Talk:Solar eclipse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Last Eclispe

last time read that the eclipses will be impossible even with moon at perigee and earth at perihelion. While this is true, eclipses are more likely at *aphelion* as the sun appears smaller. I have changed the article to reflect this.

Old comments

Is it me, or does starting this article "Solar Eclipse is also an alien friend of the rubber doll Betty Spaghetty" make it look a little less authoratative?

--217.137.254.3 01:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Put your text for the new page here.

Attn.: For user Tarquin (and other wikipediholic editors): I am not an astronomer but I have a long list of historical solar and lunar eclipses. (Collecting them is just like collecting stamps.) Many old books list a few and there are internet sites that already list some, even show their original Greek text, etc. Your expertise and energy would be appreciated if we want Wikipedia be the most competent, with the longest and best list. The only difficulty is that some key dates (absolute dates) should be accepted by the hundreds of Wikipedia editors before we propose massive changes. But perhaps I am wrong. It is a serious difficulty. For example, if we (you) accept that Romulus reigned from 746 to 709 BCE, then the historical Tarquin (i.e., Lucius Tarquinius Superbus) must have reigned from 530-505, and not till 509 BCE as the conventional books claim. Can I try to input those revised dates for all reigns? There is a continuous list on my desk of the kings and rulers from the Fall of Troy to 168 BCE, the traditional date of the battle of Pydna. Not every question has been resolved but it could be done. I would appreciate some comments from any editor, also encouragement to do those numerous changes. (I am still new here, and do not want to make anyone upset.) For example, this proposed new chronology places the Gaul conquest of Rome to 386 BCE. Some editors may like to date it to 390 BCE, and they must read several pages before they would be convinced that the old date is not too correct. Or, dates of consular years of hundreds of consuls may chane if I do that. (I am not sure if the names of those consuls are already in the Wikipedia at all. Probably most of them not yet. Do we have room to have a place for all of them?) (User:zasimon)= zasimon@hotmail.com

Well we can certainly start a new article List of historical eclipses. But as for changing dates, I'm don't know enough about the subject to form a valid opinion. -- Tarquin 23:22 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

---

Are these dates Julian, Gregorian, proleptic, or what? -phma

---

The recent historical addition is a bit hard to follow -- the word Varronian precedes any mention of Varro and the general significance of "the Varronian date" is not clear to the average encyclopedia reader (that is, me). Varro is never identified, but the only Varro I see was many hundreds of years after this eclipse.

Long paragraphs don't help. Maybe this information would be better in a chronological list:

• date, place, source, points of interest and significance

I don't understand the reference to a "real eclipse", nor to the person who was "conceived in the womb" (in contrast to Athena, conceived in the brow of Zeus?), and Hinds and Chambers had something to say about "a century ago", but they said it in 1889, so I don't know which century is referenced. All that stuff about when the first day of Thoth fell in 753 BC seems overkill, just give the date in a commonly accepted form and let the surviving ancient Egyptians work it out on their calculators.

As for the dates, I thought it was possible to date historical events from eclipses, not the other way around. If this is not so, the article should explain why there is any dispute about the date of any eclipse in historical times. Ortolan88

---

The 2005 article talks of a hybrid solar eclipse occuring on April 8 of that year. Maybe this article should explain what is meant by a hybrid solar eclipse as opposed to a regular solar eclipse.

Added a paragraph based on the footnote here. Comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Lists of eclipses

I don't think the lists of 'Longest solar eclipses' adds much to this article. The range of years is too wide to be particularly interesting.

A list of historically significant eclipses (Eg. Arthur Eddington's 1919 photographic confirmation of general relativity), coupled with dates, path and average duration of the better eclipses in say the next five years would be more useful. See for example the table at Transit_of_Venus#Past_and_future_transits. - Solipsist 20:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a table of upcoming events. Since solar eclipses are fairly rare, we could probably list all the eclipses of the 21st century. But now that I think of it, that should have its own article. ACW 19:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK removed the eclipses by duration list to talk page. And made a start on a selected list of significant eclipses in the past and near future.

Longest solar eclipses between 0 and 3000

Total solar eclipses

Date	Duration
July 16, 2186	7m29s
July 5, 2168	7m26s
June 27, 363	7m24s
July 27, 2204	7m22s
July 8, 381	7m22s
June 9, 1062	7m20s
June 20, 1080	7m18s
June 16, 345	7m17s
June 3, 699	7m16s
June 13, 717	7m15s
June 1, 132	7m14s
June 24, 2150	7m14s
May 29, 1044	7m12s
June 25, 2522	7m12s
June 12, 150	7m12s
July 19, 399	7m11s
July 3, 2885	7m11s
June 14, 2504	7m10s
June 23, 2867	7m10s
May 23, 681	7m09s
June 20, 1955	7m08s
August 8, 2222	7m06s
May 22, 114	7m05s
July 1, 1098	7m05s
June 8, 1937	7m04s
June 30, 1973	7m04s
July 5, 2540	7m04s
July 16, 2903	7m04s
June 6, 327	7m03s
June 22, 168	7m02s
June 25, 735	7m02s
June 12, 2849	7m00s

The greatest duration of the total phase of a total solar eclipse in the 21st century will occur at the eclipse on July 22, 2009 with 6m39s.

Annular solar eclipses

Date	Duration
December 7, 150	12m24s
November 25, 132	12m16s
December 17, 168	12m15s
December 14, 1955	12m09s
January 14, 3080	12m09s
January 24, 3098	12m05s
December 24, 1973	12m03s
December 25, 1628	12m02s
December 2, 1937	12m00s

The greatest duration of the annular phase of an annular solar eclipse in the 21st century will occur at the eclipse on January 15, 2010 with 11m08s. -- Solipsist 07:34, 8 May 2005

Do we really need partial eclipses in the table of Past and Future eclipses? -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

Calculating circumstances of solar eclipses

Do we want to have more details about how to predict eclipses? I can research this, if anybody thinks anyone would ever be interested.

ACW 19:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the type of information that should be included. If you can find some good references, and have time for a write up, please include it! I would like to know more!204.76.128.217 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dire warnings

Are all the warnings about observing eclipses really appropriate in an encyclopedia? I don't think they are. (FWIW, I think there is a great deal of needlessly alarmist talk about eye damage during eclipses, but that's by the by and purely IMHO.) I just don't see what place these nanny-ish warnings have in an encyclopedic article. 143.252.80.124 20:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering how much true are these warnings - I never heard about anyone who suffered permanent retinal damage from looking at an eclipse without proper equipment. I know that a lot of people use various home-made filters though, so IMO these warnings seem to be exaggerated. Can anyone provide me with some info about this? Walter Smith 13:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either way, no one seems to have read the warning too carefully - I've just fixed a fairly blatant error.

You probably need to talk to an optometrist, but I would expect that it is not uncommon to see minor retina damage and blind spots from people watching solar eclipses. However, as you will know if you have ever done the experiment were you can make your finger disappear when it is projected onto your optic nerve, it is possible for relatively large spots of damage to go unnoticed by most people. I don't know how permanent this damage is.

If I recall, the biggest risk is in observing the corona through binoculars or a telescope. In such situations the corona is still quite faint, so you don't use the solar filter that may have come with your telescope. The increase in brightness after 3rd contact is quite rapid and you can quickly end up in a situation where you are looking at the sun through a telescope without filters which will cause significant retinal damage. I was photographing the 1999 eclipse through a reasonably powerfull telephoto lens, so I took a similar risk, but was careful enough to fire off the last frames as the sun reappeared without resighting through the view finder.

I think the other problem comes with people using the milar glasses (and worse, smoked glass and film negatives) to watch the partial phases of the eclipse. I'm not sure of the details, be I think the milar can contain pinhole imperfections that causes problems. It is also strongly in human nature to look towards the sun unprotected before putting the glasses on. Even knowing the warnings, you are very likely to do this many times in the hour before the total eclipse starts. When driving away from the 99 eclipse, I was certainly aware that I had picked up many temporary green spots in the centre of my vision due to photopigment burn out. I haven't yet had my eyes checked to see if there is any permanent damage.

It is likely that thousands of non-scientific people will turn to Wikipedia before each major eclipse. So overall, yes, I think the warnings are a good idea and in fact could be improved a bit. The best idea might be to move the primary warning to a coloured sidebar, with a link to an article explaining the problems and types of damage in depth, that could include most of the 'Viewing information' section. -- Solipsist 14:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eye damage certainly does occur during eclipses; I believe we have a duty to warn people about this. However, I think the warning that was there was a bit overdone and repetitive. It also encouraged looking at totality through a telescope, which I think is irresponsible for the reasons outlined by Solipsist above. I have therefore clarified things a bit and added some links to good external sources. — Johantheghost 11:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering, is it actually more harmful to view the sun during a solar eclipse than it is normally? Or do we hear about all these warnings just because people tend to look at the sun during an eclipse?

--Scaryice 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, I've put the reasons into the main article. Unfortunately I've not found references for them yet. I've left the preceding paragraph as is, as it is basically true, just not the whole story. Maybe somebody might want to tidy them back into one section. One reference on the news story is http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=49897, I don't know where you'd get something more authorative. Are eye-damage warnings appropriate in the wiki? Yes, but very few people get damaged, far fewer than auto accicdents, so I guess it doesn't need to be overplayed, just truthful. NeilUK 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Damnit, just missed the pathetic partial over the UK this morning!!!.

Reformat them if you must, but keep the warnings as the effects are quite real. My husband stared at a partial eclipse for a few minutes when he was a teenager and every eye doctor he has seen since will comment on this without him ever mentioning it. "Hmm, stared at a partial eclipse, I see . .. ". They say they can clearly see the small crescent burned into the back of his eye. It doesn't seem to effect his vision overall, but such actions should probably still be avoided. Since people are starting to turn to Wiki more and more for information, I think a section on why you shouldn't stare at an eclipse is a good idea. Heck, it is part of the science, if nothing else!204.76.128.217 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)thepearl

Help needed

My English is poor and I need someone help me to finish articles in Category:Solar eclipses, thanks.

oct 3 annular solar eclipse

i can also view the eclipse in india. i think the article should be updated to reflect this 59.93.131.229 11:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten much of the article using more formal language, and made the following changes:

• A more detailed description of the geometry and orbital motions that cause an eclipse.
• Removed some of the more "teacher says" tone of the warnings about observing the sun.
• Reorganised the section hierarchy.
• Made the date formats consistent in the list of eclipses.

I haven't touched the Historical section, because that's not my field of expertise. Also, in general, I'm sure there are more improvements that could be made, but I hope this is a start. --Portnadler 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Eclipse causing earthquake

Thank you for a very nice, comprehensive and well structured article. This is a subject that I have absolutely no knowledge about. But I would like if the article could comment on a saying, there goes in Turkey, namely that the 1999 solar eclipse caused the subsequent devasting earthquake. This doesnt sound very plausible to me. But I've heard several claims that an eclipse can affect underground lines. Hope some of you, with the knowledge, would write a few words about that claim - whether it is a debate taken serious or not...Thanks. Bertilvidet 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's complete nonsense. thx1138 08:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fictional references

Somebody wanted to include novels that mention solar eclipses in the list of references. These are scientific references; so novels are inappropriate here. —Daphne A 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

These are scientific references, of course, but why would this fact prevent us from adding references to fiction where solar eclipse plays a crucial role? – Daphne A, let me remind you: the way Wikipedia works is: discussion and consensus first, modification second. And I can see no consensus whatsoever supporting your point. Adam78 15:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:BOLD. Daphhe's removeal was ok. Now that he knows some peolple dislike the change we can talk about it. No need to get hostil. Also see WP:CIVIL ---J.Smith 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Using your line of reasoning, we should include a list of novels that reference Mars in the article on Mars. Similarly, we should include a list of novels that reference steam engines in the article on steam engines. This is plainly wrong. If you want to include such information in Wikipedia, I suggest putting it in a separate article. If you want to keep such a list in this article, you will have to either take it to arbitration or get some other people who have previously contributed to this article to post their agreement with you.   —Daphne A 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Mars in fiction. ---J.Smith 21:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles are usually started when a certain section of an article gets too long. (For example, "Economics of Spain" will be started when the "Economics" section of the article "Spain" is longer than desirable.) Well, how do think we will decide if this section (solar eclipse-related fiction) can get long enough if you always delete its beginning? Practically any article is possible to be started (including even Mars-related novels!), supposing it has enough information to become separate from its parent article. But its precondition is to let a section grow by itself. Adam78 20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In Fiction sections are used on a lot of articles. Just look at Dyson sphere article. In addition, if the list gets too long we could do something like they did at the list Space elevator in fiction for the Space elevator featured article. It just seems silly to simply delete it. ---J.Smith 21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Kind thanks for your polite response. The Dyson sphere article does not contain a list of fictional references though. (Also, the Dyson sphere is itself fictional; so it wouldn't be a good example even if it did.) Can you give examples of where scientific articles have a list of fictional references within the articles?   —Daphne A 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It does. It links to Ringworld & Star Maker. Oh, hypothetical and fictional aren't the same. I could find some other similar references, but shortly this will become academic. ---J.Smith 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found an example. What do you mean "shortly this will become academic"?   —Daphne A 22:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[1] ---J.Smith 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image from french eclispe

Photo taken during the French 1999 eclipse

As much as I love the image it just doesnt fit thr article. It simply is too wide which messes up the text. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

don't thumbnail it, insert it like this,

Photo taken during the French 1999 eclipse

dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggest a section move

Could I suggest the "Eclipse predictions" section be moved before the "Observing a solar eclipse" section, because it deals with a more astronomical and scientifical explanation of eclipses. CG 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I have moved it. What do others think? --Portnadler 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it really screws up the recording I was halfway through! But as painful as that is, I think I have to agree. --Laura S 13:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. --Portnadler 14:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it's better to have it right in the end. --Laura S 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the featured article semiprotected?

This seems like a bad trend to me. This article wasn't even being persistently vandalized; was it protected "pre-emptively" or something? It seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. —Keenan Pepper 00:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Time to distort the article history again... (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_eclipse&action=history)—G.He 00:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this again? Albatross suffered bad enough, and now this? Let's all be more careful with the next Featured Article --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a nightmare. This article has been vandalised, then chopped to pieces. A Featured Article is by definition a target for abuse. Somebody who's smarter than me please revert the article to some time around the time it was selected for Article of the Day. It must have been quality back then!

Final eclipse

I had heard the final total eclipse would be in 100,000 years. Is this worth investigating? Stephen B Streater 06:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article says it will be in about 600 million years. This article listed in the references here says it will be "somewhere near 1 billion years from now". Where did you hear/read the 100.000 years figure? Shanes 06:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I heard it during the last eclipse. But now I've done a calculation of my own based on around 3cm retreat per year, and it comes to 600m years, as the article says. However, it also points to the Moon being about 5% bigger than the Sun as see from Earth, so I'm now a bit sceptical about the figure of 400 for ratio of distances and sizes for Moon and Sun which I had assumed was 400±1 when it may be 400±20. Stephen B Streater 07:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for completeness, here's my rough calculation:

Moon is about 400,000,000 m from Earth, so in 28 days travels around 2,400,000,000m ie at about 1,000m/s.

If an eclipse takes around 200s, the moon must move around 200km (assuming Sun and Earth are relatively fixed).

Diameter of the Moon is around 3500km ie Moon moves about 6% of its diameter during an eclipse.

Therefore Moon will have to be about 6% further away for eclipses to stop (hence 400 is only accurate to 6%).

400000000*6%/3cm/year is 600m years. Stephen B Streater 08:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A thought. The average ratio is nearer to 400 than this case above, which is why we sometimes get total and sometimes get annular eclipses, so I favour keeping coincidence in - just not cosmic scale coincidence. Stephen B Streater 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with irrelevant link

I've made it so when you click the text 2150 it goes to 22nd century instead of 2150 AD59.167.130.183 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

religious types

Are there any major religious types who believe that solar eclipses are, like, a/the god(s) doing something, instead of what Science has proposed/shown? I'd be willing to bet there are, judging from all the other stuff people believe.

Try the modern eugenics movement for evidence of what you propose: http://www.cosmotheism.net/

Yo Mamma?

Maybe this is just amateurism, but there appears to be the words 'yo mamma' where the word 'moon' should be in the first paragraph. I would have fixed it, but the actual page seems to show no problem. Lukasa 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That was likely a small act of vandalism that was reverted when the article history was altered in order to prevent vandalism giving away personal information. Generally these sorts of things are reverted in a matter of seconds, so you just happened to look at the article at a bad second, :) Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All messed up

This is outrageous. I'm the person who upgraded and nominated this article for FA status. I deliberately did not reply or edit yesterday, as the evil doing was still ongoing, but this really makes me mad. Not only was there more vandalism than anything else, most seriously intended edits have done more harm than good to the article. I'm talking about content changes, but also messed up formatting. I strongly doubt whether the article, as it is now, deserves to be featured. I do not understand that anybody has a problem with protecting the front page article for 24 hours and why this is not done systematically. The audio recording is now also rendered useless. I strongly urge that the major part of the May 4 version of 03:03 [2] be restored. Sorry to those who made good edits, but I suggest they make them again then. At least, I now know what to do with articles that I care about: keep them as far away from FA as possible. Nick Mks 17:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Is there one editor who caused the problem, or is it death by a thousand cuts? I would say there were some things in the original article which needed fixing. Stephen B Streater 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the problems were caused by several editors, mostly vandals. I totally agree that dozens of the hundreds edits were positive, but with the others the overall result is (according to me) negative. Nick Mks 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On another note (and a blatant plug too): if you used Clesh to edit your audio on then I would be able to hear it (unlike the current version) and re-edit it too through my web browser. Stephen B Streater 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The audio recording isn't mine, and I don't know anything about how that works. Nick Mks 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I just commented because the current WP system didn't work when I tried it, and my system (not surprisingly) does. But this is a complex issue as systems are so diverse, and I'm raising this in a more appropriate forum. Stephen B Streater 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The audio recording is mine. I used Audacity (what I think most of Wikipedia's spoken articles use) to generate an Ogg Vorbis file. I can hear it just fine, as can everyone else I've asked to test it. Can you be a little more specific with what problem you are having? --Laura S 20:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that. It was the first Wikipedia audio recording I ever listened to. I just followed the instructions and everything went fine. Nick Mks 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As you've asked, the issue is mainly laziness - my Mac doesn't have the right codecs installed. Nor does my PC at work, nor my Linux machines. When was the last time you installed a plug-in to see a picture? Also, I have a neat web-editing tool which would allow people to edit the audio to keep pace with the article, if they wanted to. It seems perfect for WP. I found a discussion about it on WP:VPP this morning under "video". Stephen B Streater 20:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I shouldn't need instructions to look at a web page. Stephen B Streater 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok I was worried the volume was too low or something. For now at least, Ogg is the Wikipedia standard (see the media page). Every now and then a discussion comes up to change it - this page is a really good example - mainly because it tends to require an extra plugin, but there are some good reasons for keeping it and it looks like there aren't yet better alternatives. --Laura S 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look there. Stephen B Streater 21:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As one who attempeted many good faith edits late last night, I wholeheartedly agree with Nick Mks. A once outstanding article that fully warranted Front Page FA status has unfortunately become a pacthwork. The volume and speed of the vandalism is partially responsible, because some reverts were not complete or inadvertently omitted intervening good edits. The premature removal of partial protection is partially at fault. It is a shame, and this is far from the only FA that suffers this degradation. Finell (Talk) 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel there are two types of editing an article:

1. Getting the information in
2. Making it into a coherent article

Something being a FA is bound to get lots of 1. Stage 2. should come now the dust is settling. With a relatively small amount fo work, this will give an overall better result for posterity. Stephen B Streater 21:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2 stages you describe must both be completed for an article to meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for an acceptable article. Good information incoherently presented is not acceptable, let alone FA. An article cannot become FA until it has not only completed both Stages 1 and 2, but has completed both stages at a level of rare excellence. Finell (Talk) 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not obvious I'm qualified to complete level 2 for this article. I have reverted lots of vandalism and improved some POV comments. Your string of coherent copy edits are more appropriate for stage 2. Stephen B Streater 07:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise with the original comment, but disagree. There are bound to be idiots and vandals who mess up the article featured on the main page, but overall this article has improved a lot over the past 2 or 3 weeks since it was nominated. Remember that the article is not yours. Nobody owns Wikipedia articles and people are free to change anything you write. There are bits of Solar Eclipse that I wrote a few months ago, and which have survived. I'm actually quite proud of them. But at any time, someone may decide to replace them with their own brilliant prose. I suggest we all remove this article from our watchlists, wait a week or two for the feeding frenzy to die down, and then come back and have another look. --Portnadler 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As from now, I am discontinuing my efforts to limit vandalism to this article (which I got featured last spring) and others. Without the requested support from admins, this is becoming an impossible task. Nick Mks 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Observations

the last 2 paragraphs of this don't seem to be written very clearly and need cleanup

so the first paragraph details something that can be seen in other parts of the article, and the other 2 paragraphs, especially the latter one are very badly written and hard to understand. i am removing this section for those reasons, if someone feels like fixing up the last 2 paragraphs then feel free to do so and repost them. As of now they are not written in encyclopedia format. 70.49.139.56 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2