The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect - to
Solar Saros 120. I don't think
WP:TOOSOON applies here, because that applies to things that aren't notable yet, or that don't have enough information to be notable quite yet. This isn't that situation. It has sources and can easily be verified and does seem to be notable, it just happens to be far into the future. If something being far into the future disqualified it from inclusion then we couldn't have articles like
Timeline of the far future (which is a featured list, so it's clearly
a good article to have on Wikipedia). My issue is that there's no substance to the article, and everything listed can easily be included at
Solar Saros 120 (in fact I think most of it already is). This article has to repeat what a solar eclipse is, other dates for other solar eclipses, and then explains what Solar Saros 120 in particular is just to pad it out the article, and even with that it's still just a sparse stub. When taking unique content into account, there's nothing there. I don't see how it could be improved but maybe it could, As it is, however, it's ripe for a redirect. -
Aoidh (
talk)
05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)reply
it is not possible to verify that a future event will in fact happen in any encyclopedic way. Especially this far into the future. This is a prediction. Predictions, even done by NASA can be and are frequently wrong.
PRAXIDICAE🌈19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Is there any example of modern astronomy incorrectly predicting a solar eclipse? As far as I can tell, the timing of eclipses is calculated with extremely high precision (to within minutes, even for events hundreds of years away). jp×g20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I second this. Future eclipses are calculated and their expected occurrence is not mere speculation. Eclipses have been accurately predicted prior to the invention of computers; we can now predict eclipses somewhat accurately for many thousands of years (well within the system's
Lyapunov time, but that deals with planetary dynamics more generally), and NASA sees fit to publish calculations up to 3000 AD
[1]. Of course, however, shorter-term predictions are more accurate, and inaccuracies on a timescale of 200 years would concern precise details of the path and timing, not whether the eclipse will occur.
This article explains everything quite nicely.
ComplexRational (
talk)
19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep because there's no reason to oversell the uncertainty in predictions of well-grounded celestial mechanics. There might be an argument for presenting our information about predicted eclipses in a different way, but that's not a question this particular forum is designed or equipped to resolve.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to respective Saros article, as for the other nominated far-future eclipses. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, per what I said at the other nominations. This is not
WP:CRYSTAL — it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality based on thousands of years of astronomy (by which nearly all human civilizations have considered eclipses to be notable events of great significance and portent). The fact that it hasn't happened yet is immaterial; current models are able to accurately antedict observations from thousands of years ago. Per XOR'easter, there may be a case for putting this information into a list, but it doesn't really seem worth the effort. Yes, a list is easier to create, but since articles have already been created, there is zero effort saved by performing the additional work of a merge for uncontroversial articles. jp×g20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Solar Saros 120. Other than the fact that this is the last solar eclipse of the cycle, there's nothing particularly extraordinary about this future solar eclipse, and no coverage independent of the broader topic.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Solar Saros 120 per above comments. There's no disputing the accuracy of the calculation, so
WP:TOOSOON may not apply and
WP:CRYSTAL certainly does not apply, but the question is whether significant coverage exists. Considering that this is a partial eclipse, and that most sources highlight either routine calculation or that it's the last eclipse of the Saros cycle, I'm not sure that such coverage exists to justify a standalone article.
ComplexRational (
talk)
19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect - to
Solar Saros 120. I don't think
WP:TOOSOON applies here, because that applies to things that aren't notable yet, or that don't have enough information to be notable quite yet. This isn't that situation. It has sources and can easily be verified and does seem to be notable, it just happens to be far into the future. If something being far into the future disqualified it from inclusion then we couldn't have articles like
Timeline of the far future (which is a featured list, so it's clearly
a good article to have on Wikipedia). My issue is that there's no substance to the article, and everything listed can easily be included at
Solar Saros 120 (in fact I think most of it already is). This article has to repeat what a solar eclipse is, other dates for other solar eclipses, and then explains what Solar Saros 120 in particular is just to pad it out the article, and even with that it's still just a sparse stub. When taking unique content into account, there's nothing there. I don't see how it could be improved but maybe it could, As it is, however, it's ripe for a redirect. -
Aoidh (
talk)
05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)reply
it is not possible to verify that a future event will in fact happen in any encyclopedic way. Especially this far into the future. This is a prediction. Predictions, even done by NASA can be and are frequently wrong.
PRAXIDICAE🌈19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Is there any example of modern astronomy incorrectly predicting a solar eclipse? As far as I can tell, the timing of eclipses is calculated with extremely high precision (to within minutes, even for events hundreds of years away). jp×g20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I second this. Future eclipses are calculated and their expected occurrence is not mere speculation. Eclipses have been accurately predicted prior to the invention of computers; we can now predict eclipses somewhat accurately for many thousands of years (well within the system's
Lyapunov time, but that deals with planetary dynamics more generally), and NASA sees fit to publish calculations up to 3000 AD
[1]. Of course, however, shorter-term predictions are more accurate, and inaccuracies on a timescale of 200 years would concern precise details of the path and timing, not whether the eclipse will occur.
This article explains everything quite nicely.
ComplexRational (
talk)
19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep because there's no reason to oversell the uncertainty in predictions of well-grounded celestial mechanics. There might be an argument for presenting our information about predicted eclipses in a different way, but that's not a question this particular forum is designed or equipped to resolve.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to respective Saros article, as for the other nominated far-future eclipses. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, per what I said at the other nominations. This is not
WP:CRYSTAL — it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality based on thousands of years of astronomy (by which nearly all human civilizations have considered eclipses to be notable events of great significance and portent). The fact that it hasn't happened yet is immaterial; current models are able to accurately antedict observations from thousands of years ago. Per XOR'easter, there may be a case for putting this information into a list, but it doesn't really seem worth the effort. Yes, a list is easier to create, but since articles have already been created, there is zero effort saved by performing the additional work of a merge for uncontroversial articles. jp×g20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Solar Saros 120. Other than the fact that this is the last solar eclipse of the cycle, there's nothing particularly extraordinary about this future solar eclipse, and no coverage independent of the broader topic.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Solar Saros 120 per above comments. There's no disputing the accuracy of the calculation, so
WP:TOOSOON may not apply and
WP:CRYSTAL certainly does not apply, but the question is whether significant coverage exists. Considering that this is a partial eclipse, and that most sources highlight either routine calculation or that it's the last eclipse of the Saros cycle, I'm not sure that such coverage exists to justify a standalone article.
ComplexRational (
talk)
19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.