Talk:Black drop effect

Untitled

I don't want an edit war. But check out apostrophe and indeed the following quote from the from the apostrophe protection society:

1. They are used to denote a missing letter or letters, for example:
   1. I can't instead of I cannot
   2. I don't instead of I do not
   3. it's instead of it is
2. They are used to denote possession, for example:
   1. the dog's bone
   2. the company's logo
   3. Jones's bakery (but Joneses' bakery if owned by more than one Jones)

and indeed the following quote from the Oxford English Dictionary

The sign (') used to indicate the omission of a letter or letters, as in o'er, thro', can't; and as a sign of the modern English genitive or possessive case, as in boy's, boys', men's, conscience', Moses'. In the latter case, it originally marked merely the omission of e in writing, as in fox's, James's, and was equally common in the nominative plural, esp. of proper names and foreign words (as folio's = folioes); it was gradually disused in the latter, and extended to all possessives, even where e had not been previously written, as in man's, children's, conscience' sake. This was not yet established in 1725.

(quote from sense 2 of apostrophe)

If you have better authority than the above, I'd love to hear it!

To quote wiki's own Apostrophe (mark):

If a name already ends with an s, the extra s is sometimes dropped: Jesus' parables. This is more common in U.S. usage and with classical names (Eros' statue, Herodotus' book). Additionally, many contemporary names that end with -es (a -z sound) will see the extra s dropped by some writers: Charles' car, though most style guides advocate Charles's car. Some authors also extend the rule to words ending in -x or -z.

So both are right, although purists and classicists prefer dropping the extra s after an ending s. It just looks better written "Venus'" than "Venus's".

Urhixidur 19:44, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Hi again

this looks like a transatlantic difference (cf tomato vs tomato ;-) which just cannot admit a "correct" solution. There is, of course, no such thing as a definitively correct answer; a straightforward vote would result in greengrocers' punctuation becoming the defacto standard.

I just can't help inferring that there must be more than one Venus when I see "Venus' appearance" or similar...OTOH, maybe planets are a well-established group of exceptions along with Euripedes, Bayes, goodness, and (perhaps) United States.

best wishes

Robinh 21:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Due to the Earth's turbulent atmosphere ???

Why appearance of Venus respectively it's shadow is changed only near the edge of the Sun and why only at one side. 84.169.210.197 09:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Optical effect?

The explanation that "it is now thought by many to be an optical effect" doesn't seem to add much value. Anything that can be seen at all is in some sense an "optical effect". Does it mean "optical illusion"? Some sort of aberration in the optics of telescopes? Or what? Matt 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

"Limb" of the Sun

Maybe it's a British term, but I have no idea what the "Limb" of the sun is. The edge? Can anyone elucidate for me? 3lb33 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the answer on Wiktionary. Apparently it's a term specific to astronomy--abbreviated from limbus, the Latin word for border. 3lb33 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Silhouette of Venus 1769.jpg

Please see Talk:Transit of Venus#File:Silhouette of Venus 1769.jpg where I am asking about an image that was removed from this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Suitable images?

Wikimedia received a communication offering some images related to the transit of Venus.

I see that the article has some fine images already. I do not know if the images being offered would be useful additions to the article.

The images can be found here

If they are suitable, I can take care of the processing of the permission statement, and can upload them as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black drop effect. 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/20101218112451/http://www.transitofvenus.org:80/history/black-drop to http://www.transitofvenus.org/history/black-drop

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)