Talk:Twilight

Why 6° increments?

It seems to me that there ought to be an explanation for this on the page. JanGB (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Astronomical twilight: Descriptions vs. images

The various images for astronomical twilight don't seem to match the description. The description seems to imply that it is "basically fully dark", differing from true night-time only in that some of the very faintest phenomena will be hidden. But the images seem to be showing a much brighter sky. I'm particularly suspicious of the "Astronomical twilight in Goa" pic in the gallery, as the actual description of the picture doesn't say anything specifically about astronomical twilight. In fact, the description of the pic says that it was taken at 12 January 2011, 18:43:18, which according to this calculator should be after twilight has ended, so I would expect the sky to be even darker. Am I misinterpreting something, or are the pictures and/or their descriptions incorrect? Iapetus (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Image in the section "Astronomical twilight"

I'm suspicious of the second image (at right) at the "Astronomical twilight" section. It appears to be an underexposed photograph of a civil twilight rather than an astronomical twilight, especially because no stars can be seen and because of the distinct colours. Should the photo be moved to the correct section or even removed altogether? Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the image. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Simple approximation?

It would seem appropriate to include the approximation that the twilight time is inversely proportionate to the cosine of the latitude (e.g. civil twilight =~ 24min/ cos LAT = 48min @ 60degrees). Or am I missing something? JdelaF (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Twilight" vs Twilight

User: Kent Dominic You are apparently not aware of the so-called use-mention distinction. Quotes are used for multiple purposes in English, not just to quote someone. One of the uses is to signify that one is referring to the word itself rather than the thing the word normally refers to. Ex: Plants may grow but "plants" has six letters. Do you see? This is an accepted and known fact about English. Please stop undoing the correct changes to signify that in the first paragraph of the article, the last reference is TO THE WORD, not to a time of day. If you insist, it can be italized, but I'd prefer the correct quotes. Chafe66 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chafe66: The Wikipedia article on the Use–mention distinction is an adequate summary of why all lede paragraphs begin with an article title's first mention in boldface type. Subsequent mentions need no further orthographic distinction unless the term is used as a signifier for a separate purpose. The twilight article makes no such distinction. The sentence in question is additionally infirm for two other reasons: (1) it violates the WP:REFERS guidance, and (2) theres's no statement that twilight "can also refer to the periods when this illumination occurs" in the cited reference.

Those two infirmities don't deeply trouble me, but it's clear throughout most of the reference publishing industry that second or subsequent mentions of a term should not be given any orthographic distinction. That's why I said "see MOS:NOITALIC" since Wikipedia takes the majority view. A minority view allows italics in certain cases, which could be argued here, but you haven't made the relevant point that could justify italics. I'll make the salient point for you: The lede sentence gives a scientific definition; the ensuing sentence gives a a colloquial one. I.e., it's the same word and same use but separate sense (linguistics) of the word.

That separate colloquial sense isn't what this article is about, so the entire sentence doesn't rightly belong. I nonetheless see no harm in it despite how other editors might rail how Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Accordingly, I'm about to use my third reversion to offset your third reversion in a 24-hour period as a way to hold us both accountable to the WP:3RR rule. Then I'm going to edit the sentence so that it adheres to the minority reference publishing standard for use-mention distinctions contrary to Wiki guidance on the matter while also addressing items (1) and (2) from above. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're still not getting it. First, MOS:NOITALIC is not relevant in any way to the reason "twilight" needs to be in quotes. That section refers to occasions when one is using titles and whether or not italics should be used. That has nothing to do with this. It's as if you didn't read or understand what I wrote above.

I am not talking about introducing a term in text. Yes, that sometimes gets quotes. That is an entirely different topic. Stay with me here, because I think you believe I'm doing this for a reason that has nothing to do with the actual reason. The point has to do with the distinction between using a term and mentioning a term. The first time the term appears in this article is a USE case. (Whether or not editors decide that should be in bold or italic or neither is immaterial to me.) I.e., it is not a MENTION case. The instance I'm using quotes for is a MENTION case. In that case, quotes or italics are required. In most of the rest of the article the term "twilight" is being USED, not mentioned. I.e., it appears as reference to a time of day, not to the word itself. So of course it gets no special quotes or italics or anything. The second instance of the term in the first paragraph of the article is MENTION case. Do you see the distinction? You did not respond to this above. If not, I don't know what: I gave you the relevant WP page for use-mention and you misinterpreted it somehow to have something to do with how often a word is used in an article.

Also the change you made to the wording and putting "twilight" in italics makes no sense to me. You changed the instance of the term to a use case rather than a mention case so it no longer needs quotes OR italics. Chafe66 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I stopped reading after "you're still not getting it." I'm open to having a civil conversation about the article but not about opinions regarding editors. Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"You're not getting it" is completely civil. You are not appreciating the issue--I don't know how else to say it. It's not an opinion about you either. It's a statement about your response. Chafe66 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:Civility > No personal attacks > Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Opinions about what an editor doesn't get is unrelated to any article. To repeat, "I'm open to having a civil conversation about the article but not about opinions regarding editors." Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey we have something else to disagree on! Saying someone doesn't get something is not a "personal attack" by any stretch of the imagination. It is, however, related to our discussion. I'll go one further though: even admins dish out and can take rougher discourse than "you're not getting it." Chafe66 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Comment on content, not on the contributor" guidance also applies to uncivil verbiage in edit summaries, e.g.:

• "I guess you don't understand the other uses of quotes"
• "Please stop undoing this necessary change" (i.e., hortative comment re another editor) versus "unncessary change."
• "Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction"

Even "User is making repeated bold edits without consideration of past editors [sic] choices or preferences" is intrinsically uncivil versus "The edit contrasts consideration of past editors' choices or preferences..."

In retrospect, I'm remiss in not flagging the Wiki's guidance on civility at the outset of this talk page topic. "You are apparently not aware of the so-called use-mention distinction", versus "(I believe) The use-mention distinction applies", should have prompted me accordingly. The relevant guidance: "Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages." This reply would stand rightly accused of ignoring that very Wiki policy. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This is silly. No amount of quoting WP is going to convince anyone that "you're not getting it" is uncivil. But since you won't let go of this notion, I took a few minutes to get more instruction on how to always be civil by glancing at your talk page. Here are some highlights:

“And now you, [username], repeatedly refuse or otherwise fail to consider…”

“It seems you have a some learning to do...”

“If you had read closely, you'd see that…”

“I challenge you to shore up your linguistic chops before any reply”

“It annoys me, however, when people say their preferred way of looking at it is correct, exclusive concepts and opinions to the contrary. You, [username], have a proclivity for doing precisely that.”

“I really do get the impression that you're [sic] argue not to reach greater understand but to for some other reason that I don't wish to fathom”

Telling other WP editors that they "repeatedly fail to consider" or "have some learning to do" or that they're not arguing in good faith all seem at least as "uncivil" as "you're not getting it." In fact, they seem worse! You might consider your own behavior before lecturing others on what is and is not civil. Chafe66 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I neglected to undo @Chafe66's reversion before editing the text in dispute, but the edit still counts toward my 3RR quota for the day. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)