This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
It looks like an ip is adding the day of the week to a number of eclipse articles. I would defer to the eclipse project on how the lead should look. --Malerooster (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Day of week for an astronomical event depends on observer's time zone, and when broadcast, the event can be viewed realtime remotely from anywhere. I plan to watch this eclipse locally and it will be a Monday. Rairden (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, date depends on time zone. Thus, without being wrong, Wikipedia could give every event date twice, and not only astronomical events. Why should it be different for day of week? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been addressed, the wording has been changed to "the provinces of Canada", since the source (and newly added source) both refer to the 1979 eclipse as the "last".— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox reports Greatest Eclipse at 18:18:29 and specifies that times are in UTC. However www.timeanddate.com reports maximum eclipse at 18:17:21 UTC which I checked to be correct using JPL planetary ephemerides DE432 and applying light time corrections. The 18:18:29 is correct if in TDB or TT timescale not UTC. Bgodard (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes details about related eclipses and cycles to provide context and cater to readers interested in celestial phenomena. While these details might have separate articles, their inclusion here offers a comprehensive view of solar eclipses. The "show/hide" feature allows convenient access to this information, striking a balance between thoroughness and readability. Despite comprising a small portion of the article, this additional context enhances understanding of celestial events. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "show/hide" only is in effect for part of this section. The default visible content is 50% of the article, which is excessive given nearly all of the content is just cut/pasted from other existing articles (or via odd use of in-article templates). This is distracting and unnecessary. --ZimZalaBimtalk16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone focused on the April 8, 2024 solar eclipse, the additional context about related eclipses and cycles provided valuable insights. However, navigating through multiple articles for specific interests might not be practical. Consolidating similar information into one comprehensive article could streamline the reading experience and make it more accessible to readers with specific interests. But I imagine it might become a huge article. I'm not sure what the correct approach is. Perhaps a section on eclipses would help? Accuracy-searcher (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that's a significant amount of content to sift through, and I don't think I have the brainpower for it. Personally, I obtained just the right amount of information from the Solar eclipse 2024 article as it is. I found it informative and better than most of the material I've read in the last couple of days. It flowed well, and the illustrations were helpful too. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure my point is getting across. It certainly is relevant to point out how this eclipse relates to others and how it might be part of paritcular cycles, but we don't need to include (even hidden) lengthy tables and examples of previous (or future) eclipses in this article, especially when we already have summary articles that cover those details. I'm probably going to start trimming a bit later. --ZimZalaBimtalk17:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about inclusion of extensive tables and examples of related eclipses, but I found the visual aids to be beneficial to the article. If hiding the illustrations is a significant concern, perhaps removing the code to hide them could be a solution. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "The eclipse was partially seen" is wrong
Is it supposed to be obvious what the ..., 0.40, 0.60, ... lines mean on the globe map (from NASA)? I think they indicate the local eclipse magnitude, which is the fraction of the Sun's diameter that is blocked. But it's not mentioned in any legend that I can see. And the numbers are at odds with with local media, which tends to report the fractional area covered by the moon. For example, the map shows San Francisco at about 45%, but
Didn't have time to track this one out in LA where it wasn't so flashy anyway but thank goodness for Team Wikipedia -- you all have provided a *lovely* gallery of photos showing many aspects of the event. Thank you for sharing with us all. jengod (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say the same thing but my image is constantly getting removed. But there is nice pictures overall. D.P.K (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vreee added it to the gallery at 01:37. It was removed by Noctawny at 01:44. You'll need to request it again, if you want it to appear again. The caption was incorrect, which might be why it was removed. The caption Vreee added claimed it to be totality, but clearly, this is not yet or just past totality, as there is the diamond ring -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can only use freely licensed media (see Commons:Licensing for more details). I don't see any indication that Wasylko has released their photo under a free license; he would need to be contacted and agree to freely license before we could use it. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs06:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No change There is no support for the proposal which deviates from the usual format. As the article is linked on the main page, it seems best to speedily close this per WP:SNOW. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Literally every article about a solar eclipse includes the day, for consistency. It is the standard format across Wikipedia. Maple Doctor (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree- The established format on wikipedia is with the full date. This is just silly and those articles you cited were lunar eclipses, not solar eclipses... AsaQuathern (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: literally every solar and lunar eclipse page has this format. Why single out this and the October one specifically? Removing the day for seemingly no reason also seems silly to me. Sadustu Tau (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I saw it got deleted from the wiki :(, i also noticed an cropped version was made. I think it could be replaced by that one, I would do it but i don’t really know how to do it on phone Lg q60.avi (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey,I noticed that editing articles are much easier on simple english wikipedia, but on normal wikipedia it's much, much harder. could you change the editing system (making words takes you to and article) and adding images so that it's similar to the one on simple english wikipedia. here is an article on it
The article claims "a partial eclipse was seen in ... Ireland, western parts of the United Kingdom...". But this was really just the eclipse path. Cloud cover in Ireland and many parts of the UK meant it was not seen: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence has since been edited to include reference the "British Isles", when the newspaper source listed (Irish Mirror) references only Ireland. As newer user, I don't have the rights to update a semi-protected page, leaving suggestion if others wish to make the edit. Dr paul johnstone (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous reports about a spike in google searches where people searched "My eyes hurt" or "Why do my eyes hurt" directly after the eclipse, could this be included somewhere?
Doubtful, but I would imagine that the gallery will be whittled down in the coming week, after the flush of enthusiasm about the event has died down. Joyous!Noise!00:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now is the time for rejoicing and uploading 7,000 images that are on first glance the same thing. Pruning and editorial refinement and second opinions can happen later. All writing is rewriting! (But first you have to get something on the page.) jengod (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A low-stakes feel-good event like this is possibly a good opportunity to meet and welcome new users who have not previously contributed to Wikimedia/Wikipedia. We might want to consider being a little looser and gentler with ourselves until this article is off the main page and the hubbub has settled a touch? After that, cut the fourth quartile (lowest resolution, least illustrative, least aesthetic) of the totality section. 12 of anything is probably plenty LOL jengod (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is an encyclopedia and we don't bend our rules for an article about a so-called "low-stakes feel-good" event. We shouldn't let articles get bloated and then wait for "editorial refinement and second opinions [to] happen later". That's not what this project is. --ZimZalaBimtalk03:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging broad participation is one of WP's values. There is a guideline about being kind to (not biting?) the newbies. I agree that things should be loose for now, and people should be allowed to participate. I also agree that we will have plenty of time to clean it up later, which is what we should do. I disagree that this is bending the rules. It's just being patient. (I say this as the person who posted the most recent totality image. I thought it added something unique.) Dcs002 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add [citation needed] next to “ A partial solar eclipse was visible in all of the other parts of Canada, except the western part of Yukon and the western tip of the Northwest Territories.”, “ The partial eclipse was seen in all Central American countries, from Belize to Panama, all the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica), and northern South America (Colombia).”, and “ The partial eclipse was seen in Hawaii, eastern Kiribati (the eastern Phoenix Islands and the whole Line Islands), Tokelau, American Samoa except for its extreme western part, the Cook Islands, French Polynesia, and the Pitcairn Islands. Although all located east of the 180th meridian, the local time of the eclipse in Kiribati and Tokelau was Tuesday, April 9, 2024, because either UTC+13 or UTC+14 is observed in these areas.” 100.33.107.151 (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you mean add the {[Citation needed}} tag to the end of every individual quote you have given, or just to the end of a specific one? Shadow311 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just got my image removed to due it having a lower resolution than another NJ photo in the article, should I add the original uncropped image? I do warn that the eclipse is very tiny and you need to zoom in to see it. D.P.K (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ZimZalaBim is correct and cites the same policy I was thinking of. If the image needs to be zoomed, is low resolution, and/or doesn't really show anything that isn't in the several other photos that have been uploaded, then I would refrain from uploading the larger version and trying to insert that into the article. Ultimately, editors have to decide which photos best capture the topic rather than trying to shoehorn every photo into the article, especially when so many of the photos are the exact same thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not Flickr. Why do we need photos of the eclipse off in the distance with "scenery" in the foreground? Yes, they are pretty, but what informative value do these images provide? --ZimZalaBimtalk03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the scenery includes people watching the eclipse, then those images might be useful to describe the human fuss we all made about this. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think images showing the eclipse in context of where it was viewed from are more informative than multiple images of just the eclipse. e.g. the 'Washington' photo is particularly good, they are more specific to this eclipse than the others.
That said, most of the 'Totality with Scenery' photos were pretty random 'scenery' and not recognisable at all. I don't think we need a separate section for them. JeffUK07:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images with scenery context can provide useful knowledge to the extent that they show the bright fringes near the horizon, contrasting with complete darkness above.Kevinmloch (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add an image if you think it would improve the article
Uploaded my image and came here to see if it could help enhance the article. I see that there's a number of similar images already here, so I'm just going to leave this here in case anyone thinks that this might be a good addition or good to replace one of the existing images, but I think I'll leave that up to someone else. Feel free to add it to the page if you think it would improve it, but totally understand if there are already too many similar images. — λ (talk | contribs) 03:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the eastern side was absent of prominences - something like that. This image clearly shows that's not the case. I got prominences in my own pictures, but they're not at all as good as this image. The article should be corrected. The image currently used to show prominences was taken closer to C3, when the moon had moved to cover these prominences. (Fantastic pic @Lambda!) I can fix the text, but should this image be added to illustrate the Eastern prominences? Dcs002 (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a bit of "bold" editing and added the image with the text. It would look better if it were cropped like the other image and rotated so they match - or should the other image be rotated? Dcs002 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a Gallery Page on Commons for the Solar Eclipse of April 8, 2024
I created a new gallery page on Commons titled COMMONS:Solar eclipse of 2024 April 8 for posting images related to the eclipse, instead of cluttering the article page on Wikipedia. I'm new to Commons and still figuring it out, but I'll continue working on it tomorrow. If anyone wants to help out, please feel free to join me. AceSeeker (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Adding a section about the reaction by the MLB for their day games. Specifically about the Cleveland Gaurdian's day game, which had a viewing experience prior to the game. Sonofbun (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the "4 minutes and 28.13 seconds" mark is the accidental unlucky 13 in the terms of second timing calculation based on greatest extent of total solar eclipse in durango, mexico? 182.253.54.79 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a meaningless number. We don't know the sun's diameter accurately enough for sub-second predictions, especially not 4 years in advance when it was added to the article by an anonymous IP editor: Special:Diff/952336683. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Not only does that duration appear (unsourced) only in the lead section, but the associated reference to the whole town of Nazas, Durango, and to distance of exactly 4 miles (6.4 km) north of there, suggests that the 0.13 seconds is a bit meaningless? I wonder if anyone was actually stood there...? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am having issues adding images to the "gallery" in this article. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and would appreciate some guidance. I have added images to other "gallery" sections to other eclipse articles. See here, and look at Izard County, Arkansas.
When this article first had pictures being published, I included some of mine, but they were taken down by you guys. Thanks :D Hunalbe19 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having not seen the specific photos you added, I'm going to comment in a more general sense here. Be sure to verify that your photos aren't duplicating anything already in the gallery. Gallery sections aren't so we can jam as many photos as possible in an article, they're to show different examples of a topic to enhance understanding. So no, we don't need 25 versions of the same basic totality photo since that doesn't help a reader learn more about the topic. Instead, we should look for the photos with the best focus and resolution, and any photos that may show additional features like the "diamond ring" effect, a solar prominence, or any other associated phenomenon. Also be aware that there is a specific policy that Wikipedia is not an image repository, so while anyone can upload photos, it's with the understanding that they have a specific purpose and there is no guarantee that photo will be used in an article. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A semi-popular astrology influencer killed her partner, children, and herself the day of the eclipse under the belief that it would be the "epitome of spiritual warfare".
Only 1 of Johnson's 2 children died (the 9-year-old daughter survived after being apparently forced from Johnson's vehicle at speed on the 405 Freeway), making this a double homicide and an apparent suicide, and a number of the links you supplied are now broken. I don't think it's necessary to point out that major astronomical events like an eclipse can trigger dramatic breakdowns by those with latent mental illness (historically, that's been known for millenia), or that this event is relevant to include in this article. Johnson is not otherwise notable from Wikipedia's perspective. General IzationTalk 20:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, no one could diagnose Johnson based on the facts thus far known, and I am not qualified to do so anyway, but I will say that some of Johnson's writings on X and elsewhere strike me (having had some personal exposure to it) as reflecting manifestations of bipolar disorder. General IzationTalk 20:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[LAPD Lt. Guy] Golan told The Associated Press that while investigators have reviewed her social media posts, they are not considering the eclipse to be a contributing factor 'because we just don’t know why she did what she did'." One of the few intact sources. There's a reason the reputable media took the story down. We shouldn't touch this. Dcs002 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there a photo of the Solar Eclipse taken from Dallas, Texas from NASA a few hours ago? What happened to it or am I just imagining things.. D.P.K (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody reverted the change. I disagree. The NASA photo taken in Dallas does a much better job of showing the solar prominences. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support bringing it back, the prominences were an important part of this eclipse and if the image in question presents them well then that's a plus for the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support changing the image. The one Cullen328 proposed is much better quality. The current image looks over processed and smoothed into oblivion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prominences are one interesting feature of total eclipses, the corona is another. Personally I prefer the Indianapolis image aesthetically, but I can see the benefits of either.72.66.20.36 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because no one else bothered to provide links to the contending images in this discussion about which image to choose, I have added thumbnails. When starting these sorts of discussions, OP should always link to the images so that editors unfamiliar with the options don't have to do as I did and search for them.
And since I'm here, I might as well say that I prefer the top image with the prominences. Zoomed in the moon's disk in the bottom image is all fuzzy-like; feels out of focus whereas the moon's disk in the top image shows the lunar topography.
In my opinion, I'm not a big fan of the noisy corona that takes half of the image's space, but I would prefer an image that has noticeable solar prominences AND high quality. Even though I stated in my previous edits that I prefer the Indianapolis photo, I will stay neutral. √2(talk)02:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very nice photo through the clouds, which is how a lot of people along the path of totality saw the eclipse. I think it would be a nice photo to illustrate that aspect of the story - the clouds and the view through the clouds. The color of the main prominence is wonderful, but I wonder if it should be rotated 180 degrees to align it with what people saw with the naked eye. (I know astronomical telescopes do that.) And maybe all or most of the black should be cropped.
If the cloudy views are a feature in this article (haven't looked in a while), I think this would be a great exemplar of that view, not just in OK, but parts of Mexico, TX, AR, IN, OH, PA, NY, Ontario, Quebec, and VT. Dcs002 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding this to the gallery for two reasons: It's the thinnest sliver of photosphere aside from the diamond ring photo, and the clouds (and lack of clear totality photo) demonstrate the extreme difficulty of viewing the eclipse over much of the path. I would recommend rotating 180 degrees and cropping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmloch (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have both cropped and flipped the image alongside editing the curves in gimp to more easily see the eclipse shape, while keeping the clouds as a prominent feature of the photo. 2024 Solar Eclipse 3rd contact from Hugo Oklahoma cropped versionTigerclone (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks awesome! I want to add a section on the view through the clouds that so many had, but I'm having a hard time establishing notability. I found coverage here [4]https://www.rochesterfirst.com/eclipse-2024/clouds-may-spoil-view-of-total-solar-eclipse-for-millions-in-north-america/ (the title is now "Clouds Spoil View... because it was revised after the eclipse - it's not a forecast), but most news stories seem to celebrate the clouds parting at the last minute in Dallas and elsewhere, or the good weather in general. That link is a local story in Rochester, NY, where they were under clouds. They covered a few other locations (Austin, TX, Niagara Falls), but it's just one local source. I'll keep looking. I think that was an important part of the story, and I would really like to see this stunning image somewhere in the article. It adds something that's not already there, in the gallery or elsewhere. Dcs002 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do think the image is cool, I don't think we need more images in the gallery. This is an encyclopedia, not a media repository. √2(talk)15:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point of establishing notability. If something is notable, it's not a matter of using WP as a repository. That's why I haven't attempted to add a section on cloudy viewing yet. As I understand, this eclipse path was unusually cloudy, which is a story (not yet established though), and the clouds broke at the last minute in many places, which is another component of the story. If that can be established as a notable phenomenon with this eclipse, it's legit. Using captivating pictures to illustrate the article is a good thing, consistent with WP guidelines. If there are too many pics showing the same thing, then maybe some of them should be culled if they look too samey. Dcs002 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a bold edit and added this to the partial gallery. It clearly adds value that none of the existing photos in that gallery have, for reasons given by others above. I still would like to see a separate section on cloudy viewing, but I don't think we're there with sources establishing that as a thing. Compared to the other photos in that gallery, the one over the Washington Monument, the one from Dexter, and the diamond ring have unique value. The others are all good pics, but this one certainly stands out. Dcs002 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have two images with transits: my Newport, VT w/quadcopter and the recently added Kincaid Lake w/bird, should we have a separate gallery subsection for them? There is at least one other I have seen with an Airliner transit but I don't know if that is freely licensed. One reason for this would be to allow for duplicate states (Illinois in the case of the bird transit) without having to throw out a high quality image without the additional object. Kevinmloch (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were we meant to have only one image per state in the galleries? This discussion page is pretty long, and I didn't notice whether that had been discussed. I just posted my bird transit picture because I thought it added something new and unusual to the gallery, which clearly has enough wonderful pictures of the eclipse itself already. Dcs002 (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevinmloch made a comment regarding duplicates for Illinois concerning my bird image. I don't know if that's actually been discussed. It would be awfully US-centric to have a different standard for Canadian provinces and Mexican states. Kevinmloch, was there a discussion or consensus (formal or informal) about this? I'm not trying to promote my picture. I just want to know if I made a mistake by posting it. Dcs002 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The <ref> identifies these as "a list of selected cities", not major ones. For instance, Sikeston, Missouri, has a population of 16,291 and no, I'd never heard of it. In any case, the section largely repeats the city lists in the individual country breakdowns. I suggest its deletion, or the use of a better source. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we need a criterion, perhaps a minimum population, and if any US or Mexican state or Canadian province under totality doesn't have a city that big, the largest city in that state or province to experience totality. I'm not arguing that this is the best plan, but I do think we need to standardize the list somehow. Cape Girardeau, MO is more than twice the size of Sikeston, MO, and it's not on the list. That just looks weird. New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador should probably have representation too. Maybe call the section "Cities and communities in the path of totality" without calling it a list, which might imply that it's comprehensive or only major cities. Those are my thoughts. Dcs002 (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restricting it to cities with populations of (eg) 250,000 and over, for instance, but adopting your very good idea of including the largest city in any state/province that doesn't meet that threshold to ensure representation. The problems would be WP:RS (local papers?) and the perennial wiki-squabbles over "city proper" and "metro area", and the danger would be WP:OR. But it'd certainly be better than the current random collection. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:RS would be a simple map of the path of totality from NASA or the like that shows city names. Population would be a simple matter of finding the highest population in the region, which seems to me a problem of simple arithmetic, which explicitly falls outside of WP:OR. I'll also reiterate the idea of using the term "communities" in the section title (e.g., Cities and communities in the path of totality) to keep the squabbles to a minimum, as "communities" is an ambiguous term. Dcs002 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are truly excellent maps, but they don't indicate cities in every state, of any size (e.g., OK, TN, NH). I could just correlate them with Google maps and find the most populated community, but I'm always afraid of WP:OR. Dcs002 (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry we've not been able to find a way to resolve this. The Space.com ref in the introduction would be a WP:RS for the ten largest cities, but I can still the merit of producing a list of all cities above a certain population threshold. Meanwhile, the article still identifies some incongruous entries (dunno: under 50,000?) as "major cities", while others with 250,000 plus don't appear. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still like the idea of adding "and communities" to the descriptor.Maybe we don't need separate communities in each state or province, but maybe every hundred or more miles, maybe every 200 km or so - something like that, something with an objective formula that can be demonstrated to be neutral and not discounting any region. (NASA also has a list of "major cities" that has the same problems.) I hope we're not struggling to fight a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe we are? Dcs002 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that there are so few of us balking at taking a random webpage's "list of selected cities" and labeling it "list of major cities" (Sikeston (16,291)? Carbondale (25,083)? Riverside (24,474)? but not Monclova (231,107)?). You and I have both come up with good suggestions for improving the accuracy and relevance of this list but they've all foundered on WP:RS. I'm now giving serious WP:BOLD consideration to just swapping it out for the space.com top ten. Wonder how long that'd stand before being reverted... Moscow Mule (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a bold edit, especially after discussing the matter here and offering alternatives. People with strong feelings are free to participate, and if you make a bold edit and some people don't like it, the worst that will happen is more people will join the discussion. (And yeah, someone might revert it. Mention this discussion in your edit summary, and maybe they won't be quick to revert.)
One thing just occurred to me - Carbondale had a MASSIVE turnout of visitors to watch the eclipse because of very public promotions they did, and the large university facilities they have there to host huge events. They were also at the crosshairs of the two total solar eclipses in 2017 & 2024. Their population might not be a fair reflection of their notability as a site within the path of totality. (I'm obviously not an RS, but we had an easy drive eastward until we hit Carbondale, and it was about 5 hours from there to Paducah. Carbondale was nutz!) So there's another fuzzy factor to consider. I don't know which viewing sites were like that. Dcs002 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request reasons for removal of info on Double Diamond Ring effect
I had added new information in an appropriate place for new information on the rare phenomena of the Double Diamond Ring effect and reference to the same as well. I had linked to an image taken during April 8th Total Solar Eclipse taken from Jonesboro Arkansas.
Is the image on Wikimedia? Is that where you uploaded it and linked it? I've never heard of a double-diamond ring, and I'm curious. I didn't remove the image or the text, but I'd love to see it. There are a lot of images on this page - a lot! Adding more is a big ask. My impression is that people here favor images that offer something unusual, particularly if there's already an image from the same state in the gallery. It sounds like you have a viable argument for inclusion, but I haven't seen the image or read the text. Dcs002 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got copyright problems with this video. I love the video, the side-by-side format is awesome, but there are two copyright issues that could make this a problem:
There is a notice at the end of the video that names a different owner (sjDANCEco.org) than the uploader (Wikimedia user "Gnissah"), and the license on the video page credits a third name (Thomas Hassing). There is a Wikipedian user:Gnissah. I don't know if it's the same person.
There is music on the video that is not free. I recognize 2 of the songs ("Winds of Change" and "How Deep Is Your Love"), and they are copyrighted works. These are obviously not the original recordings, but we do not have the performance rights to this work. I have left a message on the uploader's talk page on Wikimedia Commons. Dcs002 (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader replaced the video with v2, which has a CC BY-SA 3.0 notice instead of a copyright notice, and the issue of authorship has been resolved. The music is still there, though I'm not sure what needs to be done. It's not the focus. It's incidental. I don't know if that matters. That's where it's at. Dcs002 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other editors remove parts of the gallery but I suggest to add a link to every picture of the eclipse and remove the entire gallery from here. D.P.K (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would oppose removal, as galleries are a valid form of transmitting information (especially when the page concerns a visual topic). Linking to images isn't quite the same thing as being given the experience in a present-time format. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to add a separate link to each of a dozen trimmed pictures. Better to provide a link to the appropriate commonscat such as
I also oppose removing the gallery. It's been maintained well, it's informative, and not insignificantly, IMHO, it's beautiful. jengod (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or, if a large and carefully curated gallery is desired, assemble it in Wikimedia Commons. Or merely a commonscat link for the parental eclipse category and a grand April 8 eclipse gallery page, if someone deems it worth the effort. As for this ENWP eclipse article, most of the surviving pictures should be in a west to east sequence, more or less one per section, some emphasizing the locale, some the observers, and some the eclipse itself. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim.henderson, please keep in mind that Commons is not Wikipedia, if it were then links to a topics Commons collection would be allowed on the "below" section of navboxes (which they definitely should be, along with Wikiquotes and Wikisource). The idea of a [EDIT per Jengood, of course SW to NE] East to West sequence here seems a good plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think we've been using "path of totality" from southwest to northeast as the basic organizing scheme. I think. jengod (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should move the gallery to Commons and get rid of the current one here. That way, we don't have excessive images in an encyclopedia while still preserving the gallery for a more appropriate project. √2(talk)14:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the relationship between Commons and Wikipedia works, rather it's the other way around - Commons is a repository from which Wikipedia obtains images. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the gallery is just a excessive section that takes too much space and a place to shoehorn images, and would be better at a different project. Besides, there are more than ten images displayed before the gallery, which give the same educational level as the gallery. It's like an art gallery in a science museum. Even if all the art fans liked the gallery, it would be more appropriate to put it in an art museum rather than a science one, where the art fans can visit. √2(talk)14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why do you want the gallery to stay at Wikipedia instead of a better, more fitting project. Moving the gallery doesn't delete the images. You can still enjoy it at different place. √2(talk)14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a stand-alone site, it is an encyclopedia. Galleries are an important and traditional section of many Wikipedia articles, they are not in competition with Commons for views or image placement. Thanks for your concern, but as for "better, more fitting project", this seems to be a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. Just because you think gallaries are important does not mean they are useful in every article per WP:GALLERY, which discourages widespread use. Before you use the gallery articles listed as a counterclaim, they are a special exemption to the rule, unlike the solar eclipse gallery. I have never stated that Wikipedia and Commons are in competition. If you still don't think a gallery should be moved to another place where no one will be bothered, then you're not getting the point. √2(talk)15:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Randy, but I wouldn't say that a gallery would be "useful in every article". I'm not advocating "widespread use". I'm suggesting that the topic of this article is ideally suited to having a gallery. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding. All of you are going in circles, repeating the same stuff in different worlds. Is it that hard to move a series of images to somewhere else? √2(talk)16:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not hard, just unnecessary. My argument is quite simple: that the gallery enhances the article. No circles involved, thanks. Different worlds or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of millions of people flocked to the path of totality to SEE the eclipse, not to feel the temperature drop a few degrees or to hear the sounds of nocturnal wildlife during the afternoon. It was first and foremost a visual event. That alone justifies having an image gallery. It's ok to have scientific and artistic coverage of the same event in the same story. I don't see the conflict. We are not a science journal, and images serve both an artistic and a documentary purpose. Readers find images captivating, and they engage readers further in the content, particularly when the subject of the article is a rare and spectacular visual event experienced by many millions of people. We serve the readers. What will help them get the most from this article? How does a gallery at the end of this article detract from their experience? If ever there was a case for a gallery containing a wide variety of images, it's this article. Dcs002 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcs002 Even if that's true, we don't need a dozen virtually identical images of the eclipse on the page about the astronomical event itself. Maybe if you made a notability argument for something like Photography of the solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 it could feature a large gallery, but a small number of representative images presented in-line are sufficient for this article. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how does a gallery at the end of this article detract from the readers' experience? That should be what guides our decisions. I have made the argument that the gallery enhances their experience, and if it's presented at the end of the article, readers who don't wish to view the gallery don't have to. (That's the thing about galleries.) Your argument seems to go against nearly all articles with galleries unless they are articles about the making of art itself (e.g., Photography of the solar eclipse of April 8, 2024, which would presumably be an article with the specific purpose of containing a gallery of images related to this article). We don't have a dozen virtually identical images. Tough decisions have been made with inline images, even though they add value to the article. That's where the tough decisions must be made because that's where clutter affects readability. Dcs002 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'm saying. Would it kill you to follow a policy just because you can't make one click to access the same, or even better group of images on another project? √2(talk)22:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGALLERY says what WP is not. It does not provide guidance on when not to add a gallery to an article. The only relevant point I see is that images need context.
Quoted from WP:GALLERY (My comments in parentheses.):
Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.
(There is not enough space.)
A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.
(The shape and extent of the corona; the size, color, and positions of major prominences; the appearance of the eclipse through clouds; what an eclipse's diamond ring looks like; the appearance of the partial eclipse; probably many other aspects are best illustrated visually. Thus, a gallery section is justified.)
Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.
(Emphasis added. Collectively is the operational word here. The burden is on the collection of images, not on any individual image.)
Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged...
(The idea of a 2024 eclipse photography page as a home for eclipse images is discouraged.)
One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.
(Maybe the titles and organization should be revamped, but this is no justification for removing the gallery.)
Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery itself should be appropriately titled (unless its theme is clear from context).
(Somebody changed the captions a few days ago to make them more uniform, removing explanations of relevance. That should be added back.)
In its current form, the gallery in this article is lacking. It needs reorganization, and the images need re-captioning. But this entire article is fairly new and not yet organized. Before we start cutting apart the gallery, we should see how the article shapes up and tailor the gallery to fit the article. Dcs002 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel like some images on the gallery, like the Coahuilla and Montreal images as well as some projections, should be kept or, if possible, replace some of the images or videos before the gallery. √2(talk)00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is not enough space as the article currently stands for the gallery images to appear with the text. I think the article still needs expanding. Maybe space will open up. Many images illustrate concepts not yet covered in the article. This is a work in progress. I would ask for patience before culling things. We are following policy as we develop this article. This is not the article's proposed final form. Dcs002 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipses are primarily, and almost completely, a visual phenomenon. It makes sense to me to have a few dozen or so images to show readers what it actually looked like at from different locations. Kevinmloch (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be some mention of the difficulty in viewing this eclipse for many people in the path due to the clouds? There is a mention that various flights avoided cloud cover, but very few mentions of the effect that cloud cover had, or how many people's view was obscured. NHammen (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched a few days ago for sources describing the clouds as a notable part of the eclipse, and I only found a few. Look above under the section titled "requesting to add my photo of 99% coverage", toward the bottom, for some discussion. Yeah, I agree the clouds were a big story concerning this eclipse, but I couldn't find sufficient support for that opinion in the media. I think there are three sources in that section. If you want to take that on, go for it! Dcs002 (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the above discussion in favor of replacing the Indianapolis photo with the Dallas one because of the solar prominences, it is clear that I wasn't happy with the image because of the noise. Since then, I've been browsing through some images in Commons and came across these beautiful pairs in Missouri. Not only they show solar prominences, a nice corona, and less noticeable image noise, but includes Bailey's beads. The problem is I can't seem to choose which one to include. Do you support the new photos or refer back to the Dallas one? I think I am going to withdraw my proposal. It is clear the community does not support them.√2(talk)00:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are both excellent pictures! "Option 2" shows the prominences I think most people are familiar with, but I think "Option 1" (2nd Contact, not 1st) is clearer in full zoom, and it shows those truly spectacular prominences on the eastern limb that were so elusive to so many photographers. The corona and all those streamers are faint, but quite visible. I wish the lunar disk was darker, but I guess that's the compromise needed to bring out the corona. I vote "Option 1". Dcs002 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The present NASA image contains the eclipse, a very good image of the corona, a clear prominence, and a solar flare. The suggested images either do not show the full eclipse (totality) or focuses on the diamond ring effect which begins or concludes the event (but which would make the second one a good candidate for the gallery instead of the lead infobox presentation). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that they are technically not in totally, but really, really close. The diamond rings are barely noticeable due to the Bailey's beads. The image I'm proposing to replace does have a decent corona, but the noise is noticeable and makes the image a bit of an eye sore IMO. √2(talk)02:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping the current outstanding public domain NASA image in the infobox, and using these other excellent images in other parts of the article. OP's perception of excessive "noise" in the NASA photo is subjective and not shared by other editors. Also, neither of these photos portray complete totality. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little more info: I just noticed in the metadata that these two images have been photoshopped. It doesn't say how, but elsewhere in the metadata it says "custom processed". I agree with @Sqrt of 2 that the NASA image is noisy in full zoom (almost as noisy as my own), though the clarity of the "tent" prominence is extraordinary. The corona in the NASA image isn't as clear or as extensive as in the Poplar Bluff photos, but again, I don't know what to think about the post-processing. They're both great pictures of the eclipse, though I suppose the title of the article refers to a total eclipse, which I suppose the infobox image should illustrate. I'd like to use one of them elsewhere in the article (in an expanded section), but I'd like to know what processing has been done to them so we know what they illustrate. Dcs002 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zooming way in on the corona in the NASA image, I see what I would call "speckling" in the corona, but in my opinion, only a tiny percentage of readers will zoom way in on the corona and say, "that's grainy". It is a very, very good photo of totality, and if a clearly better freely licensed photo of totality emerges, then let's use that instead. So far, no such freely licensed or public domain image has been identified. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found several sources describing the effect the eclipse had on animals, wild, in captivity, and companion animals. I'd like to write that up in the next day or so (maybe yet tonight). There's a story about two tortoises in Ft Worth that reared (the zookeeper didn't know they could do that) and slammed against the steel door to their indoor pen, causing damage, either because of the stress of the eclipse or because they thought it was night, which means feeding time. Lots of good information out there, including one zoo where the animals hardly seemed to notice. If anyone else is working on animal behavior during the eclipse, please let me know so we can work together. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody have an opinion on whether I use the term "zoo animals" vs. "animals in captivity" for that subsection heading? My instinct is to use the latter, but I'd prefer to use the term that will cause the least controversy, and I have no idea which term (if either) that would be. Please reply if you have an opinion. Thanks!
I know I'm writing to myself, but I just want to put it out there that I plan to go with "zoo animals" because farm animals and pets can also be said to be animals in captivity. Dcs002 (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Wikimedia Commons to find a picture of an animal during the eclipse, and all I found was a cat wearing eclipse glasses. So I moved the bird picture to that section. I don't mean to promote my own picture, but I couldn't find anything else. I imagine there are much better illustrations of animals during the eclipse. Anyone have ideas? Dcs002 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome! Do they appear to be reacting to the eclipse? If they're in the dark or twilight, does your image metadata say what time the picture was taken (so we can know if it was the eclipse or sunset)? I think lions sneering at the dark sky or something would be a cool image! Can you just post something to Wikimedia Commons, or put the image here (and please move the eclipse bird pic back to the gallery if you do please)? I don't own this article or this section. I don't decide what the best image is for the section. I just moved my eclipse bird image there because it was the only animal image I could find for this eclipse. I know someone's got something better! Dcs002 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the way things are shaping up, there is room for an additional photo, perhaps your lion photo, as an illustration of zoo animal behavior during the eclipse. There is room at the beginning of the "Zoo animals" section, maybe leaving the bird picture (or something better) to represent wildlife. Dcs002 (talk) Dcs002 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the traffic section to include coverage beyond the Northeast. I couldn't find an image of any traffic backups from this year, so I used an image I found on Wikimedia Commons from the 2017 eclipse. I hope that's just a placeholder, because the traffic jams were extraordinary. If you have or find a better image from this year, please swap it out (and revise the caption). Dcs002 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prominences were visible around the eclipse, though because the size of the lunar disk was so much larger than that of the sun, only prominences on one limb were visible at a time.
As prominences could only be seen on the eastern or western limb, never both at the same time, and IMO the ones on the eastern limb were quite spectacular, if under-represented in the photos we have, I combined two images from WM Commons and made this spliced image after resizing & rotating the image on the left and reducing its brightness to loosely match the one on the right. I would really like to see the eastern limb (left side of photo) prominences represented in this article. Any thoughts about using this combined image? Any true graphic artists out there who can do a better job than my hack amateur work? Please step up! This is a composite of the image that's there already in place to illustrate prominences plus another one from Cleveland. The colors are obviously not matched, but the rotation is matched within a degree or so. (I'm not the one to match colors - my color vision is quite limited.) Dcs002 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good image. Yes, someone should work on it, to both make the images as close to the originals as possible, and maybe make the white line a different color (it overwhelms the intent), maybe a dark blue but still an evident central-dividing line. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at and zoom in on your image the better its usefulness and interesting concept stand out. The white line even grows on me, seems to imply the pages of a book. Thank you for an inviting and unique look at the numerous prominences. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The white line doesn't represent the north/south axis either. The whole image would need to be rotated about 24 degrees CCW to make the white line meaningful at the north/south axis on the sun. It's rotated the way it is because of the Earth's tilted axis and the time of day + latitude where the image was shot. This image is corrected (approximately) to what would be seen in Connecticut from a camera that was correctly oriented to the horizon. I'm not sure that's meaningful if an image is going to be rotated to match another image, both of which are out of rotation with the sun's axis. (It might be best to orient this with the sun's axis to make it match the other two images in the set, the ones taken from solar observatories.) I know making images like this is a perilous undertaking here, and I hope it can be done right, preferably with help from someone more skilled than I am. Dcs002 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
East and west limb prominences from two separate photos
Here's another version, rotated so the poles align with the observatory images. I was thinking of adding N, S, W, E labels to show the poles and to illustrate the reversal of west & east on south-facing astronomical imaging (i.e., the left side of the image is east, so the left limb is the east limb). The caption is just a placeholder for now. Dcs002 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipses of 2022–2025 - hide series by default?
I don't know how series tags work or how or where they are edited, but can this series be hidden by default, as all the other series are, with a button available to open the series? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I just learned something new today. I defaulted the table to collapsed, but I don't know how to put it in a light gray box like the rest of the collapsed tables. I think it should have that box around it to highlight the fact that it's another collapsed table like those around it. Dcs002 (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just required changing the header formatting in {{Solar eclipse set 2022–2025}} from "|+" to "!". It now displays in this "gray box" way in all six articles that use the template, which may or may not be wanted. 06:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
One of the videos has the following caption:
"BOTTOM: National Solar Observatory GONG telescope movie of solar activity in H-Alpha for the day of the April 8, 2024 eclipse, showing how prominences hardly changed during the eclipse."
It seems to imply that an eclipse might influence prominences in some way.
Prominences can change rapidly or slowly, but eclipses have no influence on the phenomenon.
I suggest changing "showing how prominences hardly changed during the eclipse"
to simply "showing prominences during the eclipse".
Not done for now: Could you upload the image to Wikimedia Commons first? 
Question: Do you mean add the {[Citation needed}} tag to the end of every individual quote you have given, or just to the end of a specific one? Shadow311 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Already done Citation needed templates were added to all these lines after the request was opened. Jamedeus (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Please remember to cite reliable sources in your edits. Liu1126 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
The redirect April 8, 2024 (Monday) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § April 8, 2024 (Monday) until a consensus is reached. --Ahecht (TALK