Talk:Lunar eclipse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Solar System / Moon (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Moon (marked as Top-importance).
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Lunar eclipse is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Eclipses (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by the Eclipse WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to solar and lunar eclipse related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Lunar eclipse is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Lunar eclipse at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Lunar eclipse and Moon phases[edit]

The lunar eclipse is probably observable in the lunar daylight hours from the MOON. I wonder if any of the subsequent lunar Apollo missions after Armstrong's mission observed the earth blotting out the Sun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We all witness different lunar phases almost every day. According to this article, when the moon passes behind the earth's shadow, its a lunar eclipse. So does that mean that every time the moon is not full, its a lunar eclipse? I think its a good idea to mention about this in this article as well as the lunar phase article. Dont you think? Face-smile.svg Regards. Rehman(+) 03:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The phases aren't caused by Earth's shadow, but rather the Moon's own shadow. Similarly to how if there's one lamp around and you're facing it, your back isn't illuminated because you're in the way. Sideways713 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Not well written.

"Hence, there is always a full moon the day of a lunar eclipse." But for a given lunar eclipse, it will in some places be noon at the centre of the eclipse; a lunar eclipse does not possess a night. Better to say something like "Lunar eclipses can only occur when the Moon is full.".

"The next total lunar eclipse will occur on December 21, 2010 at 8:17 UTC." - no, it will occur over an interval centred on that time. The whole event lasts for about 5.5 hours, and totality lasts for over an hour. (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Longevity of eclipses[edit]

The article states: "A lunar eclipse lasts for a few hours, whereas a total solar eclipse lasts for only a few minutes at any given place." That should be re-written, shouldn't it? "A few" seems too long. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The one is december has occured n ended hopefully, now there been one which stiked 16/6/2011, and laed for few hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 15 June 2011[edit]

When you google "Lunar Eclipse" and look at the search results on this, the metadata description provided is weird. Someone's been messing around? (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

i think its hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, funny.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jorgelrm, 16 June 2011[edit]

I think that link to the June 15th eclipse is wrong. It needs to be corrected.

Jorgelrm (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There was vandalism of the link in the template at Lunar_eclipse#2009.E2.80.932013, which is fixed now. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 16 June 2011[edit]

This resulting light we perceive as red. This is the same effect that causes sunsets and sunrises to turn the sky a reddish color; an alternative way of considering the problem is to realize that, as viewed from the Moon, the Sun would appear to be setting (or rising) behind the Earth.

Please change considering the problem to considering the phenomenon because it is something to be explained, not something to be solved.

Thanks for considering. Roger Smith, (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Your assertion is wrong. It makes things needlessly confusing. The light of the eclipsed moon on it's way to the earth, (from the moon) is not affected by the effect you refer to. The scattering occurred when the light was on it's way from the sun to the moon. The way you propose to describe this is confusing. It's the same effect on the moon (from the earth's atmosphere), not the earth. --TimL (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

GIF animation of Lunar eclipse on 2011 June 15[edit]

If needed I have prepared a GIF animation of the Lunar eclipse on 2011 June 15. Lunar eclipse of 2011 June 15 animation (small).gif. I am not going to watch this page, so contact me from my talk page. OCK (t·c) 18:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Main image[edit]

I have changed the main image to File:Lunar eclipse June 2011 Total.jpg from File:Lunar Eclipse by Jiyang Chen.jpg which is less superior image in terms of quality and resolution. Please discuss before making further changes --Muhammad(talk) 20:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The image was downsized to look properly on the page and to prevent improper usage of the original high resolution image. Thanks. --Jiyangc —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

See discussion below. Both images are fine. Lunar eclipse June 2011 Total.jpg is nicely cropped so I made it the summary image. I moved Lunar Eclipse by Jiyang Chen.jpg to a new picture gallery, it has too much black space around it for the summary image, but it is still good. And we need more. The usefulness of multiple eclipse images is to show the variation of the appearance of lunar eclipses, though in this case the two images (to my eyes) show how similar lunar eclipses can be (perhaps because they were only 6 months apart and the atmosphere had not changed much?) I don't mean to offend anyone but this article as it was was a mess. The images were all bunched together. I would appreciate that if either of you disagree with what I have done that you discuss it here first. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixing a mess[edit]

All the images were stuck together at the top of the article and not in an appropriate section. Also some of the images merely added artistic value and I moved them to a new gallery section. The 'hook' image I made to be more consistent with the solar eclipse article which is a smallish representative thumbnail that fits alongside the hook (summary). There was an additional nice image of a lunar eclipse, I moved that to the newly created gallery. Also there was an excessively long list of 'recent and upcoming eclipses' many of which were not recent at all but decades ago. I removed those. I think what is left is a much cleaner article with the images more appropriately placed. If you disagree with what I've done, I'd appreciate it if you discuss it here before making changes. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely removed the charts of recent and upcoming eclipses. These can be found by clicking on the links already given under "recent and upcoming eclipses", so there is no reason to have had them here. --TimL (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The June 15, 2011 eclipse and Wiki vandalism[edit]

On June 15, 2011, a lunar eclipse led to a rash of juvenile vandalism on this article. Among the edits was one by some wag, an anonymous IP, that said "A lunar eclipse is when the moon turns black and explodes, releasing a poisonous gas, killing all humanity". That edit was repeated a couple of times before Ultraexactzz tried to put the kibosh on the vandalism by semiprotection. It was semiprotected for perhaps two days, and then the vandals struck again. And again. And again. (As for the edit I mentioned, someone did it again as late as August 1, 2011, and at least one person posted a Google screenshot showing the vandalism of June 15. Although the view count of that show was not very high, it may have nonetheless contributed to the Lunar Eclipse vandalism plague of 2011. (The comments by "Rickyrab" are not coincidential. I posted them there, and, yes, I admit to finding some of the vandalism to be humorous, which is why I liked Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense way back when.)

Anyway, I wonder if anything should be done about people who post Wikipedia stuff on Youtube or if we should leave the matter alone. I wonder if there is still a big enough risk of vandalism on "Lunar eclipse" to warrant continuing to semiprotect "Lunar eclipse". — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you making an argument that the article should be semi-protected (it is) or that it shouldn't? Is your question rhetorical? Thanks in advance. --TimL (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 10 December 2011[edit]

Please add to "See Also" / Lunar eclipses in history The first lunar eclipse to take place during a World Series game. It also marked the final game of this Series and the end of the Curse of the Bambino. (my apologies if this edit request was not formatted correctly in any way)

X mark.svg Not done, the fact that an eclipse happened to take place at the same time as a baseball game does not appear to be notable, I'm sure you could find a thousand other such things--Jac16888 Talk 13:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a significant game in baseball lore. Yes, it was purely coincidental, but so was the eclipse that occured during the Fall of Constantinople.
Wow that was harsh. Unceremoniously shot down by the wikigods. Not even worthy of good faith discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
nothing to do with the "wikigods", but your own ignorance. A lunar eclipse is witnessed by an entire hemisphere of the earth, there are surely lots of things going on in an entire hemisphere during the length of a lunar eclipse. How is that for harsh? --TimL (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow. And now name calling. From the perspective of relevance to an entire hemisphere, there are tens or hundreds of thousand of Wikipedia articles irrelevant to entire hemispheres. e.g. individual articles for every episode of Family Guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 25 May 2012[edit]

Can anyone add link ( Lunar Eclipse on June 4, 2012 in the section of Recent and forthcoming lunar eclipse events? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukyankee (talkcontribs) 05:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done See below section. --TimL (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed "Recent and forthcoming eclipses" section[edit]

Too much maintenance required and not appropriate for article. Template in article has relevant links to past and future eclipses.  — TimL • talk 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Eclipse dates don't change, so there shouldn't be any need for a lot of maintenance. What we need is a table with the dates of the near past and near future eclipses, and the data is all here. Also, I think it is very appropriate for this article. The date of past and future lunar eclipses is one of the first things I'd expect to see in an article about lunar eclipses, and in fact it was the thing I was looking for when I visited the article today. --LFS (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We have a table of past and future eclipses which I have put in the lead. I removed your reference to a specific eclipse. As far as finding the date of the next eclipse that can easily be found by using a search engine, e.g. [1].  — TimL • talk 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The section has been restored based on how it is in the article solar eclipse, which is accessible requires little maintenance.  — TimL • talk 17:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

'Moves into the shadow of the Earth' vs. 'Passes behind the Earth'[edit]

'A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes behind the Earth so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays ...

'A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon moves into the Earth's shadow, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Champagne (talkcontribs) 04:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of Lunar eclipse optics.jpg?[edit]

If the explanation for the red colour of the moon during a lunar eclipse truly is Rayleigh scattering of shorter wavelength light by the Earth's atmosphere (as indicated in the article text), then surely this image is misleading? It seems to indicate that the atmosphere is acting as an inverted prism which is causing dispersion of the white sunlight by refraction. What do others think? Bobo12345 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse optics.jpg
I'd generally agree it is misleading eye-candy. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I second that. It's a really bad diagram. It's going. TimL • talk 05:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually according to the article at Rayleigh scattering this depiction is correct. The amount of scattering is proportional to the inverse of the wavelength and does create an "inverted prism" effect.  — TimL • talk 09:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, upon further reflection I realize why this is a terribly inaccurate depiction of Rayleigh scattering as it would be seen from the moon. The earth scatters blue light, but the image suggests, from the point of view of the moon, that as the sun approaches the earth you would see the blue of the earth's sky which is wholly incorrect.  — TimL • talk 09:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014[edit]

Animation video on Eclise by SarvaShikshan

Ganeshwatve (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Where should this go? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Refraction doesn't make the moon red[edit]

The article says in two places that refraction through the Earth's atmosphere causes the red illumination of the moon. Why wouldn't that make it blue instead? Blue light refracts more than red, after all. Sunlight does indeed refract slightly as it passes through the atmosphere, raising the Sun's apparent position slightly at sunset and sunrise. The spread of color is pretty small, though; otherwise the setting sun would smear out into rainbow colors with blue setting last.

I'm changing the article to say that the red is scattered light. I realize it's a bit nit-picky; both scattering and refraction describe situations in which light changes direction. But they're really different things. Spiel496 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rereading what was there, I realize the article wasn't claiming that refraction caused the coloring. Still, the final change in direction that gets the reddened light into the shadow is scattering off a cloud droplet or other particle, not refraction. Spiel496 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. From [2] "The troposphere and stratosphere act together as a ring-shaped lens that refracts heavily reddened sunlight into Earth's umbral shadow". I have added this citation to the article.  — TimL • talk 17:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Also see atmospheric refraction. I have changed the article to link there instead of the more general article on refraction.  — TimL • talk 17:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
TimL is right, of course. I don't know what I was thinking. I didn't realize how small an angle the Earth subtends as seen from the Moon. Spiel496 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)