Talk:Eclipse

message: Really? The Moon would have to be so near its annular/total crossover distance that its shadow cone literally grazes the observer's position within the duration of near-totality. Are there any known occurrences?  -- Urhixidur 14:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
They're rare, but not dramatically so.  Go to the hermit.org eclipse search engine (linked from the article) and search for hybrids.  There was one in April 2005; next one is 2013.  -- Johantheghost 09:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hybrid eclipses

message: In this article, it is stated:
* Lunar eclipses - the Earth obscures the Sun, from the Moon's point of view. The Moon moves through the shadow cast by the Earth. This can only happen at full moon.
* Solar eclipses - the Moon occults the Sun, from the Earth's point of view. The Moon casts a shadow that touches the surface of the Earth. This can only happen at new moon.
However, in the Lunar phase article, the opposite appears to have been said: "Note that the plane of the Moon's orbit around the Earth is tilted by about 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Therefore, eclipses of the Moon during the full Moon and of the Earth by a new Moon are rare and usually newsworthy."
I believe what is being said is that it's rare to happen during a perfectly full or new moon, but I don't know enough about the subject to tell which is correct--someone who does should make them match up. Chris 01:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lunar eclipse will always be centered on the instant of full moon.  A solar eclipse will always be centered on the instant of new moon.   But because of the tilt of the Moon's orbit, a new or full Moon usually isn't perfect -- so eclipses are rare, as opposed to happening every new or full Moon.  The "usually newsworthy" comment is a bit off, though.  There are at least 4 eclipses every year, and most of them aren't particularly newsworthy -- marginal partial solar eclipses, or penumbral lunar eclipses, etc.  I'll fix that.  The Lunar phase article could use a little clarifying too.  -- Johantheghost 09:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Lunar phase]] 

message: Currently, "Total Eclipse" redirects to this page, but its disambiguation page is not provided here (it is distinct from that of "eclipse").  I am not sure of how to fix this.  If someone with a bit more know-how could take care of it, that would be nice. --Fell Collar 04:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect/Disambiguation Error

message: I think that this article is currently very unbalanced. The rationale for this topic is to describe eclipses in general, but the vast majority of the prose is about the Moon (which is a summary of solar eclipse and lunar eclipse), and there are only six sentences about other more general types of eclipses in our solar system. I presume that more can be said about the other planets; perhaps someone could contribute more information? Mabye it would be a good idea to slim down the Earth-Moon section as a start. Lunokhod 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially agree.  It seems a bit overdone to have solar eclipse and lunar eclipse and eclipse, covering much the same material.  However, I believe that the only other common eclipses are those of Galilean satellites with Jupiter (or at least the only ones regularly observed).  Other alignment events are transits or occultations (and a solar eclipse can be considered an occultation too).  Most people will only ever see a few lunar eclipses, so maybe the emphasis should be there.  I'm not sure how to merge and expand these articles. Tom Peters 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could (1) take the intro paragraph, add it to wikitionary, (2) add terms like syzygy, transits and occultations to the diambiguation page, and (3) put this page up for deletion. If there is little support for this, I will not put this through the WP:AfD process. Lunokhod 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit drastic to remove this page altogether.  "eclipse" is a bonafide lemma for an encyclopedia.  I'm more concerned about the replications in the sub-pages.  If this one goes, then there is nothing holding them together. Tom Peters 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: I saw this page on the "request for feedback" page. Here's a couple of ideas:
* The use of jovian eclipses to find the longtitude were confusing. Do the eclipse happen at different times depending on the position of the observer or is it merely a way to synchronize ones clock with greenwich?
** The local time varies depending on longitude. By knowing the time the event occurs locally and the time the event is expected to occur in Greenwich, you can compute the difference in longitude. (1 hour = 15°.)—RJH (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further ideas 

message: this made me really confussled . . . .(confused!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.219.20 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  im confused 

message: In rooting out the "eclipses aren't really eclipses" material, I ended up putting the main argument in Occultation under the section "Occultations, Transits an Eclipses", mainly because there was already a section started.  It could just as well go in either of the other two.  it would be nice to have it separate, but it doesn't seem worthy of an article of its own.  Nonetheless, it's probably worth mentioning the three together, along with Syzygy.  --Dmh (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put material on Syzygy/Eclipse/Occultation/Transit 

message: I was just thinking there s[h]ould be a section on folklore, superstitions and mythologies based on eclipses. such as beliefs of eclipses being omens or that a giant snake is trying to swallow the sun. Bloodkith (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To a certain extent, this has been done by User:Lboegen. There is an obvious danger that the article will get very long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.145.51 (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipse mythology. 

message: An eclipse of Saturn and Titan on the 1st. of September in 597 B.C. is mentioned. I am not sure that it could have been seen at that time with the unaided eye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.146.78 (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as no source given and quite dubious. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A vandal in America, 67.242.123.134, on the 12/5/2012, was responsible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.13.207 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  597 B.C. 

message: IMO too much weight has been given, at least in assigning "Eclipse" to a topic, to the usage of "eclipse" as embracing its full scientific scope, as opposed to the (IMO presumptively primary) conventional, common-sense, or man-in-the-street sense which may deserve to be either primary topic or one of the "arms" of a so-called "equal" (i.e., no-primary-sense) Dab. To wit, users having a hard time grasping
* the primary similarities and differences between lunar and solar eclipses, or why they don't each occur at each full or new moon respectively, or why their visibility is so localized, or why the percentage of totality varies,
are ill-served (unnecessarily, i am arguing) by articles that 
: rather than risk wasting the time of
:* readers with stronger tech backgrounds, and those more ambitious to grasp the general case,
:::(by letting the accompanying article be prefaced by the particularities that non-specialists deserve to have made explicit)
: instead thereby demand that the less tech-savvy distinguish whether their confusions arises from 
:* inadequately visualizing abstractions,expecting all eclipses (not just involving only the three "classic" eclipse participants) to fit into the classic vocabulary,etc.
So far, i'm proposing equal (i.e., no-primary-sense) Dab'n of "Eclipse", with, as its first entries:   (I'm making no distinction -- solely in order to protect this talk page's ToC from chaos -- between bullet-labelled levels of hierarchy and section/subsection levels. E.g., obviously "Astronomy" would be a section on the Dab page, not a bullet point.)
: Eclipse may refer to:
:* Astronomy:
:** Eclipses as known before the Renaissance:
:*** Pre-Galilean eclipse or Pre-Galilean eclipse astronomy (or, mostly just brainstorming, Non-Galilean eclipse astronomy or perhaps Naive eclipse astronomy?)Solar eclipse Lunar eclipse
:**: (I'm anticipating that there are variously users who want a unified view of solar eclipses without being distracted by lunar ones, who want the vice-versa view, and who want a unified view of both without considering e.g. the moons of Solar gas giants, or occultations of binary stars or extra-solar planets.)
:** Eclipses with arbitrary viewing locations or Generalized eclipses (With most of the current content of the Eclipse article)
:* Vehicles: 
::* Aircraft
:::... ...
::* Road vehicles
:::... ...
::* Ships:
:::... ...
:* Titled works: 
: [etc.]
   IMO
:(and correct me if my nagging hint of recalling a guideline against covering a topic -- a unified one? a unifiable one? -- twice at different levels of sophistication has a foundation in fact and is applicable here. Am i just confusing that with PoV splits?)
failing to cover both these topics is too much like claiming our article relativistic mechanics obviates our covering classical mechanics.--Jerzy•t 09:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation: coverage of eclipses in "man-in-the-street" sense 

message: How far in the future will it be before all eclipses are annular due to the moon being further away from the earth?
How many million years ago (approximately) was it when the first annular eclipse occurred ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojoking (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon getting further away - effect on eclipses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 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/20071030225501/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070414144827/http://www.physics.sfasu.edu:80/astro/ebstar/ebstar.html to http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/ebstar/ebstar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Praemonitus, according to WP:Hatnote, it is true that "disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic...."  But please note that disamibiguation hatnotes are not the only kind of hatnotes.  The one you deleted was not a disambiguation hatnote.  WP:Hatnote allows lots of hatnotes that are not for disambiguation.  For example, "" where the targeted article is "related to current article".  According to the lead of WP:Hatnote, "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page" (emphasis added).  So, I will restore the non-disambiguation hatnote. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to me this "Hatnote" as it stands is unhelpful and is geography specific. Somebody visiting the page from, say, South Africa seeking general information on eclipses could just end up confused. If not WP:RELATED, then WP:HATEXTRA applies. At a minimum, it should be reworded so the point is clearer. Praemonitus (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for rewording it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20080224074526/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/SEglossary.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/SEglossary.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311033452/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/transit/transit.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/transit/transit.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) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Satellites and other spacecraft experience earth-sun eclipses. This should be mentioned in the article. A NASA photograph of one is here FYI. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipse from space 

message: I don't know if this is accordance with Wikipedia's policies but maybe a section could be added to the article mentioning or discussing several pieces of software that can be used to calculate eclipses in the future?
I'm not personally associated with any eclipse calculation software but I think it would be helpful for readers who like to study eclipses over many many years to be aware of the different options out there. For example, Wolfram Mathematica has a function to calculate the next Solar Eclipse. This could be a small section that is added to the end of the article or to the resources for further use at the bottom of the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Eclipse Software

message: This one is on the US, in October. Can this be used at all? 😺😺😺😺😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 Annular Eclipse 

message: I'm surprised that there is no section describing phenomena observed during an eclipse -- besides the occultation of the sun. These include a notable lowering of temperature, the unreal quality of the dimming light (i.e. unlike dusk, objects still retain crisp details), animal behavior, & probably most overlooked are the shadows of light waves on the ground. (When I witnessed an eclipse in 2017, these shadows on the grass beneath me resembled ghostly snakes.) These phenomena have been documented, so reliable sources exist; they just need to be included so this article can be complete. -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions 

message: In the section "Eclipses in mythology and culture" I had added the fundamental concept that the moon precisely covers the sun - this is why eclipses appear so magical. There is no mention at all of this in the article. Alas a Philistine has removed my valuable contribution, and I am hereby reverting it and request a fair consideration. 
 The American author Gene Weingarten described the tension between belief and eclipses thus: "I am a devout atheist but can't explain why the moon is exactly the right size, and gets positioned so precisely between the Earth and the sun, that total solar eclipses are perfect. It bothers me."Gene Weingarten, 'Me, in a Nutshell', Washington Post (USA), 8 March 2009, Page W32 (accessed 9 March 2009). 
86.158.22.171 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: IP, while I recognize that (or at least I assume that) your description of the editor that reverted your edit as a "Philistine" was intended to be humorous, not everyone will read it that way and it could be interpreted as a personal attack on another editor, which is prohibited here.  Please avoid commentary that intentionally or unintentionally could be interpreted as an insult directed at another editor, and limit your comments to those that address the content of the article and your proposed edit. General Ization Talk   17:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, when you have a disagreement with another editor about content you would like to discuss with them on a Talk page, it is customary to notify them of that using the  template, as I am doing here: . General Ization Talk   17:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I have removed the photo of Weingarten from the article (as I did here on the Talk page), as it is certainly not relevant to an article about eclipses, nor needed to evaluate or understand his comment regarding them. General Ization Talk   17:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments.  But may I suggest you voluntarily remove your "personal attack" paragraph. You are effectively saying that others are less intelligent than yourself and might not recognise humour. While it is true that IQ has been dropping among youngsters in the past 20 years (after rising decade by decade in the 20th century), it is all the more important that we intellectually challenge youngsters, not insulate them from the world. Once you have deleted your lines, feel free to delete my most recent lines here, and the matter is closed.86.158.22.171 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry. I stand by my advice to you, and I refer you again to our policy on the subject. If you did not intend the comment as an insult, well and good, but I see no need for me to retract my reminder to you that what you intend to be humorous may not be perceived as such by those to whom your comments are directed (regardless of their intelligence or level of life experience). Comment on content, not on the contributor. General Ization Talk   18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Eclipses, Religion and Mythology