one is). Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So then, all of the gallery images should be removed? Is that it?  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but they should conform to the policy on galleries as the IP pointed out above. The gallery example I linked has five almost identical images in the first subsection, five identical images in the second section, a dozen images in the third when one or two would do, three images in the next when one would do, and I don't really see the point of the last section at all. This is an example of a properly done gallery; there are other images that could be added to it, but those are left to Commons as they don't particularly enhance the reader's understanding of the event. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked. A range block of several IPs.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Lists of eclipses
I'm genuinely curious (as I've been updating list of solar eclipses in antiquity) as to our need for a list of every eclipse, seemingly ever. I mean, I totally understand recording recent eclipses from the the last few centuries, since records are pretty good and we might actually be able to say something about it, but it seems a little unnecessary to list every eclipse in the 20th century BC or the 30th century, since the former has no records and the latter hasn't even happened yet. There's almost no usable content there, and we're more or less copying straight from the catalog of solar eclipses] anyway. Is there a good reason to keep these? Primefac (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Saros series
Any comments here would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Module:Lunar eclipse
FYI module:Lunar eclipse has been nominated for deletion. This may be of interest to you. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Limits
There should be a specific limit to eclipse articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 01:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In what sense? Time, detail, number, other? Primefac (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what is trying to say, which went though my head as well, there are absolutely tons of 'Future' solar/lunar eclipse articles (I mean, see Category:Future solar eclipses and Category:Future lunar eclipses), most of which I have a feeling come under WP:TOOSOON and shouldn't really exist just yet. The question is, where should the cut off be? - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 16:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I did comment on this above a while ago regarding some of the more general lists, but I think that if it's more than 20 years in the future there is zero point, and if it's more than about 10 years then there's little point (I can see the argument for "but people might want to plan ahead" but that only goes out 5-10 years). Primefac (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox (again?)
Why are the recent and future eclipses not using an infobox (e.g Infobox lunar eclipse)? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 05:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly because no one has thought to add one yet. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

All transits?
Perhaps this should expand to cover all transits, not just those involving all 3 of the Earth, Moon, Sun ? -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

List of solar eclipses in the 16th century listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of solar eclipses in the 16th century to be moved to List of 16th-century solar eclipses. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Turn abandoned wikiprojects into task forces
There is a proposal to turn this wikiproject into a task force WikiProject Astronomy. The discussion takes place here. Cambalachero (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Syzygy (astronomy) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Syzygy (astronomy) to be moved to Syzygy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.