The tag alias #59044 lunar_eclipse -> blood_moon has been rejected.

Reason: Different way to call the same thing

EDIT: The tag alias lunar_eclipse -> blood_moon (forum #346853) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

blood_moon wiki says:
The moon with a red color, often used to symbolize a time of evil.

A lunar eclipse may cause a "blood moon" where the moon takes a redish, blood-like hue, but in art it tends to be more symbolic and less of a lunar eclipse event. Just need to look at posts with the tag to see it's not really used for eclipses.

-1 per Watsit and also just generally preferrring more neutral, less slangy terms.

deleuzian_cattery said:
-1 per Watsit and also just generally preferrring more neutral, less slangy terms.

Not sure what you mean by "less slangy terms"?

And hm, I guess in fantasy/etc pictures you could have a "blood moon" without it being a lunar eclipse, but that would mean relying on some kind of lore piece or evidence of such being the case for this event. Because "blood moon" seems to mean just the appearance of a full lunar eclipse in general vocabulary? Though, is there's some meaning I am not aware of, where one would call something a blood moon without a lunar eclipse happening?

saphirel said:
Though, is there's some meaning I am not aware of, where one would call something a blood moon without a lunar eclipse happening?

In a general sense, a "blood moon" is just the moon colored red as a sign of evil or ill-omen. Typically used alongside monsters or more monstrous-looking creatures, or scenes that have a more foreboding atmosphere. It doesn't have to depict the moon in a state of being eclipsed. Like this:
post #2943052 post #3517387
Those pictures aren't showing a lunar eclipse, but they depict the moon as red to convey a sense of of ill or evil, of something "bad".

Except for Watsit's logic above, I would have recommended an implication, not an alias, the other way around, from blood_moon to lunar_eclipse. While some lunar eclipses can create a "blood moon" (which is not a scientifically-recognized term), not all do. The Moon's reddish color during a lunar eclipse is caused by sunlight refracting through Earth's atmosphere. If Earth had no atmosphere, the Moon would turn black once it was all the way in Earth's shadow. As for the red, that can vary depending on how much aerosols are up and about in Earth's atmosphere. After a suitably large volcanic eruption, the Moon can appear incredibly red, but if Earth's atmosphere is relatively clear, there can appear to be very little red, perhaps virtually none at all.

Other possible non-eclipse events include the Moon shining through haze in the atmosphere, such as the smoke produced by a wildfire. Not only would it not have to occur at an eclipse, it wouldn't necessarily need to occur at the Full Moon, though the effect would certainly be most prominent at that time.

Indeed, there are also other Blood Moons, although those should be tagged with suffixes (assuming they ever get used): an alternate name for the Hunter's Moon, another name for the Mayan goddess Xquic, and one of those obnoxious endtimes prophecies that don't amount to anything.

My recommendation is to keep the tags separate.

clawstripe said:
While some lunar eclipses can create a "blood moon" (which is not a scientifically-recognized term), not all do.

Most definitely! The simplest example of this is that a partial lunar eclipse is still a lunar eclipse, yet partial lunar eclipses rarely result in reddish moons.

The tag alias lunar_eclipse -> blood_moon (forum #346853) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.