Talk:Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017

For notability reasons (and various other Wikipedia rule reasons), I propose that we limit USA events to only those immediately under the narrow path of the 100% eclipse. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Also, we should carefully monitor for linkspam. I've already removed the odd "eclipse viewing event" that was nothing more than some "copy/paste for ad space". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with both Sbmeirow and Scjessey here. I've been tempted to remove some of those that are out of the area of totality (especially the recent California addition). Caidh (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Strong Enough I propose we delete every damn one, and keep them deleted. As per
  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all There are over 900 events listed on the NASA website and this continues to grow. I could see "notable" events being listed here if we could agree on what "notable" is which seems unlikely, nuke them all.RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is a massive astronomical event, with lots of science outreach and citizen science involvement which doesn't lie inside the path of totality. A fork may may be need for these endeavors, à la Death of David Bowie, for suitably comprehensive coverage. kencf0618 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I recommend a summary of viewing events, that would focus on how people viewed the events and maybe a small bit about a couple of the largest ones. Then the rest can be moved into a list if needed, otherwise it can be deleted. Kees08 (Talk) 06:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbmeirow: I know we do not do votes on Wikipedia, but it looks like consensus is leaning towards a reduction in content in that section. Wanted to ping you to remind you of this. The longer we wait, the spammier it is going to get. Kees08 (Talk) 06:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to whip something up to replace those sections. Please note, I wrote this very quickly, while I waited for a video game update to download. Feel free to mess with it and correct my errors. Let's see if we can agree on a version and get it in the article. I will try to make time to rewrite the Total eclipse viewing events section too, but it might be a bit. Here is a proposal to replace the current Viewing from outside the United States section (suggest rename to Partial eclipse viewing):

The partial eclipse was viewed at events across the United States and around the world. The partial eclipse was also visible in Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and the northern part of South America. The partial eclipse was visible across portions of Canada, ranging from 89% in Victoria, British Columbia to 11% in Resolute, Nunavut.

In the Eastern hemisphere, the partial eclipse was seen just before and during sunset. In Europe, the partial eclipse was only visible to those in Iceland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and the Portuguese Azores archipelago. It was also visible in the Chukchi Peninsula (with about 40%).

Let me know what you think. Kees08 (Talk) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/* Visibility */ It is absolutely necessary to mention

This is probably a matter of definition, but has the area of the path of totality been calculated such that we can cite it here? kencf0618 (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could be calculated, but I've never seen this done, and it's not clearly important. The maximum width of the path is important and always given. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70 miles (110 km), that, but as a matter of science outreach if it can be cited, I shall do so. kencf0618 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a pretty interesting bit of information, and was surprised myself not to be able to find any sources discussing it. If you can cite it as you hope, I think it would be a worthy addition. TJRC (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is here: Talk:2017#Eclipse. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017&action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers

• August 10, 2017 - This article has been viewed 657,081 times in last 30 days. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing this talked about online, but cannot find a single source to confirm it. Also another article says the first eclipse recorded in the US was 1778. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.22.170 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this means the eclipse path crosses the U.S. 48 states w/o hitting Mexico or Canada, but it seems unlikely this has never happened before. Solar eclipse of June 8, 1918 only crossed the U.S. but it did also cross parts of the gulf of Mexico before going to Florida. Solar eclipse of August 12, 2045 has a similar path as 1918. You can see 1850-2100 paths over North America from [4]. The closest would be Solar_eclipse_of_May_26,_1854 except it went along the northern boundary of the US with Canada, but that's annular anyway. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that it was the first eclipse whose totality path has traversed only the continental US, remaining on land the whole time, since 1776. Apparently the last time that happened was sometime in the Middle Ages, before colonization. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/solar-eclipse-maps-are-not-exact-scientists-say-path-of-totality-isnt-quite-70-miles/2017/08/11/d140fd5e-7eac-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar-eclipse fever means counterfeit glasses are flooding Amazon’s market, Quartz, Elijah Wolfson, July 27, 2017.

"No surprise, my 10-pack all have rounded ears, the scarlet letter of phoniness."

Right after the above words, this article has a photo showing just how close the counterfeit eclipse glasses are to the real. If it's acceptable per fair use, I think this photo will add texture and richness to our article. Please jump in and help if this appeals to you. Thanks. And the above reference is already included in our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can, but see this compromise edit. TJRC (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this edit. I have edited the article further so people can find the AAS list of approved vendors more readily; it's definitely a public health issue. kencf0618 (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, too! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this section because after years of planning, the rubber now hits the road. Logistically, it's Woodstock in the sky, only you don't know how many will try to show up. E.g., AAA Idaho expects up to 500K visitors (20K to Weiser, pop. 5,507 (citation forthcoming)), and it's only Thursday. kencf0618 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what we want to do. We need want to overstate nor understate. A good metaphor might be if we were providing up-to-date info to family physicians. We just give the information we have.

In particular, we should include the info that at least a fair number of counterfeit eclipse glasses have been tested and found to be good enough. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar-eclipse fever means counterfeit glasses are flooding Amazon’s market, Quartz, Elijah Wolfson, July 27, 2017.

And now this information is being suppressed as an apparent health concern. I disagree with the removal of this information, even if you are only trying to do this for health concerns. It is suppressing a viewpoint that is being reported upon by reliable sources, hence it violates the rule of

undue weight on the AAS opinion. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

But our fellow member's kind of right. We currently have only one individual saying this in only one source. We really should have at least two sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-added the Quartz source with the one guy saying, hey, most counterfeits actually good enough. And yes, I certainly do want more than one source. And there would be this issue: If counterfeit eclipse glasses are so widespread, why aren't there more reported eye injuries? And the reason might be a very lucky break that most of the fakes are good enough (and/or even with the glasses people don't look for that long). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to Tell If Your Eclipse Glasses or Handheld Solar Viewers Are Safe, American Astronomical Society, 2017.

Don't fall for phony eclipse glasses, CBS News MoneyWatch, Jonathan Berr, Aug. 10, 2017.

Re-added the first, the second has been temporarily lost. Then added, I think lively edits are a good thing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors - please watch the events section and try to keep the marketing FLUFF thinned down. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing but I figured, hell, it'll be all over in 16 hours anyway, then it can be deleted. EEng 02:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. And if it's a better, tighter summary, that's also advantageous to the reader.

In the section on "Counterfeit eclipse glasses," the explanation that the eye's retina contains no pain receptors is a key part of the explanation if how a person could be injured but not initially aware of it.

And I think this is the case even if the information is discussed more fully somewhere else.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines the UK has dealt with the ophthalmological aftermath of the Solar eclipse of August 11, 1999. Undoubtedly we'll be having our own public health look backwards to cite soon. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116382/ kencf0618 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost seems strange not to. And that normalcy as it were and that evolving tradition perhaps does trump stilted and rather one-dimensional views of what we might argue toward. They're not as hashed over as the tradition.

Our article had included at the end of the lead:

• NOTE* Only look at the solar eclipse if you have the right gear. Sunglasses will not help, and looking at it will cause serious eye injury.

I'm going to re-add it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting part is that I myself can easily say -- We should provide information, we should not preach.

But that itself is a preachy statement! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says, "its land coverage ended as a partial eclipse along the South Carolina coast at about 6:44 p.m. UTC (2:44 p.m. EDT)". That can't be right. I was in Pennsylvania at 2:44 PM EDT and the thing was far from over. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 'bringing this to light'. (Groan/sorry.) I've updated the text to properly match with its source. —ADavidB 04:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do the pink tear-drop looking things mean in the chart near the top of the page? Also, what are P1, P2, P3, and P4? The rest I think I got. The dark blue lines show where the eclipse will be total, the light blue lines show the amount of partialness (when the eclipse is at its maximum?) And the green lines show the time the sun will be in each spot. But those lines and those P things, I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.81.91 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This key to a very similar chart should help. The pink lines follow where the eclipse begins or ends with sunrise and sunset, with the bisecting line showing where the maximum eclipse occurs at sunrise or sunset. The points P1 to P4 are defined somewhat technically in another page as penumbral shadow contact points. P1 is where the partial eclipse first begins, and P4 where it last ends, with P2 and P3 showing first and last "internal tangency" points of the shadow with Earth. Comparing with the eclipse animation in the Visibility section, P2 and P3 appear to be where the partial shadow last crosses the sunrise line and first crosses the sunset line. —ADavidB 13:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That cleared things up quite a bit. Thanks 151.141.81.91 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there's a note about a 1972 cruise for that eclipse. However, the article is missing information about the 2017 voyages. The Alaskan Airlines 9671 encounter that precedes landfall in Oregon[5][6][7] and the Total Eclipse of the Heart cruise aboard Royal Caribbean Oasis of the Seas featuring Bonnie Tyler that followed after the eclipse path left the east coast of South Carolina[8][9][10], both of which were featured in many news sources. These should be mentioned in the viewing section for 100% total eclipse viewing coverage. -- 67.70.35.17 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT - Galatz^Talk 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:PP @Galatz: 162.18.172.11 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Galatz: IP editors can't. Don't you see the protection lock on this page? -- 65.94.170.48 (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The caption in the "Total eclipse viewing events" section that says: "Photographing his first eclipse, Madisonville, KY", is not grammatically correct and extremely un-encyclopedic. It should be fixed to something like "A man photographs the eclipse in Madisonville, KY" Or, even better simply removed, it adds nothing to the article. 162.18.172.11 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is updated. —ADavidB 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adavidb: Thanks! 162.18.172.11 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i just wanted to say that the article received more than 800,000 visits yesterday. That's impressive, it achieved more views than Game of Thrones' article when its seventh season debuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.152.231.173 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can reduce the number of images in the article while maintaining (or improving) the quality of the article. I think that photos in the partial eclipse gallery can all go, unless there are other places for them that are appropriate. I also think File:SolarEclipseCorvallis Aug 21 2017.jpg serves the purpose of most or all of the totality gallery.

Normally I would be bold and just do it, but since this is currently a lot of page views, I wanted to make sure no one had heartburn over those changes. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 06:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are too many photos in the Total eclipse viewing events section. Let's keep the first two and the one that was taken in Rediscovered Books. Hakken (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, pruning can happen eventually, but more images may come too, so waiting a bit sounds prudent. In defense, a larger gallery of partials can help show where the eclipse was visible and observed, as well as degree of partiality from various cities. We could do table with smaller images with views by state and large cities. Ideally we should make sure all photos removed have Category:Solar_eclipse_of_2017_August_21 or a subcategory, so they can be relocated for future usage. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, you and I worked together on the images for Planet Nine. If you'd like any help with infographics be sure to ping me. I'm imagining a map of North America dotted with small, clickable thumbnail images. There may even be a template for that. Obviously the selection process might take some time. nagualdesign 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: Let me know if you decide to do that, and I will upload a photo that I took to add. I think that sounds neat and would be a great replacement for the galleries we have now. Would you be able to work that? I will be unable to contribute for a bit, or I would help. Do you think we can reduce the number of images in the meantime? Kees08 (Talk) 04:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Madras, Oregon
Aubrey Gemignani for NASA
3186 × 2527, 965 KB
Public Domain

B: Casper, Wyoming
M.P. Ayucar for ESA
2933 × 2933, 2.61 MB
CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO

C: Madisonville, Kentucky
Jim Henderson
2933 × 2933, 642 KB
CC BY-SA 4.0

D: Summerton, South Carolina
Armin Kübelbeck
2371 × 1831, 204 KB
CC BY-SA 4.0

So we've got a lot of images coming into the "Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21 in the United States" category over at Wikimedia Commons. Eventually, there'll be some sort of fight over which image gets to be the lead in {{Infobox solar eclipse}} at the top of the article. So, I've plucked these three images from the category – the absolute best views of totality that can compete with the currently used image. I've named each image with a simple alphabetical code in context of this discussion; A, B, C, and D. My pros and cons for each image are listed below. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• A. Of the 4 images currently available, I think A is the best. I don't think that D really shows Baily's beads; it looks like chromatic aberration to me and not quite taken during totality. There's a rather lovely (but non-free) image on APOD today that shows where the Baily's beads were. Nice work putting this survey together, by the way. nagualdesign 15:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None of the above – None show the craters, pits, scars of the Moon, nor adequately show off the Corona and Chromosphere of the Sun. Cheers! {{u|
  Talk} 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• B, with A as a good second choice . There's not much difference in the thumbnail view, so it comes down to minor differences in the full view. The image quality puts C and D in last place. Image B shows better detail/contrast in the corona than A, and the higher resolution is particularly good for anyone wanting to download the high res version. The one thing I dislike about B is the blue imaging artifact inside the moon's edge. However I find that preferable to the slight vertical smearing in A. Alsee (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Yes, none of these show prominences, while A has best corona. Maybe more will come? Tom Ruen (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomruen: I honestly don't see why A has the "best corona" when it's literally the only one of the four images in which the corona is smeared by what I can only assume is a HDR artifact. In comparison to the other three, the perpendicular lines of light that shouldn't be these become more obvious. This is mainly why I wanted to start this discussion, so that we can have a selection out of three images that show the corona in detail, instead of the current image in which it is smudged. :( – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... doesn't look "smeared/smudged" to me, just longer exposure. I'm not too worried overall, but all of them seem fine to me. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomruen: A better look at what I mean; the Madras image (top) vs. the Casper image (bottom). The difference should be obvious here. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham:, the Casper image (B) would be the best were it not for the fact that the bottom of the image is missing a large amount of corona. The smearing that you refer to in image A (camera shake?) only really affects the top edge of the Sun's/Moon's disc, and the corona can still be seen in great detail. Another image may come along any day that's even better than A but for now I think it's the best image we have of the corona. nagualdesign 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just reading the comments here. I have uploaded a photo of the eclipse from Madras, OR with visible prominence and some detail in the corona. Pl. see if this will meet your criteria. Talking of prominences, the second one may be useful.

Anandm78 (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a aye-nay quality regarding whether the solar poles are aligned vertically in the photos. This alignment is necessary if anyone is trying to get a consistent encyclopedic understanding of one eclipse versus another. Sometimes the poles are tipped in the photo to get the wider equatorial corona to fit better into the diagonal of the photo frame, but as a lead photo I would suggest the alignment is worthwhile for comparing to other work. We should also be careful no one puts up a photo that is mirrored (from a telescope diagonal) or rotated to some odd orientation; those who intelligently remember this spectacle will always recognize the three major coronal brushes at 2, 4, and 9 o'clock from solar north in photos. Richard J Kinch (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be careful about what "looks best"; the lead photo should best approximate the plain naked-eye impression, and not some unrealistic composition or accidental artwork. No photograph can realistically represent all the features of an eclipse at once due to the dynamic range of the subject and limitations of cameras and displays. Baily's beads, prominences, chromosphere, inner corona, outer corona, all vary in brightness far beyond the dynamic range of any camera much less a display. A plain photograph (that is, not a composition or product of post-processing) cannot capture much more than one of these features with both resolution and contrast. It's actually hard to take a bad exposure level on a total eclipse, since from 1/1000th to 2 seconds you get something interesting, just not more than one feature at a time; she's a mysterious model like no other. 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. Also avoid diffraction artifacts in the camera, such as exaggerated spikes on bright spots from a telescope spider or lens iris, if there are bright spots. These are just the photographic realities, and why nothing substitutes for the naked-eye view that no photograph or display can reproduce, and a mid-corona exposure is a necessary compromise if you want just one photo that is emblematic of the live visual impression. Richard J Kinch (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the four, Image A is the best. The term "light smearing" is undefined in this context, so the criterion is vague. I have ignored a weak criterion I do not understand in reaching my assessment. The criterion "solar poles not vertical" seems meaningless and therefore unimportant. The pictures I took of the eclipse southeast of Casper, Wyoming, show the poles at a tilt. That is how the sun appeared to a camera aligned horizontally, parallel to the earth's horizon, and tilted 56° upwards at the target. The earth is tilted; lots of solar system objects are tilted; so it is misleading and arbitrary to "correct" nature by rotating an image so the sun's poles seem orthogonal within a picture frame. In any event, the sun's magnetic field alignment (and therefore the appearance of the corona) varies constantly, reinforcing how unnecessary it is to "correct" its direction, and how invalid it is to assess a picture using tilt as a whimsical criterion. I have found
  talk) 10:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Really? It took us three hours to get from Rexburg to Idaho Falls on US 20, then when we picked up I-15 there, it, too, was bumper-to-bumper and since everything we found on the Internet via my dad's phone said it was going to stay that way all the way down to Salt Lake so we just got off there and booked a hotel.

I have pictures of this, too, which I will put in the article after I get home from Salt Lake City, where we got stuck an extra day thanks to Delta. The young lady running the cash at the Exxon station just off the interstate at Exit 113 sort of suggested to me she was afraid they'd run out of gas; the road south from there was at such a standstill that people were going out with coolers and selling drinks to all the people who were stuck. I was really afraid we were looking at the north end of a 200-mile-long disaster area.

We need some better sources there. Daniel Case (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for Kentucky. It took about five hours to go 100 miles the i65 from the Tennessee border to Elizabethtown. --Cornellier (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I Googled, found good sources, and appropriately edited the section. I'm going to look for some free images on Flickr. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found one and added it. But I still want to get my I-15 pic in; I'll do that soon (I hope). Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need more news sources to verify these traffic jams. Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added that picture I took of the I-15 traffic jam, in the {{wide image}} format, so your jaw can drop as you scroll. Daniel Case (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Nashville, TN at Opry Mills and there was strong shadow banding right before totality. I could not get a good picture. They were moving north west. We sould mention them as I understand it is rare to see them. 205.255.224.10 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly worth looking out for free images over the next few days, and adding one to the gallery if you find one. Ideally it should also pass

WP:V (by being published in a reliable source) before it gets a mention within the text. nagualdesign 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Interstate 81 had pretty major delays the day and day after the eclipse, including one caused by a fatal truck accident at Mile Marker 127 that caused 20 miles of stopped traffic, and congestion on surface roads from people going around it. In the immediate Knoxville, Tennessee area there was acute traffic, and 81 had many other stopped spots besides the main delay from the accident. B137 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's hit the search engines and see what they can tell us ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a good place to start. Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have incorporated it into the article. Funny ... it focuses on I-75 in particular. I can't find anything about I-81 although I'm sure that was heavy. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: It comes very close, though. It mentions Interstate 40, which suddenly turns into Interstate 81 in Tennessee, not even at an interchange or in a city. But yes, directly, this article is only talking about the immediate eclipse area on the day of the eclipse, since it ended early enough for many people to leave that night versus staying the night. But further out eclipse traffic was certainly part of the bad Interstate 81 traffic even the next day, including the 20 mile parking lot and congested surface roads adjacent to it. Even a death accident that shuts down the highway, like the one at MM 127, would normally not lead to that much congestion. And there were many other smaller delays before the big one. It was consistently much worse than 95 usually is, which I-81/77 etc are often used to avoid. This may be hard to cite, and if it can't be, then too bad, by all good standards it should not be added then. B137 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@B137: Thanks. I-81 may not have gotten as much media attention since it wasn't a route into the totality path. If we do find something about it we can add it when we do, though. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: There are references for the bad fatal accident, and congestion, but I don't think they mention the eclipse, at least not the one I saw. UPDATE: Tractor Trailer driver charged for fatal I-81 crash B137 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highway

Solar-eclipse fever means counterfeit glasses are flooding Amazon’s market, Quartz, Elijah Wolfson, July 27, 2017.

' . . . Tucson, Arizona-based business Lunt Solar Systems, . . . '

' . . . How much does it matter if you wind up with a pair of glasses that don’t meet NASA safety standards? “All the testing I’ve done have shown that the products are very bright but are not unsafe,” says Lunt. Tests done on a spectrophotometer—a lab-level machine that costs thousands, in case you were wondering if you could check your glasses yourself at home—show that the lenses are, in fact, blocking the most harmful spectra of light. “The IP is getting ripped off, but the good news is there are no long-term harmful effects,” says Lunt. . . '

How to Tell If Your Eclipse Glasses or Handheld Solar Viewers Are Safe, American Astronomical Society, 2017.

' . . . In some cases these homemade filters may seem like they dim the Sun to a comfortable level, but that doesn't mean they do so across the whole electromagnetic spectrum. While you're enjoying a "comfortable" view of the "dim" Sun, solar infrared radiation could be cooking your retinas. And you wouldn't know till later, because your retinas don't have pain receptors. . . '

This might explain why there has been, fortunately, relatively few eye injuries. That most of the counterfeit products have been good enough. A lucky break!

It's a medical question, and a sociological question: Why were there not more eye injuries? And we should provide what relevant information we have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is always the default. Be interesting to see what is in the peer-reviewed literature. That said, it freaking HURTS to stare at the sun, so for most people, it's not likely to be a huge issue. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

"...it freaking HURTS to stare at the sun."

Not if you ask U2: "I'm not the only one / Staring at the sun / Who's hoping to go blind ..." I was actually listening to that song as totality approached, and I was doing exactly that, albeit through goggles with dark green glass (No cheap paper ones for me, my son or my dad! Besides, we can save them for the 2024 eclipse, when we won't have to travel so far) Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pain - the eye doesn't have pain receptors. But the eye still sends a signal to the brain saying "stop looking!", so it takes an effort of will to continue to stare at the sun or other excessively bright light. The real danger is if the filter is sufficient to filter visible light but not UV or IR; because then that reflex may not kick in. However, I suspect that a lot of the "counterfeit" glasses were produced correctly, just not properly tested, and thus most of the "counterfeit" glasses were actually ok. Mine certainly were. Argyriou (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone removed my simulation from the main article, so I am including it here ...

• 2017 NorAm eclipse fixed-ephemerides
  2017 NorAm eclipse fixed-ephemerides.webm 2017 NorAm eclipse fixed-ephemerides

• This is to educate/inspire future astronomers/cosmologists/astrophysicists on our solar system and galaxy and universe.
• Zeryphex (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the gallery can better be organized into four sub-topics (rather than three) as this:

current: Totality, Partial, Views outside of the U.S.

proposed: Totality, Transition (Baily's beads and Diamond Ring), Partial, Views outside of the U.S.

LithiumFlash (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit complete. I also ordered the images within each category to match the path of totality.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the images were moved, but they don't follow the path of totality (i.e. Wyoming image should be before Tennessee), and they also don't appear to be in alphabetical order either. What order are they in? Should we arrange them as suggested above (match path of totality)?—OhioOakTree (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of makes sense. With the transition images, I re-organized them to show the sequence rather than geography (placing the images at the beginning and end of totality in sequence as it occurred, regardless of location. But for the images of totality itself, going east to west makes sense. That said, there is such a variety of exposures possible (showing more or less of the corona), I'm wondering if that might be an alternative method for organization... (large corona images, smaller ones showing prominences and flares, etc...). No strong feelings, but just ideas. Montanabw^(talk) 04:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's very critical either, but this is the current ordering (after I just moved one image):

• Images in "Totality" are ordered by the eclipse path (which would also be time-ordered).
• Images in "Transition" appear to be grouped with first three as just before totality, and the last four just after totality. So Oregon (ending of totality) is placed 4th in section although it is the western-most location. (We have ambiguous ordering methods but I'm ok with order as it is).
• The images in "Partial" appear to be generally ordered as the eclipse moved across the U.S. (with some locations away from totality-path such as California and Maine).

(everything is ok in my view).—OhioOakTree (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image had an incorrect location in the caption. The image was taken by Rkinch. He added it to the article on 28 August 2017 (see revision history). All his photos/videos were taken in South Carolina, not Oregon. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is chock full o'pictures already, so I'm going to leave this here. This image was donated as part of the Wiki Science Competition, and was one of the winners in the US branch of that event (disclosure: I was on the jury, but do not have any connection to the images/uploaders). IMO this is good enough to be the lead image, but will leave that to others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this image near the top of the article. Thanks —ADavidB 14:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The moon seems rotated. Other astrophotographers have doubt about the image.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who specifically has doubt? Where has their concern been documented? —ADavidB 15:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting there ADavidB I am preparing a dossier. I think I will open it on the talk page on commons of the file, linking from here and other projects and language edition. I just need to be as complete as possible. The discussion started on this facebook group.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is ready but let's see if we can get first a reply from the author, maybe he can fix the issue. We kinda know it's there so doing an accurate diagnosis is not the point IMHO if he can upload a correct version quickly. Maybe I can inform a little bit later once we also have already a new version, than users can decide to keep it in the articles, keep the featured image barnstar on commons or not.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC) FYI a discussion was opened here--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the image!--Out of this World Adventure (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017. 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/20170808233754/http://eieclipse.com/events-around-eastern-idaho/ to http://eieclipse.com/events-around-eastern-idaho/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eclipse.siu.edu/tickets/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may want this photo of the eclipse in Shoshoni, WY somewhere in there. I love eclipses a lot after I saw this one in Shoshoni. A drive from Jacksonville, FL was worth it. I go see the eclipse in 2024 and get a picture. I will leave to photo here for users to decide.

--Out of this World Adventure (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Total solar eclipse as seen from Columbia, MO.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Partial solar eclipse (2017).jpg

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Solar-eclipse-2017-Tampa-Bay-Florida.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 06:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review in a bit. I would ask that the nominator consult significant contributors or make their own changes before nominating future articles to GAN, per the instructions at

@SounderBruce: Any updates? Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 20:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The4lines: Sorry, I have been a bit busy with other affairs for the past few weeks. At the moment, this article does not look to be ready for GA status unless appropriate citations are added for every claim (whether a full paragraph, sentence, or list entry). SounderBruce 05:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 20, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The events section needs major cleanup, if only to keep its style consistent. Several entries are written as short blurbs, while others are multi-sentence.

2. Verifiable?: Many paragraphs are still lacking inline sources, especially in the Related section.

3. Broad in coverage?: The camera equipment section only includes testimony from one company and needs to be expanded further or integrated into another "effects" section. The article seems to lack information about the greater cultural impact, especially in the retrospective sense.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: While this was an event worthy of many photos, there's just far too many in this article to read comfortably. A careful culling of photos would be needed. The captions also leave much to be desired, usually only stating the location (or in the case of "North Cascade mountains", an ambiguous one that is labeled incorrectly).

Upon a thorough read-through, I don't think this article is quite ready for GA status.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SounderBruce 07:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The solar eclipse that takes place on August 21, 2017 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#The solar eclipse that takes place on August 21, 2017 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]