Talk:Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maximum Duration of Totality[edit]

The text states the maximum duration of totality is "6 minutes 39 seconds". The NASA animated graphics gives it as "6 minutes 43 seconds". I have changed the text to match the graphic.

Nick Beeson (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why the animation displays 6 m 43 s. Most sources, including the NASA site, show 6 m 38.8 seconds, although the table of center line circumstances says 39.5 seconds.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake and Tsunami Prediction[edit]

Please let us keep this section. Although some people may see this as total nonsense, it provides clear guidance where this story has originated and how valid and genuine it is. The electronic chain letter alone has already created much fear and panic in many communities. Nilhanu (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Sounds like a very minor amount of uninformed conspiracy nonsense. Scrap it. I think people who come to this page (such as myself) want info about the eclipse, as opposed to idiotic speculation. 218.186.10.246 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any information about the eclipse is not altered in any way. If you just want to know about the eclipse you have it. This is not a place to argue this theory right or wrong. Just because your stupid little brain is overwhelmed by such a carefully crafted theory does not mean everybody sees this as a crap. Nilhanu (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this encyclopedia retains pieces on the Uncyclopedia and 4chan, I'm not at all sure how the subject of a section of well sourced prose being "idiotic" warrants its deletion. Restored until a more considerate and sensible explanation is given. Please stop simply deleting the seemingly well-sourced section without discussing it here first. MrZaiustalk 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A whole section just for it seems to give WP:UNDUE emphasis. --seav (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be re-cast. It may provide background to the internet chain letter, but the way it is presented makes the rest of this Wikipedia article look like a farce. In the absence of anyone else stepping up to re-edit this content (which I regard as irrelevent drivel), I will edit the article to include a new section so that it sits on its own. This way, people can see that it is not 'frat house' wacky humour, and supports the views of the proponents of its worthiness whilst retaining the scientific interest and credibility of this entry. -- Ajono 00:07 21 July 20009 (UTC)

It certainly would be nice to see it trimmed - My only objection is to its previous baseless deletions. Also need to restore some level of normal prose style to the LEAD. That's the last section you ever want to see turn into a clunky little list, as seems to have happened overnight. MrZaiustalk 01:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... if you include this section, don't you think you should include all totally false predictions no matter how ludicrous? 24.67.116.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, if adequately sourced. If it offends you, feel free to trim it a wee bit, though - It is excessively long per WP:UNDUE, as stated above. MrZaiustalk 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

linux ?[edit]

what is linux doing here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nankinry (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past Tense[edit]

I just converted the article into the past tense. --Ruyter Contrib 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The event has not yet taken place. The article is now totally confusing, misleading, in fact it's plain wrong. I'm reverting it. WizOfOz (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was still future 13 hours ago but has now concluded, so I have finished converting future to past tense Glenn L (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the U.S. at the moment, and getting my times mixed up! Sorry about that. --Ruyter Contrib 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Safety?[edit]

There is a section in the article currently about "Eye safety", specifically about not looking directly at the eclipse... Certainly this is not unique to this exlipse, and so maybe the section would go better on the Solar Eclipse article? It's like putting ==Car Safety== on every car article, it's redudant. --Falcorian (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only content was a quote, I moved it to Talk:Solar eclipse#Eye Safety incase someone wants to use the quote in the viewing section, and have removed it here. --Falcorian (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Please clean up the external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.22.142 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, we have. It should stop growing as quickly in a few hours or a day, but there are a number of articles linked to there that can provide sources for expansion above. Will be able to trim the fat and move those into references once it's over. From cloudy Kathmandu, MrZaiustalk 01:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this could be included : Google Logo to honor the even : http://www.gtricks.com/google-logo/40th-anniversary-apollo-11-landing-moon-doodle/ -- byCoolaerytalk —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Photos[edit]

I have Total Solar Eclipse photos from Varanasi which are highly praised. This semi-protected nature of the article is not enabling me to upload them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjit iit (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some photos of the partial eclipse, peaking at magnitude 0.84. I'm not sure when I'll upload them, however. I'm noting only partial eclipse images in the gallery, has no one from the totality zone uploaded any images? ~AH1(TCU) 07:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in China right traveling for pleasure. Didn't even know about the solar eclipse until the day before when I was watching the news. I managed to snap 3 pictures in Shashi of the total eclipse, but they're not really the highest quality. May upload when I get back to the US. 123.85.97.177 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance in religion[edit]

The sentence says that many people take a bath in the Sarasvati. But the article about this river says it's a mythic river. --Pixeltoo (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yes, people bath in that river, and yes, it is mythic in the Western sense of the word. I added a photo of what people do in a more tangible river, the Ganges, and also added a bit to the reactions section. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the longest?[edit]

It would be helpful to include some explanation of why the eclipse was the longest in duration. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... I see it was mentioned in the lede. But perhaps this could be expanded upon in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is meant by "the longest of the 21st century"?[edit]

Depending on when you count the start of the 21st century (1/1/2000 vs. 1/1/2001), we are talking about 8.5 - 9.5 years so far. Are we saying that this was the longest solar eclipse so far in the 21st century? It seems to me that would be a better locution given that we are not only in the 21st century but so close to the beginning of the century.

To say that X was the longest eclipse of the 20th century would be a comparison against all the eclipses in a 100 year period. To say that Y was the longest eclipse in the 21st century so far is to compare against all the eclipses in an 8.5-9.5 year period.

The two statements say quite different things. At the very least, we should make the lead sentence clearer by adding "so far" to it.

--Rudy Waltz (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The longest duration from 2000-2100, or specifically (as described in duration section) the previous longer occurred in 1991, and next longer will occur in 2132. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Science has calculated all possible eclipses, Rudy. That's why we may say for sure that it is the longest of this century. -- 200.234.56.246 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moon near Perigee[edit]

On Jul 21 2009 20:17 UT, the Moon was at the closest perigee during the year. Therefore, would it be more informative to state that the Moon was near proxigee? Robertcurrey (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of Proxigee before, found link [1], interesting, not sure what it means exactly, but I assume it's not quantitively important in this case. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Eclipse from Thimphu, Bhutan[edit]

I have few photo uploaded in Wikimedia and would like to have in this page but i can't link it. The photo are taken in Thimphu, Bhutan, Image Url : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Solar_Eclipse_22_July_2009_taken_by_Ugyen_Dorji_from_Bhutan.jpg

and

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Photo_of_Total_Solar_Eclipse_of_july_22_2009_by_Ugyen_Dorji_from_Bhutan.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugyen bccb (talk • contribs) 08:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

requested article: June 2132 solar eclipse[edit]

I notice that Category:Lunar eclipses and Category:Solar eclipses, contain articles for eclipses far into the 21st century. (see e.g. June 2094 lunar eclipse). So I'm wondering if the same could be done for June 2132 solar eclipse, since it's extra-special, and we can wikilink to it from the Lead. Agradman talk/contribs 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I don't think it's time to write that article now. 218.160.157.34 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the last year+, I've been working on the lunar eclipse articles from 1900-2100 (or 1950-2050 so far), same period NASA uses for their detailed PDF charts, so 2132 is outside that range. I also added a list of lunar eclipses from 1500-2500. On the intro claim about longest duration, I added a NASA URL reference to a table of long total solar eclipses from 2000-3000 to confirm the claim [2]. I'm all for individual solar eclipse articles from 1900-2100, (or wider range for listings) a useful duration to show the relations of each event to other eclipses. I'd support a starting point on solar eclipses, at least some table lists for cross referencing and stats, but all beyond my ambition for now. :) Tom Ruen (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

children buried into sand/mud ground[edit]

In India,when the people came to know about the solar eclipse they started burying their children in the sand/mud ground.These children were infected with some or the other kind of disease.People felt that if they bury their children lower part of the body into the mud/sand ground,the infection will go away and they will become disease free person.They felt that solar eclipse brings about many changes in the human body.If a new baby is born on solar eclipse day,he is considered as an eclipse.People feel that the eclipse is transferred from sun to their new born child. see image by clicking the following link [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhanid (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am in India and i have`t listen any such things here, i just heard that some people like pregnant womens etc are fearing to go out during the eclipse or at the maximum for the whole day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac.jpr (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

date change[edit]

The eclipse occured in India with some of it happening in Myanmar, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. Most of those places use the date before month, not the American system. Therefore, it should be changed to 22 July 2009. User F203 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about change in gravity during the eclipse??[edit]

Chinese are finding is there is any change in the gravity during the eclipse by high precise and accurate instruments, so what result they got ??- is eclipse can really change the gravity or not?? and if it could change, then did they come up with any explanation of this effect??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac.jpr (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best place for viewing[edit]

I removed the sentence about Bihar, India being predicted by NASA as the best place to view the eclipse, since the references were only secondary write-ups by Indian journalists. NASA's own eclipse pages doesn't mention this at all - on the contrary, India's climate statistics for the eclipse path was much worse than the Pacific. Sunjan (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed images[edit]

THIS section of photos was removed completely. I object to the removal, even if I accept it could use pruning. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total

Partial

From Orbit

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • 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) 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The file July 22, 2009 Total Eclipse 8,30 a.m. Taiwan.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The file July 22, 2009 Total Eclipse 9,30 a.m. Taiwan.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_eclipse_of_July_22,_2009&oldid=1210442877"