Jump to content

Talk:August 2016 lunar eclipse

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

Eclipse dropped

[edit]

NASA's eclipse webpage (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros109.html) seems to have dropped this eclipse in its latest revision on May 3, 2009. Does anyone know what has happened? Davidpage (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is also removed here [1]. I have printed versions of the original GIF diagram, showing a "grazing penumbral" event. Apparently the updated calculations excluded the event, either due to orbital motion, or definition of the shadow diameter (which is subjective/fuzzy due to the earth's atmosphere.) If I find any statement for the exclusion, I'll link it. There ought to be a summary statement of changes since similar transitional shifts may exist, between total/partial as well.
I'll move the NASA link here for now, since it fails:
SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-eclipse

[edit]

As you can see it is barely an eclipse, it may as well not be an eclipse. I propose to delete the article. 70.82.127.4 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be deleted. Fred Espenak wrote in an email to David Cochrane in August 2016: "It all depends on exactly how you define the geometry gof the Earth’s shadow. I talk about it here: http://eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEhelp/LEenlargement.html According to the shadow geometry used by Meeus and myself, there will be NO eclipse on 2016 Aug. 18, It’s a very near miss but no eclipse. Best, Fred". Aloist (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was technically an eclipse, because Earth's shadow grazed the Moon, so it should stay. The wording is clear that it was a graze.

Before rushing to delete the page for no other reason than it not being a particularly interesting eclipse, someone (who?) will need to establish a new definition of Lunar Eclipse. At what point does an eclipse become a Wikipedia Acceptable Eclipse? Far better to accept the long-established astronomical definition, leave the article alone and move on. Ggreybeard (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable and helpful at least to include a statement from Espenak or Meeus that it was a near-miss, if such a statement has public sourcing. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2016 (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) 03:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]