![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An argument could be made to restore the "In Religion" section. This section was here for a while with no problem, until I expanded the part about how twilight is used in Christianity. The whole section was then removed because "This is an encyclopedia article about the technical aspects of, and the defining "Twilight"." But, I would argue that a high level encyclopedia article is about the notion of a thing. Just like the article for the "Sun" has a religious aspects section, so too, the twilight article warrants one. It's simply further information related to twilight. The notion of twilight isn't limited to its technical aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1618 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear ya. I'm not a zealot or a fanatic or anything. I didn't intend to hijack the article for preaching purposes just to expand on how twilight is significant in the Christian arena. Wikipedia educates the reader "period" not just "about science." Going around taking out religious-related material seems a bit anti-religious. It's relevant information to the topic at-hand. Now, if it was blatant proselytizing, I would agree, that it's not proper. Perhaps there is a compromise? I could trim what I submitted to make it simpler, more directly related? I come with good will, with an open mind to your argument. But "subject closed" kinda shuts down the "Talk" doesn't it? Matt1618 ( talk) 21:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"You don't come with good will. You come with religion." Wow... so religious people are inherently ill-willed? I live by faith and fact. Faith and Reason are entirely compatible - but, this isn't the place for a discussion on that. I'm just sorry, as a relatively new contributor to wikipedia, to find people on here who squash relevant information just because it is religious in nature. "Articles must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Matt1618 ( talk) 06:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
And really all you had to say was, "Hey man, if you'd like to keep the 'In Religion' section, would you mind carving it out into a separate article? Then those who are interested can follow a link and those who aren't can ignore it" and I would have said, "Oh... yeah, sure, no problem." I'm creating a "Twilight (Religious use)" article now. Hopefully you won't mind my simply putting a link to it in the main article. Matt1618 ( talk) 06:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I write articles. They are reviewed and approved. If not by an admin, perhaps by a reviewer. Until that article is reviewed and approved, it is in limbo. OK "Admin approval" technically is incorrect, but the approval fact isn't incorrect.- Pocketthis ( talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I changed Definitions by illumination to the above, and added 4 shots of basically the same scene from two different angles; two at 200mm and two at 80mm, (1st and 3rd: 200mm, 2nd and 4th: 80mm) of our three time periods identified in this article, plus nightfall. That is four comparison shots to end all speculation about what each looks like. I moved around a couple of the other photos that were mislabeled, or in a place with no rationale for it being there. This is the first time since I have been playing in this article, that it makes logical, rational sense to me, with clearly visible comparison photos of each period. Hope you all feel the same way→ Pocketthis ( talk) 17:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that picture at the bottom with a lot of colors is nautical dawn? At nautical dawn the human eye finds it difficult, if not impossible, to discern traces of illumination near the sunset or sunrise point of the horizon as it says in the article. But in that picture it's extremely visible. Nautical dawn is the end of astronomical twilight so it is slightly distinguishable from night, the sky is very dark and that picture has a really bright sky with lots of colors. That picture is probably civil twilight so is too bright for even civil dawn. Showing this at nautical dawn or even civil dawn seems very misleading. This picture needs to be changed. Theultimateboss123 ( talk) 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
But how comes when I clicked the photo, went on more details and looked at the bottom it had lots of sunrise categories such as orange sunrises and grey sunrises linked to the photo. So this photo could be a sunrise and on the other websites including the country websites it did not say this photo is a nautical dawn photo, it just it was a dawn photo. On the Mojave Desert article it says this photo was take moments after Dawn. Another thing the photo contradicts information in the article. Blue Hour happens around civil dawn in-between civil twilight and nautical twilight. Finally, in the morning, the sky is most colorful just before sunrise and the colors wash out slowly during Golden Hour, a period in which the sky is reddish due to the sun being barely above the horizon. I suggest we just say this is a dawn photo. Theultimateboss123 ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I now agree with you Pocketthis. I don't know much of this because I am a relatively new editor. Therefore my edits may be slightly confusing but I am trying to improve my contributions. Theultimateboss123 ( talk) 09:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Twilight. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
When referring to the Sun as a celestial body, the name should be consistently capitalized as a proper noun. serioushat 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any comments on atmospheric refraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~ Kvng ( talk) 11:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
When the sun is between 18° and 24° below the horizon, is it Emerald Campus Twilight or is it night?
I call it Emerald Campus Twilight when the sun is between 18° and 24° below the horizon.
Civil Twilight - between 0 and -6 degrees below the horizon
Nautical Twilight - between -6 and -12 degrees below the horizon
Astronomical Twilight - between -12 and -18 degrees below the horizon
Emerald Campus Twilight - between -18 and -24 degrees below the horizon
-- 98.31.29.4 ( talk) 23:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well my high school was actually
Jerome, but since it currently has twilight school, and because of that I named the fourth twilight phase "Emerald Campus" Twilight.
-- 98.31.29.4 ( talk) 03:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Would a table like this be OK to insert?
Latitude | Summer solstice | Winter solstice | ||
Daylight hours | Civil twilight | Daylight hours | Civil twilight | |
0 | xx:xx | yy:yy | xx:xx | yy:yy |
20 N/S | zz:zz | xx:xx | zz:zz | xx:xx |
40 N/S | yy:yy | zz:zz | yy:yy | zz:zz |
60 N/S | xx:xx | yy:yy | xx:xx | yy:yy |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An argument could be made to restore the "In Religion" section. This section was here for a while with no problem, until I expanded the part about how twilight is used in Christianity. The whole section was then removed because "This is an encyclopedia article about the technical aspects of, and the defining "Twilight"." But, I would argue that a high level encyclopedia article is about the notion of a thing. Just like the article for the "Sun" has a religious aspects section, so too, the twilight article warrants one. It's simply further information related to twilight. The notion of twilight isn't limited to its technical aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1618 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear ya. I'm not a zealot or a fanatic or anything. I didn't intend to hijack the article for preaching purposes just to expand on how twilight is significant in the Christian arena. Wikipedia educates the reader "period" not just "about science." Going around taking out religious-related material seems a bit anti-religious. It's relevant information to the topic at-hand. Now, if it was blatant proselytizing, I would agree, that it's not proper. Perhaps there is a compromise? I could trim what I submitted to make it simpler, more directly related? I come with good will, with an open mind to your argument. But "subject closed" kinda shuts down the "Talk" doesn't it? Matt1618 ( talk) 21:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"You don't come with good will. You come with religion." Wow... so religious people are inherently ill-willed? I live by faith and fact. Faith and Reason are entirely compatible - but, this isn't the place for a discussion on that. I'm just sorry, as a relatively new contributor to wikipedia, to find people on here who squash relevant information just because it is religious in nature. "Articles must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Matt1618 ( talk) 06:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
And really all you had to say was, "Hey man, if you'd like to keep the 'In Religion' section, would you mind carving it out into a separate article? Then those who are interested can follow a link and those who aren't can ignore it" and I would have said, "Oh... yeah, sure, no problem." I'm creating a "Twilight (Religious use)" article now. Hopefully you won't mind my simply putting a link to it in the main article. Matt1618 ( talk) 06:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I write articles. They are reviewed and approved. If not by an admin, perhaps by a reviewer. Until that article is reviewed and approved, it is in limbo. OK "Admin approval" technically is incorrect, but the approval fact isn't incorrect.- Pocketthis ( talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I changed Definitions by illumination to the above, and added 4 shots of basically the same scene from two different angles; two at 200mm and two at 80mm, (1st and 3rd: 200mm, 2nd and 4th: 80mm) of our three time periods identified in this article, plus nightfall. That is four comparison shots to end all speculation about what each looks like. I moved around a couple of the other photos that were mislabeled, or in a place with no rationale for it being there. This is the first time since I have been playing in this article, that it makes logical, rational sense to me, with clearly visible comparison photos of each period. Hope you all feel the same way→ Pocketthis ( talk) 17:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that picture at the bottom with a lot of colors is nautical dawn? At nautical dawn the human eye finds it difficult, if not impossible, to discern traces of illumination near the sunset or sunrise point of the horizon as it says in the article. But in that picture it's extremely visible. Nautical dawn is the end of astronomical twilight so it is slightly distinguishable from night, the sky is very dark and that picture has a really bright sky with lots of colors. That picture is probably civil twilight so is too bright for even civil dawn. Showing this at nautical dawn or even civil dawn seems very misleading. This picture needs to be changed. Theultimateboss123 ( talk) 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
But how comes when I clicked the photo, went on more details and looked at the bottom it had lots of sunrise categories such as orange sunrises and grey sunrises linked to the photo. So this photo could be a sunrise and on the other websites including the country websites it did not say this photo is a nautical dawn photo, it just it was a dawn photo. On the Mojave Desert article it says this photo was take moments after Dawn. Another thing the photo contradicts information in the article. Blue Hour happens around civil dawn in-between civil twilight and nautical twilight. Finally, in the morning, the sky is most colorful just before sunrise and the colors wash out slowly during Golden Hour, a period in which the sky is reddish due to the sun being barely above the horizon. I suggest we just say this is a dawn photo. Theultimateboss123 ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I now agree with you Pocketthis. I don't know much of this because I am a relatively new editor. Therefore my edits may be slightly confusing but I am trying to improve my contributions. Theultimateboss123 ( talk) 09:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Twilight. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
When referring to the Sun as a celestial body, the name should be consistently capitalized as a proper noun. serioushat 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any comments on atmospheric refraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~ Kvng ( talk) 11:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
When the sun is between 18° and 24° below the horizon, is it Emerald Campus Twilight or is it night?
I call it Emerald Campus Twilight when the sun is between 18° and 24° below the horizon.
Civil Twilight - between 0 and -6 degrees below the horizon
Nautical Twilight - between -6 and -12 degrees below the horizon
Astronomical Twilight - between -12 and -18 degrees below the horizon
Emerald Campus Twilight - between -18 and -24 degrees below the horizon
-- 98.31.29.4 ( talk) 23:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well my high school was actually
Jerome, but since it currently has twilight school, and because of that I named the fourth twilight phase "Emerald Campus" Twilight.
-- 98.31.29.4 ( talk) 03:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Would a table like this be OK to insert?
Latitude | Summer solstice | Winter solstice | ||
Daylight hours | Civil twilight | Daylight hours | Civil twilight | |
0 | xx:xx | yy:yy | xx:xx | yy:yy |
20 N/S | zz:zz | xx:xx | zz:zz | xx:xx |
40 N/S | yy:yy | zz:zz | yy:yy | zz:zz |
60 N/S | xx:xx | yy:yy | xx:xx | yy:yy |