Talk:Solar eclipse

message: The following text included in the "Gravity anomalies" section is a fragment:
"In 1954 and again in 1959, Maurice Allais reported that his observations of the strange/unexplained movement during solar eclipses."
I don't know what the intended meaning was to be, so I'm not changing it, but perhaps someone can complete the thought? Moonharpoon (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity anomalies 

message: The article says, "Solar eclipses are an extreme rarity within the universe at large."  Well, in our Solar System, they're very rare to unique, depending on how one defines things.  One might have them on Mars or Pluto, but the match between the apparent size of our Moon and the Sun as seen from Earth is unique (Mars can never have better than an annular eclipse, and on Pluto, the moons are seen much larger than the Sun).
But to say they are rare in the universe at large is, I think, a bit of a stretch.  We really don't know, and the best we could say is, they are PROBABLY rare.  Odds are that the circumstances wouldn't happen very often, but those odds would increase if it turns out that a lot of planets have a lot of moons.  I suppose there's also the (incredibly un
likely) possibility of on planet in a system casting an eclipse on another planet.  140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On final eclipse, see Solar_eclipse#Final_totality Tom Ruen (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rarity 

message: I'm an educated, curious layperson, and am frustrated by the fact that none, NONE of the maps (like the ones in section "occurrence and cycles") have a legend. All the lines are color coded, and nowhere can I find what those codes mean. A graphic with color coded (or using different line types) is close to useless without a LEGEND!
This problem exists with ALL solar eclipse maps on wikipedia.
Can someone help us?
184.57.7.58 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maps like :File:SE1935Dec25A.png? Agreed there ought to be a legend. They are copied from Nasa charts, but were cropped. Ideally legend information ought to go in the file information, could be done with a template, and then referencing in each file variation. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know what the magenta lines refer to? Haven't been able to quite figure those out.  P1 and P4, don't know why I never noticed that before. TimL (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: If you are referring to the file Tom links to. The legend is built into the diagram. The cyan lines refer to how much of the sun is eclipsed, (0.40 = 40%), the green lines refer to time of maximum eclipse over a given location, the magenta lines, if I'm not mistaken, represent point of first contact (P1) and point of last contact (P4) and are meant to show what will be visible when the eclipse is near sunrise or sunset. The middle magenta line represents either sunrise or sunset. Subsolar refers to the location where the sun is directly overhead during greatest eclipse. TimL (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Here's the original  Tom Ruen (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map interpretation/Legend 

message: I find that the image "Total Solar Eclipse Paths: 1001–2000" in Solar_eclipse#Occurrence_and_cycles (reproduced on the right) covers way too long a time span and hence does not provide much useful information, other than where eclipses have not occurred.
A span of 20 years, such as 2001–2020 paths or a composite of, say, 100 years centred on approximately the current year (1961–2060) from images on NASA to World Atlas of Solar Eclipse Paths may be more readable.
No doubt User:Yaohua2000 has put in a lot of effort to composite the NASA images, so before I change the image, what do you think?
Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First as a seasoned Wikipedian you ought to know that new comments go on the bottom. Second the point of the image is to show the nearly complete coverage of the earth by total eclipses over a long time span, I've clarified this in the image caption. Please do not modify the image. It is not meant to show the paths of individual eclipses. Thank you. TimL • talk  17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The end of the article list upcoming solar eclipses, I placed your suggested image there. Seemed relevant to me. TimL • talk  18:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken, thanks. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce time span of "Total Solar Eclipse Paths: 1001–2000" image? 

message: Is smoked glass actually safe?  It seems like there could be a very wide variation in the thickness of the soot and it could be easily scratched. Showing a little kid using it makes me cringe.  That's just has to be a bad idea.
Those plastic eclipse glasses do not seem much better.
There is no discussion of either smoked glass or the eclise glasses in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.137.158 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article an the article already cited in the text, it is not safe. Removed image, referred to the danger of using smoked glass in text and added citation. TimL • talk  01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: The reference provided at the end of this section didn't match the numbers in the article. Indeed, the rate of recession of the moon is about 3.8 cm/y, but the source gives 2.2. The distance the moon has to cover was also different, and chances are that the source is wrong on that front as well. However, until a proper source is found, I changed the numbers to the current ref's. I'd search myself, but I'm busy at the moment... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final total eclipse 

message: I edited that phrase in 4th 'graph of the section, to make it lk to Inertial frame of reference (keeping the same text visible by piping). I'm not sure it's the ideal lk, but it takes a lot more sophistication to realize there can be more than one frame of reference than it does to count days and hours between risings of the full moon, and the self-starters deserve some path forward.--Jerzy•t 07:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fixed frame of reference" 

message: A colleague has correctly perceived that the last rows of the table show something valuable that the first rows cannot as conveniently show, but has arranged it to make what the first rows show clear at the cost of making what the last rows show obscure. I have changed "Rank in descending order" to "Ordered in decreasing apparent size" which is hopefully more intuitive: "Rank" is ambiguous as to what is descending and as to whether 1 is highest or lowest rank, but i assume "1 comes first (reflecting least decreased size)" requires less mental gymnastics.   But i think what would best serve users is a sortable table: i know our tables support sorting by a column value to determine the order of rows (tho if supported, perhaps sorting by row value to determine the order of columns would server better here); while focusing on what are currently the rows from "Sun/Moon" down to "Angular diameter", the present ordering of columns is ideal. Letting the user reorder the columns so the adjacent disks were those closest in diameter, while focusing on the rows from "Angular diameter" down to "rank ..." (or "order ..."), would make their relationship much more clear (even if the big moon and big sun might still be too hard to rank by eye even when adjacent).--Jerzy•t 09:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table in "Geometry" section 

message: External Animation Video on Eclipse from SarvaShikshan
Ganeshwatve (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Where should this go? -- (talk - contribs) 05:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014 

message: In regards to the 2017 solar eclipse, I found out last summer that the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) has the eclipse maximum centered near Carbondale Illinois http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/Eclipse2017.php . Their time is four seconds longer than what is reported at NASA. 
A man in New Mexico, a Michael Zeiler, at http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html has the eclipse centered near Goreville Illinois. Eclipse chasers respect Mr. Zeiler’s work in regards to his eclipse maps because they are highly accurate. He has the eclipse time one second longer that what is shown at NASA. (Zeiler's results and USNO are 19 miles apart.) Michael gave me this information last month.
With all that in mind, Mr. Fred Espenak has the eclipse still centered near Hopkinsville Kentucky. I wrote to him last year asking him about the new findings pointing to southern Illinois. Mr. Espenak’s response was, “Yes, I agree.” 
I am aware Mr. Espenak had retired in 2009. NASA now considers him a volunteer. Yet, his information is out-of-date on the NASA website. The last time he updated his data was back in 2007 (except for some minor issues currently). NASA has decided not to hire a successor (as far as I can tell).
All of these changes are because of the new findings about our moon’s topography derived from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) probe that was launched back in 2009. USNO and Mr. Zeiler have incorporated the LRO findings into their data and maps. Mr. Espenak has not. 
Almost everyone uses the NASA solar eclipse site as their main source of information. However, the public needs to be made aware of southern Illinois as being the center of maximum duration in 2017 and not Hopkinsville. But how do you do that with the NASA website showing dated material and everybody using it as their primary source of information? Nobody knows it is out-of-date!
USNO told me that they do not use the GE terminology...they prefer maximum duration! (Does Mr. Espenak and the staff at USNO ever chat with each other about the discrepancies?) Mr. Espenak did say he needs to rewrite the definition for GE.
The reluctance by nearly everyone to accept the new information about Illinois has been quite frustrating! I can’t do much until NASA expresses in some shape or form, on their eclipse website, that what is being portrayed is dated!
firstmagnitude (Larry Koehn)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmagnitude (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Houston, we have a problem!" Hopefully as the 2017 eclipse approaches there will be an increased interest in updating the data. In light of this information, I wonder what the length of the supposedly longest eclipse in millennia of July 16, 2186 is?  Do the discrepancies accumulate over time or are they stay constant? If we are just talking about new data about the exact shape of the moon I am guessing the discrepancies would be constant. From what I've seen so far it appears eclipses are lasting slightly longer than previously predicted.  — TimL • talk 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA's eclipse information is out-of-date 

message: The FA violates comprehensiveness parameter. There are many legends explaining solar eclipses in various cultures . Also, there are many superstitions/rituals to be observed during an eclipse, which are not covered. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  06:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the article improved? -- AstroU (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar eclipse in culture 

message: Original text:
The orbital planes cross each year at a line of nodes resulting
Is "year" the right word? Isn't "other" the correct? 
179.27.2.102 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Cannolis (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't see the phrase "between each" anywhere in the article.  I examined each use of the word "between" and didn't find anything close to between eclipses.  Maybe you can give a specific instance?  —EncMstr (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014 

message: Be sure to read the readers' comments below the article.
 Headline-1: Now We Actually Have a Real Reason to Dread Solar Eclipses
* http://gizmodo.com/now-we-actually-have-a-real-reason-to-dread-solar-eclip-1687768305
QUOTE: "Superstitions have surrounded the eerie solar eclipse since time immemorial. And now, for entirely scientific reasons, it turns out we have good reason to fear them. Earth's biggest solar eclipse since 1999 is happening this March, and it could cause some real disruption—thanks to Europe's reliance on solar energy." -- AstroU (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New NEWS today, for future editing  

message: "Although they occur somewhere on Earth every 18 months on average..." "Between two and five solar eclipses occur every year, with at least one per eclipse season."
Now I'm not an expert in astronomy, but from a purely logical PoV those statements appear to be contradictory since they both refer to solar eclipses on earth. And if not, then a clarification is needed here. Phebus333 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurrence/Frequency 

message: The reference links #55 and #58 are dead. 176.221.120.203 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015 

message: • A 3/20/2015 Solar Eclipse photograph, if the authors think the photo is valuable to add to the article. 
http://www.nasa.gov/content/solar-eclipse-from-the-international-space-station/
Jcardazzi (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: The article states the last non-central solar eclipse to have been April 29th 2014 but there was a partial solar eclipse on the October 23rd 2014 which would be more recent than one in April.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:400:12DC:4C69:F801:C662:1E67 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last non-central solar eclipse 

message: I have reverted your addition of the ambox to the top of the article with the edit summary "I question the appropriateness of this information in such a prominent position". I'm fine with this information lower down the article, but I don't think it warrants such prominence in the article. Also is there not a danger that it is not updated quickly, which will be giving false information. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambox for next eclipses 

message: I believe that the description of the "Moon" is incorrect. I would like to request permission to edit the article. Thank You.
Jake-En-Ator (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015 

message: Today's mainpage says "3340 BC – The oldest known record of a solar eclipse was carved into a stone in Ireland." but there is nothing in this article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a good explanation of this at http://www.astronomy.ca/3340eclipse/. What I can't find, is an .edu or other WP:RS confirmation. Student7 (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day... 

message: Andrmoel (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly wouldn't want to add a link to just the US eclipses, as that website has lists for every country which are indexed here.However, IMHO there are already too many External links and these need thinning before another one is added.  I would welcome others comments - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Not done: Agree that the global link provided by Arjayay would be a much better addition after leaning out the Ext. links section a bit.  Paine  u/c 09:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016 

message: Change the syntax of the image at the top-right to


A total solar eclipse occurs when the Moon completely covers the Sun's disk, as seen in this 1999 solar eclipse. Solar prominences can be seen along the limb (in red) as well as extensive coronal filaments.

An annular solar eclipse (left) occurs when the Moon is too far away to completely cover the Sun's disk (May 20, 2012). During a partial solar eclipse (right), the Moon blocks only part of the Sun's disk (October 23, 2014).

As the partial image was at the bottom of the annular image. It should be at the right. 219.78.191.132 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done JTP (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017 

message: Under Types the discussion of the distance from earth to sun refers to specific dates of perihelion and aphelion.  Of course, these dates are only for now and will be different in the future.  Someone should add a "as of now."
50.206.242.50 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only for now 

message: In the section Duration (3.), change "orbital velocity" to "the earth's surface rotational velocity" 142.90.105.23 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if "earth's surface rotational velocity" is the right term, but the concept is correct. There is no way that the earth's orbital velocity (which is its velocity as it revolves around the sun) depends on how close anything is to the earth's equator. Jeh (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  On the other hand, an hours' worth of rotation takes an hour, no matter how close you are to the equator. If the eclipse track is closer to the equator, that would contribute to the eclipse covering more ground in a given amount of time - i.e. the track would be longer in terms of distance - but it is not obvious to me how this affects the amount of time. Jeh (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017 

message: The information in Solar_eclipse#Predictions does allow us to predict on what days an eclipse can occur somewhere on the earth. Most of this type of information was known by the Greeks who used it to build eclipse prediction into the Antikythera mechanism.
However, it is through the use of Besselian Elements that we can predict precisely whether an eclipse will be partial, annular, or total (or annular/total), and (along with  ΔT) what the circumstances will be at any given location. The Solar Eclipse article does have a link to the Besselian elements article, but the Solar Eclipse article doesn't mention Besselian elements and gives no indication what Besselian elements have to do with eclipses.
Calculations with Besselian elements can determine the exact shape of the umbra's shadow on the earth's surface. But at what longitudes on the earth's surface the shadow falls is a function of the earth's rotation, and on how much that rotation has slowed down over time. A number called ΔT is used in eclipse prediction to take this slowing into account. As the earth slows, delta T increases. Unfortunately for eclipse predictors, delta T for dates in the future can only be roughly estimated because the earth's rotation is slowing irregularly. This means that, although it is possible to predict that there will be a total eclipse on a certain date in the far future, it is not possible to predict in the far future exactly at what longitudes that eclipse will be total.
The article on Besselian elements could be expanded to include some of this information. So could the article on delta T. However, it seems to me that the Prediction section of the Solar Eclipse article is the best place for all of this.
This reference has all of the details and equations to predict local eclipse circumstances:
“Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac”, 3rd edition, edited by Sean E. Urban and P. Kenneth Seidelmann, University Science Books, 2013. MathPerson (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another useful, shorter reference is “Elements of Solar Eclipses 1951-2200” by Jean Meeus, Willman-Bell, Inc., 1989. This book presents, but does not derive, the equations needed to do eclipse calculations. It also has worked examples. MathPerson (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More details about eclipse prediction? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Solar eclipse. 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://archive.is/20120524183445/sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros.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) 18:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on how the phenomenon is treated in culture and religion? Solar eclipses are of great interest from a non-scientific perspective.VR talk 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In culture 

message: *(redacted blacklisted site)103.194.145.244 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017 

message: In the photo near the top of the partial eclipses, the captions say left/right, but the photos are oriented vertically. Either orient the picture left/right, or change the captions to say left and right. Thespursfan (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017 

message: Grammatical errors in introduction.
Change:
"However, since the Moon's orbit is tilted at more than 5 degrees to the Earth's orbit around the Sun (see ecliptic), so its shadow usually misses Earth. Earth's orbit is called the ecliptic plane as the Moon's orbit must cross this plane in order for an eclipse (both solar as well as lunar) to occur."
to:
"However, since the Moon's orbit is tilted at more than 5 degrees to the Earth's orbit around the Sun (see ecliptic), its shadow usually misses Earth. The Moon's orbit must cross Earth's ecliptic plane in order for an eclipse (both solar as well as lunar) to occur." Ralphmcgill (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclination varies from ~5.295 to ~4.995 degrees. So it is not always more than 5 degrees. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017 

message: This is a grammar correction.
In "An eclipse is a natural phenomenon. However, in some ancient and modern cultures, it was believed that solar eclipses is attributed to supernatural causes or regarded as bad omens.
Suggested change:
from "it was believed that solar eclipses is attributed to"
to "solar eclipses were attributed to" 70.64.100.245 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have made a further change. Saying "it was believed that they were attributed to supernatural causes" is a bit silly. They were attributed to supernatural causes, right? RivertorchFIREWATER 18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2017 

message: Please add math algorithms (and description) for lunar shadow size on earth's surface.  There is some math in this article. https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Math_Challenge9_.pdf  Thanks!  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add math for Lunar Shadow Size on Earth’s Surface 

message: NASA's historical eclipse pages are presently all being redirected to their 2017 eclipse web site. This is probably a temporary attempt to deal with the large amount of web traffic. Do not remove seemingly incorrect links to NASA eclipse pages during August 2017. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary loss of NASA references 

message: I noticed that the first paragraph of the article has the word "occults" in parentheses. I believe the word they meant to put there was occludes.
Rinnisia (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, occultation is a term that is most commonly used in astronomy. Because the word has a blue link, if you click on it, it will take you to the WP page on occultation which provides a great explanation. When I think of occlude, I most commonly think of something being clogged. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong word usage 

message: The reference in this science article to certain attempts to date the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth based on the "eclipse" (ἐκλιπόντος) reference in the Gospel according to Luke (23:45) should perhaps be completely deleted here and moved to a relevant religious article, or at the very least corrected if retained.  Solar eclipses only occur during New Moons when the Moon gets between the Earth and the Sun; whereas the feast of Passover, when the crucifixion reportedly occurred, always take place near a Full Moon, when solar eclipses are physically impossible because it is on the opposite side of the earth.  Only lunar eclipses can occur during that period.  There was a solar eclipse in November 29CE, but the path of totality was apparently further to the north around Antioch and only partial and marginally noticable around Jerusalem.  The Greek text could merely mean that the sun was "obscured", and not necessarily by the Moon.  There apparently was a lunar eclipse in April 33CE that might have been visible, but that is not the reference in the Gospel account. 
21 Aug 2017, Mark Protsik  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.44 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating the crucifixion?? 

message: One of the pictures at the beginning of the article has the caption:
An annular solar eclipse (above) occurs when the Moon is too far away to completely cover the Sun's disk. During a partial solar eclipse (below), the Moon blocks only part of the Sun's disk.
The phrasing used doesn't actually distinguish between an annular and partial eclipse. In neither of the two cases is the Sun's disk covered by the Moon. The difference, rather, between an annular and partial eclipse is whether or not the whole Moon is covering the Sun. So, someone should fix that. 151.141.81.91 (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The images were moved from vertical to horizontal alignment. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear caption 

message: There is a picture of a rotating earth as seen from space meant to depict the eclipse moving across its face. I cannot see this. If others can't either, I suggest the photo be replaced or removed. It is "interesting" except that it seems to depict great black shadows "someplace" on earth. Student7 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretty picture?

message: The earth, for a "good long while" had total eclipses which completely blotted out the sun. Few/no solar prominences. The moon was closer and seemed larger. As the moon spiraled out, we have today's apparent sun=moon, with the sun 400 x the distance of the moon, with the sun 400 x the size of the moon. The first is a "window' which opened some astronomical time ago and will be open for several hundred millions of years. This needs to be recorded, if found. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronomical history of current total eclipse

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Solar eclipse. 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/20100527142627/http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/pages/faq.html to http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/pages/faq.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120714123918/sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309073832/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEhistory.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEhistory.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120716084105/sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/safety.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/safety.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422080638/http://www.photoparsi.com/5/556-ring-of-fire-eclipse to http://www.photoparsi.com/5/556-ring-of-fire-eclipse
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) 03:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Solar eclipse. 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://archive.is/20130102203300/http://www.earthview.com/tutorial/causes.htm to http://www.earthview.com/tutorial/causes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204074827/http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh01.html to http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh01.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204064644/http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=S66-63415 to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=S66-63415
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) 21:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The solar eclipse is very simple, you think about an apple and a peice of paper, cover the apple withe peice of paper in 30 minutes. Like a month.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.77.34 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Eclipse 

message: Add the term Totality into the first paragraph:
...close to the ecliptic plane. In a total eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. [insert: During this period, a totality(link to Totality article) occurs in which all light directly from the sun is blocked.] In... Electricality (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. The Totality article is actually a disambiguation page. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019 

message: Did you know that there exists partial solar elipses at sealevel but they are just non-central total or just non-central annular on the highlands of Antarctica?
And also entirely no eclipse at sealevel but are just very little partial on the same highlands? 84.80.54.162 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A strange kind of solar eclipses 

message: The last Solar Eclipse occurred on Dec 26th 2019. SandhiyaN (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019 

message: This sentence "A solar eclipse occurs when a portion of the Earth is engulfed in a shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks sunlight" could be made more convoluted if you really tried.
Alternatively, try: "is when the Earth's moon passes betweeen the Earth and the sun, casting a narrow shadow on Earth."
I assume the page is locked against editing due to someone considering the original epic sentence I quoted to be their personal hill and magnum opus.
It's a bad sentence.  But I'm sure you could make it worse if you really tried.  Try to make the page worse.  It'll be hard but you can do it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:36B8:A680:79C6:D168:EDE2:FDA8 (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not convoluted enough first sentence 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Rig Veda, the oldest of the sacred books of Hinduism, composed in an ancient form of Sanskrit about 1500 bce.
It mention about the solar eclipse phenomenon 
यत् त्वा सूर्य स्वर्भानुस्तमसाविध्यदासुर∶Ι     
अक्षेत्रविद् यथा मुग्धो भुवनान्यदीधयुःΙΙ5ΙΙ
यं वै सूर्यं स्वर्भानुस्तमसाविध्यदासुर∶Ι
अत्रयस्तमन्वविन्दन् नह्यन्ये अशक्नुवन्ΙΙ9ΙΙ 
Rig Veda 5.40.5, 5.40.9
It Means
“O Sun! When you are blocked by the one whom you gifted your own light (moon), then earth gets scared by sudden darkness”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHAILOcA (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Reference Solar eclipse 

message: Annual 106.201.224.241 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 

message: Article needs to be updated and rewritten on other sections. There are also a lot of unsourced statements. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: I'd argue that this is best left as a list, because it makes clear the fact that there are five distinct factors affecting the duration of an eclipse, which would be less obvious if converted to prose. Photastro (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to change list to prose, in section 2.3 Duration 

message: Section "Recent and forthcoming solar eclipses" lists eclipses in groups, by years. Each group's tex begins "This eclipse is a member of a semester series." But there are several eclipses in the list. "These eclipses are members of semester series" would be more correct. This exact error repeats for other groups of years. 172.56.198.126 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I tried to edit it because I do agree with your assessment, it should be changed to plural, however the text is included in the eclipse template and editing it seems to be quite tedious. I will look into how to edit the template. If any other editors agree with the edit request and want to share how to edit this template I would greatly appreciate. MaximusEditor (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: Add :File:Solar eclipse of April 2024 from Indianapolis.jpg to List of eclipses for April 8th, 2024 Litorom1 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Antrotherkus 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024