Talk:Transit of Phobos from Mars

message: The event could also be referred to as a partial occultation (or, popularly but inaccurately, a partial eclipse) of the Sun by Phobos.
Query: Why is this incorrect terminology?  According to eclipse, an eclipse “is an astronomical event that occurs when one celestial object moves into the shadow of another”.  Isn’t this what happens with Phobos and the Sun?   And why is this transit covered in the eclipse article, if it isn’t an eclipse?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think whoever wrote this got it the wrong way around.  A transit is a partial eclipse, or an eclipse that is short of a total eclipse, but not an occultation, which is when the closer object appears larger than the more distant object.  In this case, Phobos appears smaller than the sun. Hyalos (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on further review, there's a inconsistency of definition on the page on "Astronomical transit" compared to the on  on the page "Occultation. Hyalos (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've straightened these out after consulting dictionaries and a couple of NASA sites.  See Talk:Eclipse for more detail (and a bit of a rant).  Every once and a while someone puts in "corrections" of widely accepted terminology without bothering to check sources.  Another one was the notion that the "Western Pacific" was the part of the ocean in the western hemisphere -- which the rest of the world calls the "Eastern Pacific" (and vice versa) --Dmh (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not an eclipse?

message: Nothing editorial here, just wanted to record my opinion that using simultaneous observations from the lander and orbiter to verify the lander's position was a very nice piece of work! --Dmh (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viking lander and orbiter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Transit of Phobos from Mars. 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/20070311073059/http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0403241.html to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0403241.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311073320/http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0403242.html to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0403242.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In general, I am of the mind that Wikipedia articles should convey information and to do that one needs to be clear on wording.
In the article it appears to jump back and forth and be careless about what it is referring to.
It seems to say in parts that transits or partial eclipses of Phobos can only be seen between 
70.4°S to 70.4°N on Mars, but then at other places it might imply that Phobos itself can only 
be seen between 70.4°S to 70.4°N.  Transits might be seen at at different times in a Martian 
day, but it does not seem obvious to me that a transit could be seen anywhere that Phobos could 
be seen because this would also be dependent on the apparent location of the Sun in the Martian 
sky as well.  
Can Phobos itself not be seen beyond the band near the equator but transits be seen anywhere that 
Phobos can be seen, or is the listed band near the equator where transits can only be seen but 
Phobos can be seen further south or north than the transits?
Since this is the main point of the article, it would seem to me to be helpful to readers if this 
were clarified.
75.164.67.49 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Wording in Article