Talk:Solar eclipse/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calculating circumstances of solar eclipses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  oct 3 annular solar eclipse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eclipse causing earthquake 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I haven't found an example.  What do you mean "shortly this will become academic"?    —Daphne A 22:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   ---J.Smith 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional references 

message: As much as I love the image it just doesnt fit thr article. It simply is too wide which messes up the text. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image from french eclispe

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, and I have moved it. What do others think? --Portnadler 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry for the inconvenience. --Portnadler 14:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the featured article semiprotected? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problem with irrelevant link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, :) Cowman109Talk 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo Mamma? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other Observations