Talk:Eclipse season

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System / Eclipses Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Eclipses task force (assessed as High-importance).

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[month#Synodic month|synodic month]] The anchor (#Synodic month) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Too technical edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

As it currently stands this article requires too much prerequisite knowledge for the layperson to understand. I beleive I and/or others can fix this over the long term. Now that I understand it, I think it's a pretty basic topic that people can appreciate if explained simply enough. The source material (mostly NASA) is very technical. The graphs (solar eclipse) have way too many lines on them, the introduction introduces many complex topics and so forth. --TimL (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

~~If you read between the lines, I basically think this article (which I created and authored) pretty much stinks!~~ --TimL (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a bit better now that I've added a non-technical summary (hook), which I think primes the user for what is to come. --TimL (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also Incorrect? edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I think this article is also incorrect. The article emphasizes the sun being near a node. But after reading the saros article I think both the Sun and moon have to be neat a node, (the very definition of syzygy). An eclipse occurs when a full or new moon is at a node. This article emphasizes the sun when (I think) in fact it should emphasize that fact that full and new moons must occur at a node. I'm having trouble with frame of references here.--TimL (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this is fixed now. Both the moon and Sun are equally implicated. --TimL (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Parts? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's this "X part out of Y"? Is it just to demonstrate 4 examples? alex (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Examples too similar edit

Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are now 4 examples of eclipse seasons. However, they all show the same kind of seasons, all with three eclipses, of which two are either penumbral lunar eclipses or partial solar eclipses. Between the lines this tells me that it must be so, if there are three eclipses in one season.

Most seasons, however, are not of this type. Most seasons have two eclipses only. It would therefore be better to have other kinds of seasons represented. (At one time in history, the penumbral lunar eclipses weren't even regarded "real" eclipses, and then an eclipse season could in fact not comprise more than one lunar eclipse, and possibly no lunar eclipse at all.) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic