Talk:Solar eclipse of 2006 March 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar eclipse of 2006 March 29 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Wikipedia vs Wikinews 2 times & locations 3 Date in Title 4 And on another topic 5 No deletion 6 Eclipse affecting satellite? 7 Q & A 8 move this article to wikinews morons 9 AfD discussion 10 Pic from spacestation 11 with a magnitude of 1.052

[edit] Wikipedia vs Wikinews

Is there a chance that next time such an event is going to happen it will be featured on the Main Page much earlier than this time? Like at least 24 hours before. This way people like me who don't check the Main Page every 15 minutes wouldn't miss it. --84.188.129.101 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source and therefore I don't think the advance notice of the total eclipse is necessary. joturner 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like how people try to pigeonhole Wikipedia. Why can't it be a news source? I'm not saying cover every little thing, but there is news right on the main page, and if someone makes it, it's relevant and informative, why shouldn't it be posted? Is there a time limit that we have to wait before something is no longer considered news and it can be included? Flannel 23:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few good reasons that Wikipedia is not a news source:

1) Wikipedia is not a news source: see section 1.7.5.

2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that it's purpose is not to cover every single issue in the news at up-to-date notice. Rather, it should hold a more traditional encyclopedic role.

3) That's exactly what Wikinews is for. If that's what you're interested in, visit it.

Thanks, Oscabat 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Wikipedia is not a new source. But it is a supposed to be a useful repository of past information - and the astronomical calculation that allow people to predict an eclipse is information/research that has existed for years. Why not present this information in a useful way to users of the encyclopedia? You seem to be saying that advance notice would be acceptable so long as it was tucked away in an article about future eclipses, but it would be wrong for contributors to make use of the dynamic online format of the encyclopedia in order to highlight this information by putting a useful notice on the front page. Or in other words, wikipedia should be hobbled by the restrictions of paper based encyclopedias. Bizarre.

I don't even think this is really a What Wikipedia is not issue, because we are not talking about the content of articles, but rather how that content is displayed and made accessible.

(Dan) --87.80.141.71 01:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct: solar eclipses should have a prediction chart. And they do! It is on the page List of solar eclipses. However, that does not dispute Flannel's proposition. My intentions of sharing Wikipedian policy was to explicitly remind Flannel that Wikipedia is not a news source. And considering that is exactly what he proposed, that is exactly how I answered him. With regards to your statement: this issue would certainly be about the content of the article, as well. If you were to look at the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29, I'm sure that it would specifically detail the dilemma. Oscabat 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe having a seperate article does contradict the news source policy; I don't want to get into that here. But would having a link to the solar eclipse list in the In the News box ahead of the event contradict that policy? Or having a link to a pure wikinews entry in the In the News box? Basically, my narrow point is that since, by displaying current affairs on the front page, Wikipedia is setting itself up as providing a portal to articles on major current events - and that's how some people use it - there should be some way of flagging up a major event which for somewhat technical (and much debated) reasons might not justify its own seperate article. If there is a rule against having a direct link to a wikinews entry on the wikipedia mainpage, I can see why people wanted to get round it by creating a seperate article for this eclipse. Either way, I would still say that *insofar as Wikipedia lists a select number of current events on the main page* it actually is a new source (this being an exception to the background rule), and therefore I can see no objection to advance notice.

(Dan) --138.40.48.14 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the page is heading for deletion, at least save the pictures

Agreed: the pictures certainly do not need to be deleted. Oscabat 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So why is there even a news section on the front page of wikipedia if it isn't a news site? (tweak) --207.202.215.80 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no preference with Wikipedia being or not being a news site, but having "In the news" written on the main page appears to contradict section 1.7.5. 81.165.208.128 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are, keep it, that is to say; storage is cheap and getting cheaper. It does not hurt to leave it, let the astronomy buffs take care of charting the eclipses. I see no harm, other than possibly violating a wikipedia charter. In which case the charter should be amended, or changed via voting (purely on the basis of space, as the article probably takes up about 0.06 kb.) Dude 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] times & locations

I've switched the times from Local to UTC, which I think makes it easier for people to see the photographs as part of a series.

Possibly we should eventually arrange all the images by UTC so that there's some kind of sequence?

Neale Monks 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date in Title

Shouldn't the date in the title be 29 March 2006, not 2006 March 29? I got the impression that the former was the standard for articles with full dates. joturner 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think for neutrality purpose, international date format should be used in title. — Yaohua2000 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

International one would probably be 29 March 2006, wouldn't it? --Revolución hablar ver

See ISO 8601. — Yaohua2000 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dates#Date formats related to topics. Given that Japan, Korea, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are the primary users of the ISO year-month-date format and none of those countries could see the (total) eclipse, it should be date-month-year. joturner 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, try reading the title "Solar eclipes on two thousand and six, march twenty ninth". It doesnt sound right. Perhaps Solar Eclipse (2006-03-29) would be better? Rob.derosa 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And on another topic

Stop press: Charles Taylor disappears under cover of African solar eclipse! (The Onion please copy.)

[edit] No deletion

I was surprized to see that this article was nominated for deletion. It does not seem to violate any of the deletion criteria, and in fact, every eclipse should be described by an article of this kind. I strongly oppose its deletion. Jimzoun 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jimzoun: every article on every subject should be well detailled and included on Wikipedia. Articles like this will help us achieve the eleventy-billionth article. 208.186.100.202 21:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting article about a past event. As such, it fits in just fine. There is no reason to delete the article, but it should be updated to a past-tense perspective. User:Hpa 07:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above posters. If the article is changed to past-tense I think it would provide a good look at the event. S.O.T.A. 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately the majority of voters thought the same way. Nick Mks 12:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipse affecting satellite?

A satellite failed yesterday and the company is blaming [1] this eclipse. Is that possible considering that the satellite is over the Pacific and the eclipse is on the other side of the world? WP 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the satellite was over the pacific, the worse that would have happened was that it passed through the penumbra, so there would be a drop in sunlight reaching the solar cells, but definitely no total block. Plus the fact that this event was totally predictable, and should have been compensated for from the beginning.

Of the numberous GPS satellites that were directly in the umbra as it passed over the equator, how many of them have had problems? Nekura 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article makes it clear that the eclipse has nothing to do with the failure... is it really worth having a complete section about a non-event which seems to be only a bad excuse from incompetent executives of SKY (assuming that the article is correct) ? If we had a "trivia" section, it may be worth a mention, but for now, I'd suggest to remove it (we can leave a mention in Optus Fleet of Satellites). Schutz 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be stupid, no where on that media release does SKY state that the failure was due to the eclipse. They said that it took longer to fix the problem because of the eclipse.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.219.227 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2006.

Please be civil — what is the point of calling people stupid ? Also, (1) this is not what the article was saying when you added your comment, (2) you are splitting hair anyway; the point remains that this is just a silly statement made by an executive, which has not much to do with the eclipse. Schutz 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Resuming the discussion, first: I agree this triviality should disappear, it having at best highly volatile notability.

Assuming a geostationary orbit, the satellite will regularly experience a total eclipse in which the sun is hidden by the earth; these eclipses last slightly over one hour. So it is strange if a presumably much shorter lunar eclipse (the moon and the satellite being in contrary motion) should pose a serious problem.

From a point on the geostationary orbit at the opposite site of the Earth, the eclipse would be annular, the virtual diameter of the moon being 89% of that from Earth at the noon-time side, leaving about 21% of the normal amount of sunlight (0.21 ~ 1 - 0.89²). (Assuming I got all the parameters and maths right.) Lambiam^Talk 12:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q & A

Why did the eclipse start in Brazil (West) and end in Mongolia (East), rather than East to West as the sun does? --sdf 202.161.2.65 04:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the movement of the moon. --195.74.250.44 10:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move this article to wikinews morons

can you tell the difference between an article and news?

Ok, Wikipedia is not a new source. But it is a supposed to be a useful repository of past information - and the astronomical calculation that allow people to predict an eclipse is information/research that has existed for years. Why not present this information in a useful way to users of the encyclopedia? You seem to be saying that advance notice would be acceptable so long as it was tucked away in an article about future eclipses, but it would be wrong for contributors to make use of the dynamic online format of the encyclopedia in order to highlight this information by putting a useful notice on the front page. Or in other words, wikipedia should be hobbled by the restrictions of paper based encyclopedias. Bizarre.

Can somebody please do something about this insulting and unsigned comment? Nick Mks 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_eclipse_on_2006_March_29.  (aeropagitica)  06:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What about removing Afd notice as the conlusion is to keep it? 85.100.151.24 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic from spacestation

[2]

I don't know if this is the only picture, so if someone knows their way around NASA's site better, otherwise this is pretty cool.. --65.25.217.79 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] with a magnitude of 1.052

It isn't clear what that means. Perhaps a link to, or a box with, explanation of all terms used to describe an eclipse would be useful. I thought there was an eclipse, or there was not... Midgley 08:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted an explanation, and also created an article Magnitude of an eclipse with a redirect from Eclipse magnitude. Lambiam^Talk 15:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)