Talk:Solar eclipse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleSolar eclipse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
February 5, 2012Featured article reviewKept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 28, 2004, June 15, 2011, June 15, 2015, June 15, 2017, and June 15, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yibrahim.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 09:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Gravity anomalies

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)[reply]


"A recent published observation during the 1997 solar eclipse by Wang et al. suggested a possible gravitational shielding effect, which generated debate. Later in 2002, Yang and Wang published detailed data analysis, which suggested that the phenomenon still remains unexplained."

This is somewhat misleading, the 2002 publication focuses on two anomalies which occur at first and last contact, there was no significant gravitational variation during totality. 

    "When the two anomalies occurred, the shadow region was hundreds of kilometers far away from the observation point, and this was not possible to affect the point of observation in term of any possible shadow effects."

    "The observations during the Mohe solar eclipse show no significant gravity variations during the solar eclipse from the first contact to the last contact. Therefore, the possible gravitational absorption or shielding remains undetermined."

    "Besides all possible explanations of the observed data, Unnikrishnan et al (2001) argued that the observed variations does not necessarily support the hypothesis of gravitational shielding."

Recommend edit to indicate that, while observed gravitational anomalies remain unexplained, it is not suspected that gravitational shielding was observed.

Rarity

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)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

-- I agree. Plus, discussion of rarity of solar eclipses could also be extended to the Sun-Earth-Moon system itself and our particular moment in solar system history. The Moon's orbital distance is gradually increasing over time, and eventually in the distant future (anyone know when??) the Moon will be sufficiently far away that even at perigee a total solar eclipse will become impossible. It would also be interesting to know how frequent (plus how much wider the path of totality, and difference in duration) were solar eclipses in Earth's distant path (Cambrian era, etc.) when the Moon was closer. 24 August 2017 Mark Protsik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.44 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On final eclipse, see Solar_eclipse#Final_totality Tom Ruen (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map interpretation/Legend

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.
talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
talk) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's the original [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce time span of "Total Solar Eclipse Paths: 1001–2000" image?

Total Solar Eclipse Paths: 1001–2000. This image was merged from 50 separate images from NASA.F. Espenak. "World Atlas of Solar Eclipse Paths".

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)[reply]

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.
talk 17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The end of the article list upcoming solar eclipses, I placed your suggested image there. Seemed relevant to me.
talk 18:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Point taken, thanks. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A really nice and useful addition would be a picture of an eclipse from space

A picture of the surface of the earth during an eclipse can be very helpful in so much of this explanation. You can see the darkest center where it is total and the lighter shadow around it etc. A good example is on the nasa site at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990830.html" - not sure if that is considered public domain or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.112.149 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but that image is copyright CNES. This one by NASA seems fine, but less useful: [2] (perhaps better losslessly rotated 180°). Others: [3] [4] cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: There's already one in the Solar_eclipse#Artificial_satellites section, though I'd prefer [5] rotated 180°. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 17:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This animation is pretty nice: SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 6 (antarctica) is pretty visually striking. Not to mention quite illustrative (w/ good caption) IMO I like it.
    talk 20:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, looking in the other direction, there's The Apollo 12 view of a solar eclipse, about which see this and this (that last includes a link to a 47Mb TIFF, which appears to be a different image entirely). It is used on this NASA page. Here is a web page containing link to a playable movie of a solar eclipse as seen from Japan's SELENE (Kaguya) lunar orbiter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not solar eclipses, not in the sense of this article anyways. This article is about the moon blocking the sun, not the earth blocking it, as is in the case of lunar or spacecraft eclipses by the earth.
talk 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

 Done -- TNKS, this is one of the best graphics in the article, (added three years ago.) -- AstroU (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annular eclipse--not necessarily a ring

I do know first-hand that rarely, an annular eclipse might not actually form a solid, unbroken ring. If it is very near to total--that is, magnitude just shy of 1.000000, the moon almost covers the face of the sun--then one might see a ring of irregular bright beads. This is not the same as the diamond ring effect, just before and just after totality, but the principle is similar.

I saw the annular eclipse of May 30, 1984 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. That was so close to total that I remember some speculation that it might have been briefly total at the peak eclipse point around Petersburg, Virginia (the entire area had rain that day, and nobody on the ground there saw anything). I used a small telescope to project an image of maybe four inches diameter on card.

At the instant that the last crescent of the sun disappeared, the image abruptly changed to those irregular beads. Unfortunately, that lasted maybe less than a second, and by the time I pressed the shutter on my camera, the image had already jumped to the opposite crescent.

I also remember hearing that the beads are explained by mountains and valleys on the limb of the moon as we see it: where the terrain is high, it blocks the sun; where it is low, the sun shines through. But I haven't got citations to back this up. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

A very rare eclipse indeed (probably why the fact you refer to is not mentioned in the article). The eclipse may have been total somewhere along it's length due to variations of earth elevation. An eclipse so close to 1 in magnitude means that totality is achieved just above the ground (perhaps a thousand feet or so?) The article does explain the reason for the beads. I would have been 9 when this occurred, what would have been a very impressive partial eclipse where I live but don't seem to remember it. We may have got a break from classes to go out and see it if I remember correctly. Thanks for sharing.
talk 05:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, it does explain Bailey's Beads, the phenomenon shortly before and shortly after totality, when they're see at the points of the crescent that is the exposed portion of the face of the sun. Those are little spots of light at the ends of the crescent. What I saw was more like a string of pearls, of widely differing sizes and irregular placement. The governing principle is the same, but what we see is quite different. And yes, I suppose every total eclipse would show something of Bailey's Beads. This would have to be an annular eclipse that's just on the verge of totality.
BTW, I seem to remember reading somewhere that another variable for totality or not is the size of the sun. And unlike the others, that one is hard to predict. We know the size of the moon; since it's a big rock, it's virtually unchanging. And we know the distance to the moon very precisely, especially since astronauts left those optical reflecting devices behind. But the pulsations of a huge ball of gas and plasma--that's quite different. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]
Actually the size of the sun is also virtually unchanging. The
talk 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
In discussing this with you, and mulling it over, it's occurred to me that the same phenomenon must happen at points just before and just after the totality path in a hybrid eclipse. Just before it reaches magnitude 1.00000000..., it would be magnitude 0.99999...
I wish I could get that one over again, to snap that picture. I think I was trying to snap pictures as fast as I could, then, as the center of the eclipse approached. Unfortunately, I was using a film (obviously) camera--a 1950s vintage Contaflex IV, on which I had to turn a knob manually to wind the film. I think I was probably winding at those few moments with the pearl necklace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.236.195 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

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)[reply]

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.
talk 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Final total eclipse

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)[reply]

Safety Issues: hype or fact?

The fact remains that many people, myself included, look at a direct full sun with no retinal impairment whatsoever. Indeed it seems highly improbable that our eyes would have evolved into such vulnerable organs of perception in a world where it would be quite natural to look inquisitively upon the source of heat, light, and even life itself. During the sixties, Life magazine (or it may have been Look) reported in a story on Pablo Picasso that the celebrated genius, who depended on his eyes as few men ever did, had a habit of staring for long periods directly into the blaze of a Spanish sun. Orthotox (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent eye damage is high price to pay for curiosity. There are apparently supporters of sungazing already explained there. What more do you want? Myself, I recognize the sun's brightness is very different from straight overhead to near the horizon, and humidity and smog can also dim the sun perhaps many orders of magnitude, but you also have to consider what part of the radiation is damaging, and whether visual pain is an accurate representation of the danger. Maybe we can get 100 monkeys and experiment on them on different conditions, or perhaps your friends would like to volunteer to help, so science can give detailed suggestions under what conditions we can safely stare at the sun? Tom Ruen (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact remains that many people, myself included, look at a direct full sun with no retinal impairment whatsoever." This is patently absurd/false. You might think you are looking directly at the sun when in fact you are actually only gazing very close to it. To stare directly at the sun would be excruciatingly painful, in fact it happens to me accidentally every so often and I can attest to the fact that it is very painful, not to mention if you really could stare directly at the sun, the projected image of the sun on your retina would be enough to severely burn it causing permanent damage. The eye has a autonomic reflex to look away from the sun if its gaze happens to catch it directly. TimL • talk 15:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The truth is, you can in fact look at the sun during the sunset and sunrise without too much trouble. It has been in practice to look at the sun in 6-second intervals during these times as a meditivatemeditative and medicinal practice, both respectively for praising the sun and gaining vitamin D."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrensk (talk • contribs) 03:44 [2 edits between successive minute ticks], 13 October 2013
Yep, it's mostly a cautionary tale with very limited basis in any kind of medical fact - but it continues to be told and believed because the liminal possibility of somebody's eyesight getting damaged is so scary. The actual odds, at least past infancy, are probably like "1% chance and only if you already had some kind of eye condition or weakness". I've worn spectacles myself from age seven due to short-sightedness on one eye, but I've gazed straight at the sun without glasses numerous times on the beach, in a cloudless sky (also with glasses at other times) and it's done absolutely nothing to my eyesight. The whole thing is about parents and doctors making a safety bet to make the kids steer a wide course off even the possibility of peril. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know from bitter personal experience that even *reflected* sunlight can be dangerous. A few years ago I was working at my desk while sunlight was reflected through the window from a shining chrome-plated car door handle in the street outside. I tried not to look directly at it, but for about 15 minutes it was in my field of vision (fortunately only in one eye). After the sun had moved away, I was left with a bright after-image. This gradually faded, but left a blurred spot. When I had my eyes tested the optometrist found there was a permanent scar on my retina. So if anyone claims that looking *directly* at the sun is safe, I say they are either a fool or a liar.81.146.36.70 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed frame of reference"

   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)[reply]

Table in "Geometry" section

   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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014

External Animation Video on Eclipse from SarvaShikshan

Ganeshwatve (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Where should this go? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NASA's eclipse information is out-of-date

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Solar eclipse in culture

The FA violates comprehensiveness parameter. There are many legends explaining solar eclipses in various cultures [6][7][8]. Also, there are many superstitions/rituals to be observed during an eclipse, which are not covered. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the article improved? -- AstroU (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014

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)[reply]

Done Cannolis (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


In the last section, there are a few usages like "between each eclipse" which is not proper English. It should be "between consecutive eclipses". You can't be between one thing. You have to be between two things.

Sorry I don't see where to where to add an edit request so I put it here with a previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.19.236 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

New NEWS today, for future editing

Be sure to read the readers' comments below the article. 

Headline-1: Now We Actually Have a Real Reason to Dread Solar Eclipses

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) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply] 

Headline-2: Solar Eclipse to Disrupt Power Supplies

QUOTE: "Power supplies could drop suddenly next month when the UK is plunged into darkness with an eclipse of the sun. Energy experts warned there could be possible blackouts in the biggest solar eclipse since 1999. Nearly 90 per cent of the sun's rays will be blocked out in parts of Europe on March 20. In London and the South East, 85 per cent of the sun will be obscured by the moon whilst in northern Scotland, more than 95 per cent will be covered. The National Grid has warned that solar power output in Britain will halve during the event. It is unlikely to cause problems as so little electricity comes from solar power im the UK but other parts of Europe come be plunged into darkness." -- AstroU (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: This was linked from the top of the Drudge Report today.[reply]

Occurrence/Frequency

"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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015

The reference links #55 and #58 are dead. 176.221.120.203 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

• 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)jcardazzi[reply]

Last non-central solar eclipse

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)[reply]

Ambox for next eclipses

Tomruen 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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015

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)[reply]

 Not done This is not the place to request additional rights, try Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. If you suggest an edit, then it can be discussed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this day...

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

Andrmoel (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add the following weblink, which shows all eclipses (year -2000 to 3000) crossing the US: http://www.solar-eclipse.de/en/eclipse/country/US/

Information icon 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

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

{| class="infobox" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 style="width: 317px;" |- |[[File:Solar eclipse 1999 4 NR.jpg|308px|Total solar eclipse]] |- | A ''total solar eclipse'' occurs when the Moon completely covers the Sun's disk, as seen in this [[Solar eclipse of August 11, 1999|1999 solar eclipse]]. [[Solar prominence]]s can be seen along the limb (in red) as well as extensive [[corona]]l filaments. |- |[[File:Annular Eclipse. Taken from Middlegate, Nevada on May 20, 2012.jpg|x154px|Annular solar eclipse]][[File:Partial solar eclipse Oct 23 2014 Minneapolis 5-36pm Ruen1.png|x154px|Partial solar eclipse]] |- | An ''annular solar eclipse'' (left) occurs when the Moon is too far away to completely cover the Sun's disk ([[solar eclipse of May 20, 2012|May 20, 2012]]). During a ''partial solar eclipse'' (right), the Moon blocks only part of the Sun's disk ([[Solar eclipse of October 23, 2014|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)[reply]

Done JTP (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only for now

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017

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)[reply]

Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

More details about eclipse prediction?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In culture

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017

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)[reply]

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

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)[reply]

Done
talk) 16:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2017

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)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please add math for Lunar Shadow Size on Earth’s Surface

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)[reply]

Temporary loss of NASA references

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)[reply]

Wrong word usage

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)[reply]

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.
Talk) 02:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Dating the crucifixion??

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)[reply]

Unclear caption

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)[reply]

Fixed. The images were moved from vertical to horizontal alignment. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Pretty picture?

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)[reply]

Astronomical history of current total eclipse

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Eclipse

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

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)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The Totality article is actually a disambiguation page. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A strange kind of solar eclipses

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019

The last Solar Eclipse occurred on Dec 26th 2019. SandhiyaN (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not convoluted enough first sentence

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Reference Solar eclipse

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

Annual 106.201.224.241 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

Article needs to be updated and rewritten on other sections. There are also a lot of unsourced statements.

talk) 07:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Suggestion to change list to prose, in section 2.3 Duration

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)[reply]

In the section Final totality the words geological time scale perhaps could be a wikilink. Thanks to whom can make it this way 79.49.54.169 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

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)[reply]

 Not done, 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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

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)[reply]

 Already done Antrotherkus 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates not appropriate

Today I added this, before the templates about eclipse series: 

The following is a series of Wikipedia templates that are used in articles on individual eclipses. Each template gives a series of eclipses separated by one semester, which is six lunar months. These series sometimes overlap, so for instance the eclipse on July 31, 2000, is in the first series whereas that of July 1 is in the second series. The maps show the path of the area of total eclipse (in blue) or of annular eclipse (in red), and contours of maximum percentage coverage of the sun in areas that do not see a total or annular eclipse, and of the time (standard London time) of maximum coverage. The "figure 8"s that one sees near the boundary of night and day surround areas that see only part of the eclipse because some of it occurs before dawn or after sundown for people there. A sort of asterisk shows the position of greatest eclipse, and another asterisk shows the point on earth where the sun is at the zenith at the time of greatest eclipse. Explanation can be found at the NASA Eclipse Web Site.[1]

Each template begins with "This eclipse is..." since the template is meant for use on a page about a single eclipse.

This whole thing was reverted because it mentions the templates. First of all, it's not right to revert an edit instead of making an improvement. I wrote an explanation of the maps, and there was no reason to remove that. Second of all, as I tried to explain in my edit comments, the article is not good the way it is. Each template says "This eclipse is a member of...". That doesn't apply here -- it's not an article about a particular eclipse. I thought of modifying the template, but it is appropriate for the template to say that. They're meant for articles about particular eclipses. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the paragraph because its presence makes the article worse, and there's no way I could figure out to have a paragraph to the intended effect there that does not make the article worse or leave a hanging sentence uncited in this featured article.
I really am struggling to see the scale of the problem also: does it really amount to "This eclipse" instead of "These eclipses"? If you see a big problem with it, change the templates themselves as to dynamically read correctly, substitute them and edit the prose directly, or implement literally any other solution that doesn't try to reassure the user about "Wikipedia templates" as well as a Web 1.0 "click on this link to go to another website" while still including the errors in the first place—which is an egregiously unencyclopedic presentation, which I'm almost certain creates ten times the confusion in the average reader than the article as it presently is did in you.
I didn't really find the problem with the header sentence to be that critical, so I haven't yet looked into changing it. In any case it seems to require trimming, not piling on. Remsense诉 17:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed it again because we don't use main space to tell Wikipedia editors how to edit. When you go the theatre, you don't tell the audience about the stage directions (unless it is the farce Noises Off, as that is part of the joke). Your material is fine but it is the wrong place. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fred Espenak. "World Atlas of Solar Eclipse Paths". NASA Eclipse Web Site. NASA.

Main image

Hi there! I did just replace the lead image because it is a bit lacking in quality, since it shows at best the solar prominances, but not the complete solar corona with its streamers completely visible, and even the Moon being visible theough earthshine. The following image is what I added and got taken out again.

A total solar eclipse, with the earthshine illuminated Moon and the solar corona with its solar prominences (in red) along the lunar limb and coronal streamers streaching out.

I might even suggest to have at the top the other image I added where there is the whole scenery of the eclipse visible; but I get it that a wide angle photo dwarfs the sun/moon. Maybe someone shares what I tried to do. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with this image is it's an obvious multi-exposure HDR capture that looks really nothing like what totality looks like with your naked eye. I concur with this take at Talk:Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017#Lead_image_discussion:

An HDR stacked composition will yield a cartoonish x-ray compression of what it looked like visually, and thus is not suitable to lead the story, although it may be interesting and informative in the scientific sense. Hence as a lead, one would typically choose a mid-corona exposure that necessarily omits surface features and best approximates the naked-eye visual impression, and slightly blows out the inner corona. This is what eclipses look like to the eye. — @User:Rkinch

I haven't looked into why Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 currently also has this as the lead image, after that discussion, but I think it should be reverted there as well. Perhaps there is another spot in the article for this image; the earthshine is certainly impressive.
PK-WIKI (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox solar eclipse images for individual eclipses are apparently changed by editing Module:Solar_eclipse/db/200, like so.
This is a rather strange and complicated procedure, and surely causes editors with that eclipse in their watchlist to never notice that the lead image has been swapped out. The photo should be brought into the edit history at each individual eclipse article.
PK-WIKI (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument for realism, being about resembling human vision of an eclipse. Well I was mainly adding it to make also the streamers discernable as a one of the visible phenomena. But maybe thats left to a later part in the article. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_eclipse&oldid=1220154494"