Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No delete argument here counteracts the arguments that it has the sources to meet notability. CitiCat ♫ 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

  • 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Transwiki to Wikinews and Delete from Wikipedia. The basic question is, are individual lunar eclipses, which are events that happen typically twice per year somewhere in the world, really notable enough events that each should get individual Wikipedia articles? I don't thinks so. To me, events of this kind are what Wikinews is for, not Wikipedia. There was an earlier AfD for the 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse in which the decision came out to be a weak keep. I think the issue should be revisited in light of the creation of another article on the latest eclipse. I've also renominated that article for deletion as part of this AfD. Peter G Werner 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This can be summed up as "exactly the same thing happened that always happens". A lunar eclipse is not particularly special or noteworthy. It would be sufficient to include it on List of lunar eclipses. Adam Bishop 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not particularly notable among lunar eclipses. MarkBul 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. It's like having a seperate article for each day the Sun rises. Toomai Glittershine 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Actually, I think we do have an article for each day the sun rises. They aren't about the sun rise but they are about the day. ;) IvoShandor 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Genuine? I am not quite sure what you mean there. Seems the 3 March eclipse was also total. IvoShandor 07:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep was front page in Philippine Daily Inquirer yesterday and front page today in Philippine Star. Report of lunar eclipse also found its way on 24 Oras. Too bad I did not see it in person *shakes fist against clouds* --Lenticel (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per nom.--JForget 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Total eclipses should either have their own article or have one article for all total eclipses.Robotboy2008 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike solar eclipses, an eclipses of the moon happen regularly enough that they individual events are not that notable. Mandsford 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Commetn That's not true. Solar eclipses happen pretty often, but the difference is that they can only be seen from a very small part of the world, unlike lunar eclipses which can be seen about half of the world. --Itub 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given by Adam Bishop above. Deor 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others have said, lunar eclipses aren't that rare or notable individually. All the article tells us is when and where, which could be dealt with by creating a much better List of lunar eclipses. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: both per nom. IvoShandor 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete per nom. Jac roeBlank 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Pictures are worth adding to Commons at least Mbisanz 02:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Smerge to List of lunar eclipses Not everything that appears in the newspaper needs a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Edison 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Not every lunar eclipse appears in newspapers.--Lenticel (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Transwiki is not an option. as Wikinews uses CC-by, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL content --lucid 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In English, please. Peter G Werner 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Transwiki is not a valid option because of copyright law. --lucid 07:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That might be true of images (though I believe many of them are on Commons already, anyway), but that's not true of article text. Peter G Werner 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) OK, I see where this is stated. I wonder who's brilliant idea it was to put the different Wikis under incompatible licenses. Peter G Werner 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is ridiculous. Of course keep it. It's an unusual event! This gets to stay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards Wikipedia repects celebrities more than the solar system? I can't believe this is even being debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestorInYou (talk • contribs) 03:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't a valid argument, as explained by WP:OTHERSTUFF. And any particular lunar eclipse is not usually historically interesting. You have to ask yourself, in 10 years will people remember who won the Best Picture Oscar in 2006? I'd guess yes. But in 10 years will anyone remember there was a lunar eclipse in 2007? Also if you don't think we should have an article on the 79th Academy Awards, nominate that article for deletion. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • He's not saying we should delete the 79th academy awards article, but I don't think either event most people actually take seriously. I remembered the last lunar eclipse, but I don't even have a clue about last year's Oscars. 220.101.40.105 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep people have thought these notable for thousands of years, and recorded each one carefully. Two a year does not seem like an excessive number. given that there are two a year, yes, people will remember 10 years from now -- or a hundred years from now--that there were some in 2007. Long after the academy awards are a matter for specialists in bygone popular culture trivia, they will be notable. This is the essence of encyclopedic content. ITDOESNTINTERESTME is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A lunar eclipse hight not be important to you, but to others it is. Every lunar eclipse has something special to say. For example, people in Australia were able to see a lunar eclipse for the first time since 2000! Removing this fact is removing information from an encyclopedia! To sum up, think about others and not just yourself. Hohohob 07:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    But the eclipse would not be removed from the encyclopedia - it would still be listed. If kept, it would end up being a short little stub with almost no useful information in it. Why does it deserve its own article simply because a certain group of people got to see it? —Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into a list of lunar eclipses. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If each lunar eclipse event is a fantastically notable event, then why has no one bothered to contribute an article on any lunar eclipse event prior to 2007? If each was such a historic, notable event, surely these prior events would still be notable a few years later. Peter G Werner 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This debate is getting a bit heated (not terribly) but let's all try to remember to assume good faith here.IvoShandor 07:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes there is nothing particularly unique about a lunar eclipse. A total lunar eclipse (85 in a century) is a bit more rare. A full blood total lunar eclipse (getting even more rare). This eclipse produced spectacular images compared to other total lunar eclipses. I don't mind deleting it later down the track, but people who were watching the sky last night and want to find out about it specifically can look at this article. Keep it for now and delete it in a month or two. Handmedown 08:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The article makes not a mention of this, and the images look strikingly similar to those in 3 March lunar eclipse article to the untrained eye. IvoShandor 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for precisely the same reason. Gorman 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 'KEEP! This is a very good example of a well-documented phenomenon; this event, for whatever reasons, brought, and continues to bring, people together. This is part of the magic which is, after all, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.229.201 (talk) 09:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
    A well-documented phenomenon doesn't mean that each event needs to be captured independently - that actually ends up either spreading good information out across many articles, or results is in massive duplication of information across articles. It would be better to capture this RECURRING well-documented phenomenon in a central place that discusses it properly: Lunar_eclipse —Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep!, It is informative because this 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse article is one of the longest eclipse this century because I see the actual lunar eclipse outside to my house that moon is appear color orange.--Joseph Solis in Australia 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete since I was not able to see it. --Howard the Duck 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
*That's got to be the most laughable argument I've ever seen on AfD. What's next, delete World War II because I was not able to see it? --Itub 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Chill, my vote was half-sarcastic to the vote above mine... --Howard the Duck 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Delete, seriously now. Lunar eclipses (and all other eclipses in general) aren't that notable. First, something should have happened to make that eclipse notable - for example, if two nations go to war because of the eclipse, then it may be notable, but then again it will be under the article about that war. Another way for making eclipses notable is if scientists discover anything new. I haven't heard any new findings by scientists in order to make this eclipse notable. --Howard the Duck 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Gorman. --DandanxD 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seems to me that a lot of the keeps are based solely upon "because I like it." IvoShandor 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For the reasons that Handmedown gave, then maybe merge into a article covering other lunar eclipses (maybe by year). --Leaderofearth 11:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I consider keeping it justifiable under WP:5P, "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" (emphasis added), and WP:NOTPAPER. It is certainly notable in the sense that there are many reliable sources about it, and it is also useful to people interested in eclipses (before someone adds a link to WP:USEFUL, please read all of it). Wikipedia has over a million articles. Having potentially a few hundred articles about eclipses is not excessive coverage IMO; it's certainly not comparable to having an article about every sunrise as some have suggested! --Itub 11:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • But to actually make it useful, wouldn't it be better to have similar events collected together so that a good, formal explanation of the event and why it is special could be addressed in one place? —Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is very useful to have a table collecting all the eclipses, and there is such a table already: List of lunar eclipses. However, having articles about individual eclipses let us add more information that's not possible to fit in a small table entry. For example, pictures, detailed information about the time and visibility of the eclipse, media coverage, and (perhaps in some cases) notable events related to the eclipse. Whether this would be excessive detail or not, well, that's where we disagree. --Itub 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What I meant was that either in the lunar eclipse article, or in a separate "total lunar eclipse" article, the exact topics which you mention could be covered in a more centralized fashion. I have no problem with the information contained in the nominated article - it's the fact that this is something that happens over and over and could easily be addressed with one article rather than lots. —Mrand T-C 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It wasn't visible at all in Europe. --Minimaki 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And the point is...? --Itub 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ...per Howard the Duck of course :) --Minimaki 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As in disrupting the AfD process with jokes in order to make a WP:POINT? --Itub 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As in making this nomination less confrontational? --Howard the Duck 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both articles. Being total lunar eclipses qualifies them as notable in my book. Gandalf61 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: In response to Mrand's dismissive comments below, I will be more explicit about my reasons for keeping both articles: WP:NOTABLE says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article". Both total eclipses have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's current policy, both total eclipses are notable. Therefore nominator's claim that they are not notable is incorrect. This claim possibly arises from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of "notable". Gandalf61 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your position. While the topic has been significantly covered, further down in WP:NOTABLE, it explains how Notability is not temporary. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of temporary notability. What would not be temporary is an article on all total lunar eclipse's that have happened, explaining why they are rare and where they were visable from. Best regards. —Mrand T-C 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly the point I've been trying to get across. These articles are prime examples of "presentism". This most recent eclipse might be noteworthy right now, but they won't be noteworthy even next year. If each and every total eclipse event is a unique and noteworthy event, then why no article on the September 16, 1997 total lunar eclipse? Why is this not noteworthy still 10 years later? Perhaps because total lunar eclipses are not as fantastically unique and noteworthy events as proponents of these article are stating? Peter G Werner 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no valid arguments are being offered for keeping. The mere existence of the lunar eclipses does not warrant an article on it. If there were something otherwise notable about the eclipses then fine, but there wasn't. Otto4711 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Per reasons given above by Otto4711, Adam Bishop, MarkBul, Evil Monkey, and others. Itub looks to be the only one actually attempting to offer a valid reason.—Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per DGG's argument and Itub's reasonable considerations. Non-notability is definitely one of the most absurd and (alas) abused strategies to remove valuable knowledge from WP. --DarTar 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG, DarTar and Itub. Full eclipses are per se notable, unless otherwise shown, and do not waste space. Bearian 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope whoever is closing the AfD looks at the strengths of the arguments made and not just at sheer numbers – there are some fantastically poor arguments being floated by proponents of keeping this article. So far, the only argument I've seen is that total lunar eclipse events just are notable, in and of themselves. This is an assertion, not an argument. Peter G Werner 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Peter, when you say "This is an assertion, not an argument" it looks as if you're suggesting that notability arguments brought by users in favour of keeping are themselves non-notable. I encourage too the person who is closing the AfD not to look just at sheer numbers but at WP's notability policy about coverage in independent sources referred to by Gandalf61. While this criterion is reasonably objective (i.e. measurable) and should provide a definite argument in favour of notability, the "temporary notability" argument (how long will this event survive) looks fairly speculative and contrary to the spirit of an encyclopedia (it could be virtually applied to any recent WP addition). Moreover, since the outcome of the previous AfD vote for the 3 March was a weak keep or merge (i.e. deletion was excluded), I wonder if it's technically possible to reopen a vote for deletion for that article as you did --DarTar 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Save keep this option. Not every eclipse happens in the same places every year, and Eclipses are not that common. If they are, why are there only going to be two total eclipses between 2008 and 2010? I would like to have page dedicated to a specific eclipse that way its easier to find in search engines -Orioncali 5:57, 29 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orioncali (talk • contribs)
    • First, please start your comments at the bottom of the AfD rather than than put them into the middle of the AfD header itself like you just did. As for your argument, have a look at list of lunar eclipses – total lunar eclipses are not a terribly rare or unusual even. In a given 4 year period, there will typically be a string of 3-4, roughly 6 months apart, over a 1 1/2 year period, then 2 1/2 years of only partial eclipses. Each event will be visible anywhere in the world in which it is night at the time the eclipse takes place. That does not amount to a rare event by a long shot. Peter G Werner 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep or merge into single article lunar ecliopses are notable per se. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 23:10, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just have to say, the occurrence of something is not a reliable indicator of notability. Hurricanes happen plenty of times a year, and probably get much less media coverage, but I can promise you that most of them will have articles, because they are an interesting event with reliable media coverage. That said, I think I'd rather personally see the articles done in a combined format, say, "Lunar eclipses from 1990-2000" and so on, with their articles remade into sections. This would allow people to gain more useful info from them than a table or list, while at the same time being easier to read and allowing a good place for pictures that represent them, and not having a wide array of articles that will probably never have any real content --lucid 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the NASA the 28 August Eclipse was the deepest and longest in 7 years. I've updated the article accordingly quoting two distinct sources. --DarTar 00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The original reason for this nomination isn't valid. The fact that such eclipses are not rare isn't a reason for deletion. Politicians and baseball players aren't rare but nobody deletes them because we've got twenty articles on other politicians already. These are scientifically significant events which get widespread media coverage and the more proper science on wikipedia the better in my opinion. Nick mallory 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it obviously passes the standard criterion of being covered by multiple reliable sources. Beyond that, many references and reasons for notability have been added. This is a worthwhile article. -- Renesis (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of lunar eclipses. There is no more a need for articles on individual eclipses then there are for articles on individual solstices and equinoxes. DCEdwards1966 03:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree with both Edison and DeEdwards1966, it seems a worthwhile at a glance but who is going to remember this eclipse from when years go by? Merge to List of lunar eclipses.--PrestonH 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by Nick mallory and Renesis. This event got substantial media coverage. Thin Arthur 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Wikipedia isn't a news guide. There is WikiNews for this type of thing. RobJ1981 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Please make an effort to read the discussion before you reply. It was already very clearly said that we cannot transwiki this to Wikinews --lucid 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of lunar eclipses. There is nothing significant about this lunar eclipse over others. -- Whpq 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Okay, I finally found this page after improving the article. List of lunar eclipses is a great starting point, but specifics on each eclipse are interesting and worthy. I'd support one article for EVERY historical eclipse, if there's information and energy to give information about each. A lunar eclipse is a world-wide event, each visible around more than half the earth, with differences in the umbral appearance from the season and weather on earth. Nasa's summary graphics are great for "predictive" qualities, but post-eclipse observations are also worthy, even if just a gallery of good photos to compare. Just because we have a small start doesn't mean its unworthy to keep. Tom Ruen 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP - certainly a notable event, and there is no justification to delete on the basis of notability. It IS a notable event, and should be kept.--Paaerduag 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is indeed note-worthy, and the article's content is unique the eclipse and sourced. If it was to be deleted/merged maybe we could have a page for each year there are some eclipses and have a different section for each eclipse. If that still seems like too many article maybe an article for each decade detailing each eclipse therein? But I support keeping it. Cheers, Rothery 01:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC).
  • comment we have two million articles we can afford to have two more a year. It should be totally unnecessary to compromise to fit in minute increments like this. The effort in maintaining the extra articles and the load on the servers will have proven much less than the time effort and server load wasted in bringing this afd and needing to defend. But lets hope it has at least educated the people who argued such things as that individual eclipses were not unique! goes to show how badly we need increased coverage of the really important things in the real world. DGG (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Educated? So far, the "keep" folks haven't managed to argue anything at all except that a lot of people apparently WANT articles on individual eclipses. I have yet to read any clear, concrete argument as to what exactly is "unique" about each total eclipse event. Nobody has answered my point about why, if each total lunar eclipse is a fantastically unique and notable event, why there are no articles about such events prior to 2007. And I'll point to this specific event again – the September 16, 1997 total lunar eclipse. I throw that out as a challenge. Why no article if this was a unique and notable event? Does anybody even remember this event and what was unique about it, even 10 year later? And I can tell the reason why nobody can recall what was unique about this event – it wasn't. And I don't think the August 28, 2007 total eclipse will be any more remembered in 10 years. And DGG, I have to say, the whole reason I think you're even arguing this point is out of a totally knee-jerk sense of inclusionism. I actually count myself as an inclusionist in my Wikipedia philosophy, but inclusion of articles like this push this idea to the point of utter ridiculousness. Peter G Werner 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment (reponse to Werner) - since "similar stuff exists" is not recognised as a convincing argument for keeping an article, then "similar stuff does not exist" is likewise not a convincing argument for deletion. Also, do not dismiss the fact that this discussion shows that a lot of people WANT articles on individual eclipses - this is fundamental, not irrelevant. It shows that there is a consensus forming here, which maybe needs to be recorded in a guideline that specifically defines a threshold of notability for astronomical events (in the same way as we have WP:NUMBER for articles on numbers). Gandalf61 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Are there actually people arguing we should be deleting articles because of server load, and hard disc space? Are there actually people arguing we should be keeping articles because of there isn't a problem with server load, and hard disc space? Evil Monkey - Hello 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using the hard drive space argument. I'm aware Wikipedia isn't paper. I simply don't think having multiple articles on nearly identical events is at all a good idea. Peter G Werner 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I was replying to DGG, not your comment :-) He seems to be suggesting that since Wikipedia is not paper we shouldn't delete the article (and I want the article deleted as well you). Evil Monkey - Hello 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. They are sourced, notable, informative, and wiki is not paper, so why not? They don't have to be "particularly special or noteworthy" in my opinion, I see no reason to delete the articles. Melsaran (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggest the creation of articles on individual Saros cycle series. Once Saros cycle series 128 exists there would be no reason at all to keep this article, whilst at the same time preserving any noteable content, thus not restricting the event to one line of a table. BeL1EveR 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless or until an alternative solution is implemented. The event is notable enough to justify more than a line in a table, on the basis that many relatively minor hurricanes, floods and earthquakes justify their own articles, often despite similar or less media coverage. BeL1EveR 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment most minor hurricanes/typhoons, tropical storms and tropical depressions do not have articles and are just sections within their respective season pages. --Howard the Duck 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, everyone at our place still remembers Typhoon Xangsane (2006), while everybody probably forgot about the lunar eclipse. --Howard the Duck 00:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into a new article, for example, 21st century lunar eclipses and add info about others.--Svetovid 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (trying to be constructive in spite of the notability vs. non-notability discussions that risk to become pure metaphysics) Instead of debating about whether an eclipse is notable or unique per se, can we please look at the AfD proposal from the following angle. An article was proposed for deletion, in the meantime it has been expanded by several users with information that is detailed, well-formed according to WP guidelines, scientifically valid and supported by several references. Merging such an article in a long list of eclipses would simply be impossible because the list would immediately become unreadable. So the references, pictures and astronomical details (i.e., everything that makes the article worth keeping) should inevitably be dropped. So I'd like to ask frankly to those who still believe the article should be deleted as of the latest revision: do you really consider the information the article contains irrelevant/not worth being kept on WP? In my opinion what happened since the AfD was opened is precisely the opposite: an article that was still a stub (and as such more or less plausibly eligible for deletion) has now grown into a text with rich, detailed and authoritative information that I just can't see how people may ever want to delete. --DarTar 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This eclipse happens again? The same one? It has happened before, so apparently I can create an exact replica of this article for the 1989 eclipse (with some different photos). This doesn't seem to make it uniquely notable. How do scientists weight this? Does this particular eclipse have its own name, because if this is a cycle the potential is that a huge number of identical articles can be created. This new information seems to imply that each eclipse is not unique and is in fact the same as others, it would seem to me that this article is probably mistitled at the best and misleading at the worst. IvoShandor 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Eclipses repeat in patterns which are similar so grouped as numbered series. The Saros cycle, 18 years 10 days, but shift slightly. These shifts mean the series has a definite beginning and end, over hundreds of years and dozens of cycles. That's the geometry of the eclipse in a 3-body problem. However the orientation of the earth's rotation will be different, so it will repeat at a different time. Secondly photographs of two lunar eclipses from the same series MAY look very similar, but could also look different too - since the red light inside the shadow comes from refraction of light through the earth's atmosphere, so the existence and distribution of clouds will affect the darkness and color. It would certainly be interesting to compare photos eclipses of the same series, and their similiarities and differences are what make them interesting to observe and record. Tom Ruen 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For Saros series, I have a quick reference of charts for each series and occurance. Each column is on 18 year period, and each row is a single saros series, so moving left to right shows a very slow progression of the moon's centering in the shadow from south to north. [1] My graphics are simple, not overly worthy of Wikipedia, but better than the Nasa ones, since it shows some of the stars and constellations a little. You can see the background stars shift ~10 degrees left between occurances. Tom Ruen 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - reply to Ivo Shandor - lunar eclipses that occur at equivalent places in the Saros cycle are not identical. The eclipse tracks will be different; the position of the Moon against the background of fixed stars will be different; visibility will be different. All that is the same is the relative positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun (and even that similarity is only approximate). Saros cycles are simply a convenient way of grouping lunar eclipses - you can think of them as being the astronomical equivalent of hurricane seasons. Gandalf61 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.