Talk:December 2010 lunar eclipse

Future event tag

It doesn't make sense to tag this with the future event tag. That tag is used where the information is tentative, or subject to change. In contrast, this eclipse is an astronomical certainty.

In the unlikely event that the article transmutes to include uncertain information, then this tag will be appropriate. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template database test

I replaced the stat table with a template version, a first test of a generalize database for lunar eclipses. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See more at: User:SockPuppetForTomruen/saros_project

Times

Are the times GMT+00? If not, why not? It would be much clearer if they were. 62.121.54.18 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The "contact times" in the RIGHT-SIDE table are in (UTC). Tom Ruen (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I will edit the times to be UT, so that the article is npov for global use. unless someone else does it first, i might not get back to it. I'm running a global network of webcasts by and for several organisations, streaming and re-streaming the moon and the events. should be awesome; as we did for NASA's INOMN. mozasaur (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The times listed here do not match the nasa website for this http://www.mreclipse.com/LEdata/TLE2010Dec21/TLE2010Dec21.html 66.176.72.195 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the Full Moon notable? Or even full?

According to The Farmer's Almanac, the full moon occurs right in the middle of this six-hour eclipse (3:15 AM EST). I find measuring and analyzing all these rotations, tilts and spins makes me dizzy, so I can't figure out if eclipses and full moons are regularly correlated or if this really is as strange a coincidence as it seems to my layman mind. If someone more moon-savvy (a lunatic?) reads this, could you either insert this factoid into the article in proper moonspeak, or discredit it and ridicule me accordingly? Also, is there a term for a full moon that also happens to appear empty?

I will resist the urge to add mentions of the 2012 "connection" till after the fact, presuming it turns out to be both notable and survivable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A lunar eclipse indeed always occurs at full moon as the lunar eclipse article will tell you. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just coming back to hang my (now less) ignorant head in shame and declare a false alarm after some simple Googling. I have to say, though, that was an amazingly quick response, especially by Wikipedia standards! Good to know somebody's manning this ship. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in your questions, Incredible Hulk, having worked with full moons and eclipses quite a bit, running public events etc. I have noticed that uninformed skeptical style in quite a lot of my historic activity here, and even in astronomical societies themselves. It is worth remembering that google existed a long time before wikipedia, and reputable sites even longer. Fred Espanak for example. Wierd how your use of the device "I will resist the urge to add mentions of the 2012 "connection" till after the fact," is self contradictory, and in fact speaks of a non existent connection. This is 2010 in case you hadn't noticed. On the other hand, at least someone is keen to comment and take an interest, so thats good, and needed more here. Notice that I have resisted the urge to jump in and correct the 'USA centred' times, useless to most of the global population, so my behaviour is moderating too i suppose. cheers guys.mozasaur (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous Article

gotta say thanks for a fabulous article. Curious that at one time the moon and eclipses were perhaps THE MOST important things to humans, and therefore i smile at the tag of 'LOW' importance. For me it meant a half page article in our newspaper (couple hundred thousand prints, not that important) and a substantial photo of me and a Full Eclipsed Moon. The degree of importance I suppose could be judged by the 200+ people that turned up on the southern coast to look through our telecopes, take photos, etc, probably a local and perhaps a national record for such activity, despite the 10 degrees C and the 50km/hr + Gale blowing salt water in from the ocean. The 'roaring forties' certainly roared that night. We are at 41 Degrees South. And more recently we ran a global event for NASA's INOMN, not very notable or important??. if youre on facebook you can read the article here DomPost Newspaper article on Full Moon Eclipse. . mozasaur (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. It should be an exciting event! But this article is actually pretty minimalist! Feel feel to improve the content. I'm more a graphics/data guy than writing prose! Tom Ruen (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate Date of Last Solstice/Lunar Eclipse

I wanted to point out that the claim that this is the first total lunar eclipse to take place on the same day as the December solstice is not entirely accurate. It all depends on which time zone you're using. If you're only going by UT then yes, that's true, but if you move to an area that now uses Central Standard Time in North America, or farther west, there was a total lunar eclipse on December 22, 1703 at 11:30 PM CST (-7:00) and the solstice was at 3:09 AM CST (-7:00). If the two events occur within 24 hours of each other, they will happen on the same day *somewhere* in the world. UT might be used as a standard convention, but the timing of events will still be adjusted in different parts of the world.

On the other hand, if we're looking at the last time a total lunar eclipse happened on the same day (somewhere on Earth) as the December solstice *and* it also happened before the solstice was exact (as is the case in December 2010), then yes, 1638 was the last time that happened. In the case of 1703, the solstice happened just before the eclipse. Pegasuss (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its worth noting it is near solstice (since the full moon is at its northern most declination for the eclipse) but comparing "exact calendar dates" to centuries ago is silly trivia. More interesting perhaps is the Metonic cycle of 19 years, so nearly identical dates also for: Partial, December 21, 1991, Total, December 20, 2029, Penumbral, December 20, 2048. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I too had noticed the 1991 partial eclipse on the day of the solstice. And I agree that the noting of "the last time this happened" can get a little silly, with so many possible factors involved (total vs partial; time zones; etc). However, I'm just responding to what's in the article. If a claim is made about "the last time this happened" then it should at least be accurate. Who has the authority to go in and correct this on the actual page? Sorry to not know this already, but I haven't been keeping up with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines much lately. Pegasuss (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a reference to an article about this eclipse published on NASA's official website, citing a US Naval Observatory employee named Geoff Chester as saying this is the first Solstice eclipse since Dec. 21, 1638, as well as only the second in at least the past 2,010 years. Seems like an authoritative source. I have seen various news reports emerging today citing 1554 as the last one, but I can't figure that out. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't access that link to the NASA website: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/17dec_solsticeeclipse/ . It gives a server error. Is anyone else having trouble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcasada (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to not sign that - I'm still trying to figure out how to comment on here. Abcasada (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be silly trivia but it is no excuse for propagating error. I can't believe InedibleHulk's attitude that because something was stated by a NASA employee therefore it is to be taken as authoritative. It is a simple matter. Look up the December 1703 lunar eclipse at http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE1701-1800.html and then calculate the position of the Sun from http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi (using geocentric ecliptic longitude of date for the Sun, coordinate option 31). Solstice is when the Sun crosses ecliptic longitude 270°, and this happened between 11:09 and 11:10 UT on 22 December 1703. The lunar eclipse - a very near-central total - happened 19 hours 20 minutes later. The two events happened on the same local day roughly in the western half of North America and the eastern half of the Pacific Ocean. The article must be corrected. Does it count as "original resaech" if I have looked these NASA sites up myself? Axel 00:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

Times for North America

Great article except for "Times for North America". WP:Whatever the one is that said we should be globally-relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.127.170.170 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The stat table on the right gives univeral time, which can be converted to any timezone. The north america table is just a local translation, given the eclipse was completely visible from NA, and less so from other locations. Other tables can be added for times in South American or pacific regions if someone is interested. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I added listings for Alaska and Hawaii time. Ztothefifth (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. This isn't a global event. It's primarily a North and South American event.--RadioFan (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the table be extended to the Atlantic? I can't find any standardized names for those time zones, so it'd just be UTC offsets. Ztothefifth (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

AST covers out to Bermuda, that's the eastern most inhabited point where the eclipse will be completely visible. It will be partially visible in South America but a separate table would be best should someone want to do that, but it seems like overkill since most of the interest will come from the timezones where it will be completely visible.--RadioFan (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Caption

Someone just changed the caption on the animated image of the eclipse so that it's centered. The image right above it needs the same alteration. Ztothefifth (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Extenal Links

Here is a external link - http://www.flickr.com/photos/yatharthgupta/5279878696/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.142.66 (talk)

Pictures

I've also put up this picture in the commons if you want to use it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IMG_3440-2-Watermark.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.142.66 (talk)

I think it will be very good if those pictures would be on the article, however? My question is that the picture in the infobox is a cutout from your picture. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No the picture in the Infobox is not a cutout from my picture. Please feel free to use it in the article anywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Visibility Section

This section needs some hard-core refining. I've never heard that a lunar eclipse could "set" or "rise." I request some changes to that section. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's talking about the moon setting and rising. Ztothefifth (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But can a moon set as a lunar eclipse? Citation Needed 70.62.142.66 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If the eclipse is going on while the moon sets (or rises) at a given viewer's location, then yes, the eclipse certainly can "set" (or "rise"). See the NASA map in the article showing "Eclipse at Moonset" and "Eclipse at Moonrise."Darkest tree (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This eclipse wasn't actually visible from all of North America, as the majority of the continent was "clouded out" that night. --  Denelson83  09:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a report on the visibility of the eclipse? Ztothefifth (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

gallery

There are a ton of photos in the gallery, we probably dont need them all. I've already removed several which are poorly cropped, low res, etc. It would be nice to have several photos of the total eclipse from multiple points on Earth (we are well on our way there) but probably dont need 3 or 4 from Florida for example (though it was one of the few places that had clear skies apparantly). Also the collages showing the progression are nice but we really only enough images to show the complete progression.--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree - three criteria for inclusion - timing (for progression), quality, and location (and lower priority for photos without good timing or location information.) I think we can wait a week or so before cutting back since more might be added, and its better to judge from a whole set. ALSO - the progressions can be moved to a table, so they're easier to see. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Highest altitude?

The coincidence with the solstice should make this the eclipse highest up in the sky for the northern hemisphere in quite a while, right? Maybe somebody with more astronomical knowledge can check this? -- 88.78.218.17 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Moon is highest (greatest northern declination) in the Northern Hemisphere during the winter solstice. Ztothefifth (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual height above the Earth is essentially the same all year. Ztothefifth (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

When totality started, the Moon was almost directly overhead where I live. I had difficulty getting my camera on a tripod to see it. I had to lean the tripod a little. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not on the day of the solstice for everybody

Wikipedia and other sites tell me that the solstice was December 21, 23:38 UTC. That's over 12 hours after the eclipse finished, right? For most residents of the Eastern Hemisphere, the day of the solstice would therefore have been December 22. For more than half the world (obviously including anyone - e.g. "CST" and westward in North America - who saw it start before midnight and end after midnight), the eclipse was either wholly or partly NOT on the same day as the solstice, despite what the article currently says in its first sentence and makes quite a feature about. As someone said elsewhere on this page, the questions of whether this is actually a rare coincidence, and if so is the first such "coincidence" in however many centuries, depends on where you are. Someone good with tables can work out how to display the details. Could be done on the "Local times" table - e.g. just adding more columns and many more partly shaded cells with a note explaining that the shaded-cell times were not the same day as the solstice for that timezone. Robin Patterson (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on December 2010 lunar eclipse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222010045/http://www.citystatetimes.com:80/1888/what-time-is-the-lunar-eclipse-2010-tonight/ to http://www.citystatetimes.com/1888/what-time-is-the-lunar-eclipse-2010-tonight/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)