Talk:Sunset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

To User:Andycjp: I Don't really understand why this quote is in here:

In Judaism and Christianity they are considered to be evidence of the existence of God:
" The heavens are telling the glory of God..." (Psalm 19:1)

Despite being a Catholic like you, I have never heard this before. The Psalm 19 quote is not clearly related (it tells of the glory, meaning that God is taken on faith already), and devoid of context: the rest of the psalm mentions nothing about the sunset. What is the source of the argument, beside the fact that change implies a first cause. Also, non-Catholic sects often argue that the existence of God cannot be proved, so be careful in making broad generalizations about Christian faith. I have removed it until there is a better reason for including it.


I think we should move the pictures to a more pictures page. Chmouel 08:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do we have a standard way to arrange gallery articles? We could use one. ✏ Sverdrup 13:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think anybody come up where any gallery way. But we can do it as the list of image style and add a category there Chmouel 14:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recent changes (28 Jan 2005)

Can this possibly be true? From the article:

"... however in the Northern Hemisphere (for example), the earliest sunset is not at the winter solstice around December 21, but rather in early December. Likewise, the latest sunset is not around June 21 (the summer solstice), but in early July. (The dates may be swapped for sunset timings in the Southern Hemisphere.) For one or two weeks surrounding both solstices, both sunrise and sunset get slightly later each day."

Surely the timing of sunset would depend much more on the position of a location within its time zone, not to mention whether daylight savings time was in effect. Could someone please comment, if only to set me straight?

Reply: The date of the earliest and latest sunsets are based on the dates when the distances between the sun and earth's sunset-terminator line are at their absolute maxima and minima. The latest sunset in the Northern Hemisphere (say Fargo, ND) occurs on 6/27 at 9:25 PM this year (2007). This occurs on a later date than the summer solstice because the earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical, not circlular. The elliptical shape and the earth's 23 degree tilt causes the distance between the sun and the terminator line (sunset on earth) to be at its annual minimum (in the Northern Hemisphere) after the summer solstice. The earliest sunset in Fargo ND occurs st 4:38 PM on 12/11/2007. Again, because the earth's orbit is elliptical, the date of the earliest sunset occurs before the Winter Solstice, when the distance between the sun and the sunset terminator line on the earth is at it's annual maximum (in the Northern Hemisphere). The same geometric principles apply to the annual earliest and latest sunrises: Latest sunrise for Fargo, ND in the coming year: 1/2/2008 at 8:12 AM; the earliest sunrise for Fargo, ND in the coming year: 6/16/2007 at 5:32 AM. 201.160.124.221 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry201.160.124.221 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also uncertain of the truth of the statement:

"... because the light from the Sun is bent by the variable density of the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun is still seen after it is below the horizon. This effect is a daily illusion along with sunrise."

I imagine that this is in fact strictly true, but could someone knowledgable comment on this also?

Reply: Variability in density of the Earth's atmosphere doesn't really seem like the best way of explaining the phenomenon. The earth's atmosphere has a different index of refraction than the relative vacuum of space. The thickness of the earth's atmosphere is relatively thin, compared to the diameter of the earth. This spherically curved thin layer of air acts exactly like a thin lense, especially at sunrise and sunset. It gather's some of the sun's rays just before sunrise, and bends them downwards towards the observer, causing the sun to be visible to the observer before it physically rises above the horizon. The sunlight's path length through the thin lense of the atmosphere is longest at sunrise and sunset, so, the lensing effects are greatest at these two points. When the sun rises well above the horizon, the sunlight's path length through the atmosphere is relatively short and gives essentially constant lensing effects(sunlight's pathlength is at it's minima when the sun is directly overhead - not necessarily noon). So, it's really the size/length/magnitude of the sunlight's pathlength through the earth's atmosphere that causes these lensing effects. The Density of the Earth's Atmosphere does not change much, except for weather, dust, etc, but the number of air atoms and molecules in the viewing path between an observer on earth and the sun is at it's maxima at sunrise and sunset, so, in a perverse sort of calculation, you could say that the density of atoms and molecules calculated using the whole distance between sun and earth changes at sunrise and sunset (a somewhat peculiar way of calculating the lensing effect).

Now, variable density due to temperature fluctuations in the earth's atmosphere DOES affect the appearance of stars, causing them to appear to twinkle... (as evidenced by less twinkling when little heat or very constant amounts of heat is rising at night versus lots of twinkling after a hot day when lot's of heat rises off different colored surfaces at different rates causes thermal lensing - exactly like seeing "waves of hot air" rising off asphalt pavement on a hot day, distorting the images behind the waves. Also, again, path length through the earth's atmosphere plays a significant role here too, causing stars of the same magnitude of luminosity to appear to twinkle more when close to the horizon, and twinkle less as they rise above the horizon. I suspect whomever wrote the density comment about the sun's early appearance may be confusing the two effects. Hint: I've discussed these issues/effects with other scientists for over 35 years, and 80% to 90% don't really correctly understand these spectroscopic and geometric effects... do these explanations help??? or are they too technical? I've attempted to reduce the associated math and physics to their bare minima. 201.160.124.221 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Finally, I've removed the reference to Fuller's neologisms, since in they appear on the web almost exclusively in mirrors to Wikipedia content, or are the names of companies producing (e.g.) sunglasses or packaging products. I'll be updating the appropriate redirects.

Cheers, Ben Cairns 03:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC).

To answer my first question, yes, it can be true. Since times don't change much around the solstices (daylight savings having started or ended in Spring or Autumn), although the actual time differs between locations in a time zone, the latest sunset at one place will be the latest sunset everywhere (or, more-or-less). I still don't understand how this works, exactly, but I can see that it might be possible... but a reference would be nice! Ben Cairns 00:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Reply: the latest sunset at one place is not the latest sunset everywhere, (please see the more detailed explanation above) due to the 1.) curvature of the earth and hence it changes as a function of your latitude; 2.) the 23 degree tilt of the earth's axis; and 3.) the elliptical shape of the earth's orbit around the sun (see above) - reaching it's maxima at the solstices. Relative overall effect: the latest sunset in 2007 will occur on 6/27/2007 in Fargo, ND, USA and 3 days later on 6/30/2007 in Albuquerque, NM, USA. Finally, I suspect that most people don't consider 3 days the same day more or less... (especially at Christmas), but really, the actual time differences between sunsets during these days are quite small: typically less than a minute, so, for normal people, the date of the latest sunset appears about the same (within a minute) from 6/22/2007 - 7/2/2007 in Fargo, ND and from 6/23/2007 to 7/7/2007 in Albuquerque. helpful?The Good Doctor Fry 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

[edit] The Sunset Picture is False/hoax

http://www.snopes.com/photos/sunset.asp -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.114 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 January 2006

No, not a hoax - just a composite of satellite imagry. Which is what the Snopes article is saying, and what we say here, both on the image caption in this article and on the image description page. (Also the image discussed on Snopes is actually a slightly different one, but that doesn't really matter). -- Solipsist 13:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is impossible to have night at est and sun at ovest. the image is a non correct composition and don't show the concept of sunset

Actually, it's easily possible, once you think about it. The sun sets in the west, and sunset is followed by night, which would be to the east of the sun.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Sunsets

Gibbs on NCIS just said there are 3 sunsets: Nautical, Civilian, and Astronomical. Can anyone expand on that?

Strictly, there are three forms of twilight, not of sunset. This should explain the difference between nautical, civil and astronomical twilight. Thefamouseccles 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sky-watch defines 4 sunsets: standard, civil, nautical and astronomical. Similarly, it defines 4 sunrises.
From early to late in the day:
  • Astronomical sunrise — Time when the sun rises higher than 18 degrees below the horizon and when the sky ceases to be totally dark.
  • Nautical sunrise — Time when the sun rises higher than 12 degrees below the horizon.
  • Civil sunrise — Time when the sun rises higher than 6 degrees below the horizon.
  • Standard sunrise — Time when the sun rises above the horizon. This is the value usually published in local newspapers.
  • Standard sunset — Time when the sun sets below the horizon. This is the value usually published in local newspapers.
  • Civil sunset — Time when the sun sets lower than 6 degrees below the horizon.
  • Nautical sunset — Time when the sun sets lower than 12 degrees below the horizon.
  • Astronomical sunset — Time when the sun set lower than 18 degrees below the horizon and when the sky starts to be totally dark.
— Adhemar 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: These correspond with the border times of nautical, civil and astronomical twilight, e.g. civil twilight between civil sunrise and standard sunrise.

[edit] Gallery

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states under Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Point 4.:

Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

Most of the pictures have either no caption, or pathetic ones like Yellow sunset, Purple sunset etc. So I'll remove the gallery section again and ask you not to revert it unless you can present compelling arguments why the official policy should not be applied in this case. --Dschwen 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some pruning again. Yes, it is tempting to add more and more pics to this article in particular, since taking pics of sunsets is easy and they look always pretty (well, almost). But are they adding fundamentally to the understanding of the concept of a sunset? No! Just axe them vigorously! --Dschwen 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I asked about this specifically in Village pump so you might want to check out what they said. There needs to be a balance between images and text with the emphasis on the text. That is unless for some reason the article demands otherwise, which this one does not. --Roguegeek 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Good, but the replacement you just did was pretty neutral. Before we had two similar looking red sunsets (both featured pics by the way), now we have two similar looking sunsest-over-water pics :-) --Dschwen 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Feel free to edit. :) --Roguegeek 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I disagree with the image choice, for a subject like this I'd be leaning to use FP's. Particularly since Image:LabradorSunset.jpg is low res and Image:Arizona sunset.jpg is blurry (particularly on the RHS) and to be brutally honest does not show a particularly spectacular sunset. Please comment on the replacements. --Fir0002 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Current image choices were no better. Although all images are FPs now (which I think is in no way important and, in a lot of ways, counterproductive and boring... but that's another discussion altogether), two red sunsets are still two red sunsets. I removed one and, instead, replaced it with a sunset over a skyline to break up monotony and repetitiveness of the current selection. --Roguegeek 10:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see monotony and repeativeness and I would respectfully disagree that the currently selection is "no better" than previous images - I mean they are Featured Pictures ie the community thinks that they are of a high standard. And although I like the replacement (it is afterall an FP), it is one of the few sunset images which can actually be used in other articles, so surely it is better to give other photos placement on this article in preference to this photo illustrating multiple pages. Also, although the scenery is tinged in sunset colors, the actual "sunset" is rather obscure - if it was a shot primarily of the sunset the photographer would have taken more of the RHS of the image IMO. --Fir0002 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was curious as to why my sunset image was removed? It was the one with the real cool cumulous cloud sunset in the skies of Clearwater, Fl. 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bond Extreme (talk • contribs)

[edit] Earliest sunset in Northern Hemisphere is December, not January

An edit on 22:33, 18 August 2006 from 81.104.118.2 edited the earliest sunset in the Northern Hemisphere from early December to early January without explanation. This is inaccurate. The original information that the earliest sunrise is in early December is accurate.

The earliest Horthern Hemisphere sunrise in December? I can see that for the earliest sunset — which would be on the Winter Solstice around the 21st. Early sunrises in any winter month — December and January included — seems kinda counterintuitive.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the above author made a typo and meant to say "the original information that the earliest sunSET is in early December is accurate," as that was the content of his or her edit. 68.38.127.175 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestion

As done on the Sunrise page, I would like to suggest the following link to a sunrise / -set calendar with interactive location finder. While I am the site admin, I find it correct, not to set the link by myself. But maybe someone find it worthy: sun.exnatura.org --XN 13:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, I will give it a try since it's not commercial and GFDL'ed. --XN 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuller Family

Who the hell cares what Buckmister Fuller's family calls sunset? 71.102.186.234 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

This article is a mess. The "scattering" part of the article especially is full of nonsensical sentences--Energman 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like the article is on scattering. People can read about related parts on other articles. I am also not sure what this page should ideally be telling. Any suggestion? Apoorv Khurasia 09:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


In the second paragraph, it seems that the information is a bit jumbled. It's like the article was edited because someone mistook the cause of a sunset's colors to be the result of Rayleigh Scattering when Mei Scattering is actually the cause. It seems that the editor was responding to the mistake rather than fixing the article. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject could rework that paragraph to make it sound less "No, it's not Rayleigh Scattering, it's Mie Scattering." A note could even be included about some often mistaking the cause to be Rayleigh Scattering, but make it less confrontational.

Just a suggestion.

Tbowboy3 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Gallery

Wikipedia strongly discourages galleries especially those that add absolutely nothing extra to the article therefore I've removed the gallery per WP:GALLERY and WP:IG and I strongly urge everyone else to rigorously follow suit in future scenarios. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of photographs or media files Angel (T•C) 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, been down that road before (check section above). I will remove any gallery if it gets added again. And history shows it will... :-( --Dschwen 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
A particular user is persistently re-adding the gallery. As they uploaded one of the images within the gallery, they are clearly biased. Angel T 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The current gallery features a selection of four images that add significantly to the article - sunset from space, inverted sunset, Martian sunset and sunset with funnel clouds. Do you know any better way to explain an inverted sunset, for example? You talk about policies (mistakenly about NPOV, for instance), but do you also understand the topic at hand?
Also, stop with personal attacks on my talk page. Being so fiery about a sunset is amusing but also unnecessary.--Svetovid 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack at all. If you read this talk page (including the section above), you'll discover that the general consensus all agree that the article doesn't need a gallery. If you want your image so desperately shown, add it to the commons which is what you've basically forced everyone else to do in the past whenever they've wanted to add their own personal pieces of media. What's amusing is the tantrum you're throwing over this all. Angel T 06:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The picture you are talking about (Iss007e10807.jpg) was taken by NASA and last time I checked I didn't own it; I just uploaded the picture because it's unique.
You still didn't explain how you want to illustrate inverted sunset without a picture. Could you focus on the subject instead of on personal attacks?--Svetovid 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You could try writing about it? Something this article lacks is text. And I'm not engaging in personal takes at all. I was merely warning you not to assume ownership of articles which you were doing in reverting perfectly legit edits without joining in the discussion here. Angel T 05:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 3O request: I have to support consensus here. With two good pictures of sunsets and a {{commons}} link, you do not need to ignore style guidelines by devoting screen space to a gallery. I would hold back from accusations of bias, though. AGF and all that. The images are interesting, but they easily accessed at commons. If you had more text to support the particular distinctive types of sunset that are shown in the images, then you could add some of the thumbnails to the text in the usual way. Concentrate on improving the article and its text content first. Adrian M. H. 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - there is no harm in a small gallery. Many non-wiki users (ie the general public) will have no idea what the commons link does. As long as the image gallery isn't overwhelming (as admittedly it has been in the past) it can only serve to benefit the article and it's readers --Fir0002 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, having provided a tie breaker (per the raison d'etre of 3O), I will have to leave you to sort it out among yourselves now. I will point out, though, that the commons link is quite self-explanatory. Adrian M. H. 10:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for a gallery when the commons is simply a click away. Galleries, especially on articles as short as this, really make the place look 'overpopulated.' I agree with the rest of the guys opposed to a gallery. There is no need for one.
The commons link is enough. I'm thinking that 3 images might be too many images on the page.jonathon 00:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
After more than a month, none of the people who oppose the small gallery with unique images wrote a single word nor suggested how to replace the information it provided. As such, it should be added back as long as editors are unable to replace the provided information. If you oppose the addition, state your solution. Otherwise, your opposition fails on WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY.--Svetovid (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the gallery per what Angel said above. If you're so keen to add your inverted sunset, replace it with one of the existing images in the article all of which display some form of the same kind of sunset as it is. —— Ryan (t)•(c) 09:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by my inverted sunset?
Anyway, unless you replace the information provided by the gallery, there is no point in removing it..--Svetovid (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I've removed the gallery per what Angel stated above. The only person who ever disputed this consensus was recently blocked for tendentious editing meaning he refused to contribute to the consensus, instead he saw it upon himself to revert everyone else's contributions without discussing it on the article's talk page. All in all, there is no need for a gallery on this article when there's a commons link clearly visible. For an article as short as this, a gallery just makes it appear cluttered. ——Ryan | t • c 16:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today's edit by User:Spoon!

While I agree with the removal of the sentences regarding the quadrant that the sunset occurs in because they were false, the last sentence regarding the direction of the sun at sunset on the solstices, seems to be true. I'm not sure about the duration part though, as my planetarium software shows that the duration of day and night change depending on location. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I put that last sentence back. --Spoon! (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Color from Mie Scattering

Both this article and Sunrise include language about Mie Scattering being the cause of the red colors when the sun is low in the sky. However, the Mie theory article contains no mention of wavelength dependence. I've been doing some reading and thinking about the subject, but I haven't been able to verify the statement. Does anyone have a reference to back this up? I'm beginning to suspect the "Mie scattering = red" statements are merely the result of someone's misunderstanding of the phenomenon. This rather cartoonish picture is consistent with my understanding of the phenomena. Spiel496 (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading up on the subject, I've removed the language about Mie scattering from the explanation of sunset color, and replaced it with the conventional explanation surrounding Rayleigh scattering. The Mie scattering material here and in sunrise was the sole work of Dr. Steven Fry in October 2006, and it looks like it was just a misunderstanding. Spiel496 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Too Long

I added the template for the introduction being too long because I don't have time to edit it. Icefall5 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid photo

If sunset "is the time at which the sun disappears below the horizon in the west" then why does the 1st photo show the sun clearly visible? This is obviously not a photo of a sunset according to the intro paragraph. The sun has not disappeared if you can clearly see it in a photo. Either the definition is incorrect and needs to be changed or the photo is incorrect. It can't be both ways. I'm going to replace that invalid photo with one that coincides with the opening definition. - Marc Averette (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as just a tad nit-picky. I would say "sunset" has multiple meanings. It can mean the moment the top edge passes below the horizon, but it also refers to a wider period of time. For the photo, isn't two minutes before sunset close enough? Spiel496 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is, then the definition needs to be changed. That's the whole point of this. - Marc Averette (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I get it. The definition gives the precise moment of sunset, but the photo was two minutes early. So now you've replaced the photo. Can you really guarantee that the new one (Miamisunset2004.jpg) is timed closer to the moment of sunset? If not, then I don't understand how it improves the situation. Spiel496 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I took it; and remember it was just after the sun disappeared. Even though it can't be proven, it at least has the possibility of being correct, whereas the other shot had no possibility of being correct (according to the definition given). - Marc Averette (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards Spiel496 here. Not only are you being incredibly nitpicky but you admit to owning that photo? So really this is your attempt at trying to showcase your media —— Ryan (t)•(c) 10:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything but following the definition that's given. Your opinion is irrelevant. - Marc Averette (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The definition mentions the sun and the horizon, so I've replaced the photo with the previous one, which shows the sun and the horizon. I dealt with the timing issue by pointing out the timing in the caption. Hope this works for everyone. Spiel496 (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
<completely innocent suggestion>I think that using Image:Gull Lake.JPG would be a reasonable solution. No ulterior motives here...</completely innocent suggestion> --Onorem♠Dil 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But the sun hasn't disappeared yet. I can still see it. Therefore, it's not a sunset. - Marc Averette (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't really expect to solve the problem with my "innocent suggestion"...I was more trying to point out that discussing a picture you'd like to see in this article is more productive than joining into a long, stupid, slow edit war over it. Discussion is the way to go. If you're really that upset over the current picture, try a request for comment. --Onorem♠Dil 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Are any of these three potential pictures acceptable? All 3 images appear have compatible licensing, they appear to meet the definition, and there wouldn't appear to be any conflict of interest in the choice. --Onorem♠Dil 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I had forgotten about the follow-up pic to my previous "innocent suggestion," but I'll throw Image:Gull Lake Again.JPG into the discussion for fun. --Onorem♠Dil 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything particularly wrong with the one that's there? I don't understand what the big complaint is here. Why isn't the current one adequate? - Marc Averette (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Marc Averette, I think the problem is that you're failing to make it clear to other editors what it is you wish to accomplish. In your original comment you indicated your desire to make the definition and the photo consistent with one another. That could mean replacing the photo, or rewording the definition to include the colloquial use of the term, or putting a disclaimer on the photo to indicating the time relative to the actual moment of sunset. But rather than discussing this you're snapping at people with terse entries like "it's not a sunset" and the ever-charming "Your opinion is irrelevant." In the interest of figuring out what everyone wants, here are three verbose points:
First, people didn't understand your point that sunset is defined as the instant when the edge of the sun crosses the horizon. (So, to Onorem, that's why the proposed photos don't solve the issue.) I tried to make that distinction more clear in the article by adding what Averette calls "extremely bad and unnecessary wording". I apologize for being such a screw-up. I took another shot at it, but it would be easier to correct the wording if someone would indicate what I did wrong.
Second, I think there's some concern out there that you're making an excuse to showcase your own photo. If that's not the case, then please reassure everyone.
Third, the only evidence that your photo is really taken at the moment of sunset is from your own observation of the event. If we were to get really nit-picky -- and I think it's fair to say we are -- then even the statement that your photo is a sunset constitutes OR. Spiel496 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two good reasons to keep current photo. The 1st two dictionary definitions of sunset are:

1. The time of day when the sun disappears below the western horizon. - This obviously states that the sun must no longer be visible in the photo.
2. The changes in color of the sky at sunset. - This suggests that a more representative photo would have changes in color different from the normal color of the sky. The current photo is the most colorful example I've seen on the page so far; another good reason that it's far more representative of sunset than one that's lacking a lot of bright contrasting colors.