Talk:Season

The following is a permanent link archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. Doing so will revert the current talk page to this archive, deleting current discussions. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Box Template for seasons

Why are "wet season" and "dry seaon" on the box thing? Do they really belong there? They aren't part of the four seasons, and I would like to question why they are in the box. I relaize that I'm, probably bringing up an older argument, but I would like somone to adress this again. Whatcanuexpect 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed an old discussion. "The four seasons" is a concept of limited global validity. Many regions in the world do not have four recognised (recognisable) seasons. To avoid regional bias, other season distinctions are mentioned as well. −Woodstone 07:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Old talk

Both tables are hand-coded (albeit with liberal use of the Preview button). HA! Smack

---

As I British person, I deny the assertion

In Britain, the seasons are considered begin about seven weeks earlier: spring begins on Candlemas, summer on May Day, autumn on Lammas, and winter on All Hallows.

We normally use the United States season starts.

Also I doubt.

The Irish calendar uses almost the same reckoning; Spring begins on February 1 / Imbolc, Summer on May 1 / Beltane, Autumn on August 1 / Lughnasadh and Winter on November 1 / Samhain

Sorry but it's true. The dates suggested here for the Irish seasons are correct. I found it very strange coming here from Australia. I expected the seasons to be exactly opposite ours. Southern hemisphere seasons seem to be based on average temperatures for the months in question. Our warmsest 3 (in tropical-temperate areas) months are exactly those 3 chosen for summer and our coldest are exactly those chosen for winter. In Ireland the coldest month of the year (in recent years) has been in Spring while the warmest month of the year has been in autumn!62.254.168.102 12:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Karl Palmen 1 March 2004

They are traditional dates, any American dates are recent imports. See for instance Ronald Hutton, The Stations of the Sun, pp140-141: "From this ceremony the feast took its popular British name of Candlemas; it marked the formal opening of spring...", p218: "Finally in both under 'Cetsoman' is the definition 'First May, i.e. the first motion...of summer'..." etc.

Consider also "darling buds of may" in Shakespeare's "summers day": may is hawthorn, but hawthorn blooms are gone by the time of the summer solstice. —Ashley Y 10:11, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC) (also British)

I'm surprised but interested to hear of this British reckoning, as it is not how Britons currently calculate the seasons. It is clearly traditional, though, as the summer solstice is known as midsummer's day. On the other hand, the Irish reckoning is current -- it is what my kids learn in school. BrendanH 09:11, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've put it back, but with the word "traditionally". Anyway, it was what I was taught at school in England in the 70s and 80s. —Ashley Y 09:19, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

To user 206.47.125.130: Do you mean to say that, precisely at the north and south poles, sunrise and sunset occur more than once every year? --Smack 03:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Discussion of image for illustrating axial tilt moved to Image talk:Earth tilt sample.jpg

---

I'm very tempted to revert the changes by BigT27 and, given the discussion on the Wikipedia:Reference desk, those by 206. Does anyone object? --Smack 17:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Well ,the changes aren't incorrect, but I think they could use a bit of rewrite. I'm also not exactly sure how much of it belongs here vs. maybe under "day"? Here's a stab, at Talk:Season/DaysAtPoles draft Elf | Talk 21:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I have pre-empted both of you, partly inadvertently, but would encourage Elf to use the draft. My changes to the polar day/night issue are too little. BrendanH 11:06, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural diversity in seasons

I understand your motives in restoring the content that I removed from the introduction to Season, but nonetheless I think it doesn't belong there. The intro is not the place to get into a thorough discussion of the various division and reckoning systems used around the world. (In fact, I think the article as it stands is hardly complete on that account anyway.) I think that my approach of briefly describing the system that is by far the most widespread, and making some mention of the fact that other systems exist without describing them in full, is hardly less balanced and valuably concise. We could have it both ways by moving the ==Reckoning== section to the front, but I think that the ==Causes== section goes first and that we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply right here. --Smack (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt if the western 4-season division is the most widespread, certainly not "by far". More people live in tropical areas than temperate ones. I agree with you that the account is not complete. It would be possible the move the different systems to a separate section. But then the intro should not give any bias. −Woodstone 10:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convined that the majority of the world's population lives in places where the four-season system is irrelevant, but at any rate, how do you propose to write a brief unbiased intro? --Smack (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed that the present form of the article's introduction is unsatisfactory. You reverted my change again without proposing an alternative. Why did you do this? --Smack (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No information was lost by my edit. The intro was made culturally neutral. The various ways of dividing the year in seasons follows immediately, complementing the definition. This way the natural flow is maintained without introducing cultural bias. It looks to me like a good compromise. −Woodstone 18:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the new heading you inserted. You have indeed made a compromise, but I almost prefer your first version. Have a look at what I've done. I think I've satisfied all of our major goals reasonably well, but I'm still uneasy about having people who follow a link to "wildfire season" read through all of the Causes. --Smack (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain the reasoning behind your last change. I can see that each of us believes his considerations significant enough that they cannot be compromised on, and it seems that you're reluctant to discuss the matter until I harass you. I think that if this goes on much longer, we should seek mediation. --Smack (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see you did not do anything corresponding to your statement above "Have a look at what I've done". I was waiting for that to appear. My point is that the definition part (before the first header) should not be biased to one culture. Either most of the various systems should be included or none. My previous change was to put them all in the intro. You kept only the "western" style seasons in the definition and moved the "tropical" and other ones somewhere far down the article. I compromised by have a bare definition only, immediately followed by a section detailing the different systems. I would not object to moving "wild fire" season into a less prominent place, because that is a very loose usage of the word. −Woodstone 10:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. Maybe the database didn't update quickly enough. My version is in plain sight in the page history. See also Season/temp. It's based on my most recent version of the article, but the intro is probably more to your liking. --Smack (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The last change by you I see in the history at 2005-08-03 07:09. Your comment "look at what I've done" has date 2005-08-05 03:57, reacting to mine at 2005-08-04 18:49. So I still do not see what you want me to look at. The current article has my latest change of 2005-08-05 23:59.

I'm very confused. You can disregard the history, but please take a look at the temp version. --Smack (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not noticed your reference to a "temp" page before. I was looking in the real page. I think your proposal is not better than the current version. Users will be confused by an inconsistent set of seasons in the intro. In my opinion it's better to give only a definition in the intro and follow immediately by a section with the various systems and examples. −Woodstone 18:42:45, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

I can agree to remove the sample list of seasons, but that aggravates the question of what to do with unconventional seasons. I've edited the temp page again. --Smack (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The flow of the "temp" article is not good. The definition and various systems are spread everywhere throughout the artcile. The current article has a clear pattern:

• short definition
• short list of various systems
• causes
• a detail on polar effects (this does not really belong here though: should be moved out to another article)
• details of some systems

−Woodstone 19:19:40, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

My personal preference is for something like this dif [1] that has a more comprehensive introduction. The minimalist version is awful, and the Temperate climate-only intro of User:Smack is culturally biased (it ignores, for example, the huge population of the Indian subcontinent). I also do not like the organization of Smack's Temp page. BlankVerse ∅ 20:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My objection to that version is the same objection with which this whole discussion started: it launches into a list of different reckoning systems used around the world (which tries to be exhaustive, but probably isn't) without saying a word about why these differences occur.

Off-topic: to view an old version of the page, from the history, click on the date. --Smack (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with mentioning the various ways the year is divided into seasons in different cultures before going into the background of how variations in weather patterns arise. Another aside: it is NOT a change of climate (climate is the whole pattern of seasons) −Woodstone 20:58:36, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

It's wrong because, to the ignorant reader who thinks that seasonality around the world is similar to seasonality in his particular neck of the woods, these alternative systems will seem arbitrary and foolish. Also, what's wrong with minimalism? (I've made a new version of the temp page that might be described as 'minimalist'; I don't know how closely it corresponds to the one that you object to.) --Smack (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As you already surmised, to me the new "temp" version seems hardly an improvement. I do not understand at all your objection to having the various divisions at the beginning of the article. The reader will recognise his own familiar seasons and be informed that other systems exist. Why would a reader thinks these are foolish? And even if so, informing readers on things they do not know already is one of the charms of an encyclopedia. −Woodstone 21:13:49, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

This is turning into a very long discussion between (mostly) just two people. It is clear that the two of you have very different ideas about what the intro should be like and how some of the rest of the article should be written, and it it equally clear that neither of the two of you will change your mind nor compromise. I am glad, however, that the two of you have continued to discuss things there and haven't launched into a major revert war over the article. My suggestion is that issue now needs some more eyeballs, so an WP:RFC is in order.

I will state once again that I hate the current very brief intro, and I think that User:Smack's version before that was geographically and culturally biased. I think that the intro should be returned to the longer one that clearly indicates was the idea of seasons means around the world. The causes for different types of seasons should go further down in the article. BlankVerse ∅ 00:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a test message, so I'll keep it short because it might get dumped by the system before anyone gets to read it. I have added to the section on exceptions to the four season model that the Sami peoples of Scandinavia recognise 8 seasons. Also a 6 season model is being promoted in the Melbourne area of southeastern Australia and a 5 season model on Vancouver Island on the west coast of Canada.

I have cited sources in the text, but not sure if I'm doing everything correctly. Everyone else is signing their name in blue on the discussion page, but I don't know how to do that. Also, your site's instructions on how to cite sources and create links are very confusing. If I have to be a scholar or techno-wizard to get anything onto this site, then I probably won't get anywhere without a lot of help.

If somebody sees this message and wants to help me out, I'll be very grateful. --Chris C. Sept 27, 2005, 09:45 UTC.

Hi Chris. The easiest way to sign is by putting in four tildes (~~~~). If it turns up red (instead of blue), it means you did not create your home page yet. A citation is create by just enclosing it in single square brackets. Putr a space after the URL and then the text you want to appear as link, like [www.somesite.com/somefile text you want as link]. Please do not use long sequences of x's as separator, because they screw up the layout. Just indenting a bit more (or less) by adding a colon (:) in column one will do. −Woodstone 18:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of conflict for Request for comments

Good idea. I'll try to summarize the two positions, so that people don't have to read through pages and pages of fruitless discussion. (Woodstone, feel free to rewrite or elaborate upon my representation of your viewpoint if you think I've misrepresented it):

• Position 1: The article introduction should contain a comprehensive summary of different seasonal reckoning sytems used around the world, followed by a in addition to the more thorough treatment given in the "Reckoning" section. (This is exemplified here). (strikeout and bolding by Woodstone 18:46:12, 2005-08-16 (UTC))
• Position 2: This comprehensive summary is a needless duplication of content. The intro should be kept to a minimum length, with either a highly incomplete summary and a prominent link to the "Reckoning" section (as here), or no summary at all (as here).

--Smack (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll redescribe the possible choices:

1. A very minimalist approach:

   A season is one of the major divisions of the year, generally based on cyclic changes of climate.

2. A short two paragraph introduction:

   A season is one of the major divisions of the year, generally based on cyclic changes of climate. Different seasons are recognized in different parts of the world, such as summer, winter, wet season, or dry season.

      

   In some parts of the world, special "seasons" are loosely defined based upon natural events that do not constitute changes of climate, such as a hurricane season, tornado season, or wildfire season.

3. There was also, for awhile, another two paragraph version that only mentioned the temperate seasons.
4. Finally, a more comprehensive version with six paragraphs. [2]

   

For the Wikipedia {{WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] guidance on introductions, see Wikipedia:Lead section, and also the information in Wikipedia:The perfect article. "The perfect Wikipedia article...begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail.." BlankVerse ∅ 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw the RfC and I have to say that I prefer the six-paragraph introduction. It's not really all that long, and seasons *are* different in different parts of the world, so it seems to me that this is the right one to use. KathL 11:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Also from RfC. I prefer options 4 and 2, by this order.
I think they all (including 1) fit the Manual of Style guidelines of clarity and accuracy. The remaining point is the amount of detail. As to that I belive it should be somehow proportional to the rest of the article. As this article is more than just a couple of paragraphs, I'd say the reader would like to find out more from the start. As that there are not "the" seasons but "several" season systems.
From what I read above, I think something as yearly periodic weather changes would be better than climate. Nabla 11:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

After the long silence and few comments, I take the liberty of concluding that option four is most preferred and will edit to that effect. −Woodstone 19:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Lunisolar calendars

I changed the text:

In the Korean, Chinese, and Japanese calendars are based on a lunisolar calendar where the seasons are defined so that the solstices and equinoxes occur in the middle of each season, which is very close to the meteorological definition of seasons.

to read:

The Korean, Chinese, and Japanese calendars are based on a lunisolar calendar, where the solstices and equinoxes mark the middle of each season. This is very close to the meteorological definition of seasons.

This was to break apart the slightly confusing run-on sentence in the original. I am worried that I may have introduced an error by accident. In lunisolar calendars, do solstices and equinoxes mark the middle of seasons? Or is it just the CJK calendars that do this?

-Jokermage 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the original version was more correct I believe. A calendar being lunisolar doesn't really have much to do with seasons, so the second clause should be restrictive. However, even without the comma the sentence is very confusing. If the sentence is still there, I'll try to rewrite it without "lunisolar calendar" being a subject compliment.--gwc 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Four seasons

Are the reasons why a large portion of cultures maintain a four-season system able to be specifically noted and described? --Dpr 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Tv season

Shouldn't there be a disambig for tv season/season (tv)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

fall vs autumn

A friend of mine were pondering this question the other day, & like every other fact questions I encounter, I came to the internet for an answer to these questions: 1. Is "fall" the only season with two titles? 2. If so, why? This is not an earth shattering, life altering issue for me, but would be another bit of trivia for my cesspool(sp?) of useless information(Ha,Ha!) So, thanks to anyone for posting the answer to these questions. from Diane in Portland, OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.69.167 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The season of spring is sometimes referred to as "vernal," such as in "vernal equinox." Both "vernal" and "autumnal" come from Latin. I guess since "spring" and "fall" come from english words, they must come from Germanic roots.--gwc 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, spring was once called Lenten or something of the sort in Middle English ... yeah, 'twas a long time ago ... Jimp 09:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Season/temp

is the temporary page still needed? --Melaen 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. --Smack (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

precession of the equinoxes

Shouldn't something about precession of the equinoxes be included here? I'd imagine that given the various cycles they'd be highly pertinent. John Riemann Soong 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Cultural Acknowledgement

Different aboriginal groups in Australia recognise up to 13 seasons a year depending on the region where they are from. I think that this should be noted in here somewhere.See:

http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/kakadu/artculture/seasons.html http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/climate_culture/Indig_seasons.shtml http://www.stirling.au.com/educ/traditional_culture.pdf http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/indigenous/ http://home.vicnet.net.au/~herring/seasons.htm

Knobcheesedeluxe 23:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Reckoning

This section as is boils down to, There are three ways of reckoning Temperate seasons:

1. Irish and East Asian ("traditional") -- seasons start on cross-quarter days
2. American ("Astronomical") -- seasons start on equinoxes/solstices
3. Romans, British ("Meteorological") -- seasons start somewhere in between

Don't let it be overcomplicated! Currently:

1. Content is repeated
2. The wording is confusing
3. The table breaks across the page.

Suggestions:

1. Use only one term in this article, either "reckoning" or "definition"
2. Split into two subsections, "Australian Aboriginal" and "Temperate" OR "Four Seasons" (as Australia is also temperate)
3. Unless the terms "traditional," astronomical," and "meteorlogical" can be attributed to an authority, use more descriptive names
4. A smaller, borderless table/list (ie, listing seasonal starting pts and mid-pts) would be better?
5. For simplicity, instead of reduplicating the table in southern terms, add the sentence: "In the southern hemisphere, the seasons are shifted forward 6 months." This may violate NPOV.
6. Add some cited (to not violate "no synthesis") info suggesting explainations of different reckonings; something along the lines of: "Defining seasons as having midpoints at the equinoxes and solstices is in essense defining seasons by insolation; winter is defined as the quarter of the year with the least insolation, summer as the quarter of the year with the most. However, the effects of insolation variation on weather are delayed by a month or two. Hence, the Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec and Apr/Jul/Oct/Jan definitions; the former being more accurate to the weather, the latter being most conveniently defined since they coincide with the equinoxes and solstices."

--gwc 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wet/dry division? Expert probably needed here

I'm surprised to see there's almost no discussion of the division of time into systems of seasons other than four, and in particular the wet/dry division that typifies much of the world's climate. (We have two seasons, wet and dry, where I live, and I live in the United States!) I think most of the article does a very good job, but the focus on temperate seasons is a pretty serious bias. We need an expert, or at least someone who knows more than I do, to write something about how seasons are divided into wet and dry. I've added the expert request tag in response to this specific concern; the rest of the article is, as I said, very good. Elliotreed 08:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)