![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The first non-infobox photo in this article ("The Sun, as seen from the Earth's surface") is actually... not great quality? Should we add a picture taken with a better camera? Or maybe I'm just underestimating how hard it is to take a good photo of something as bright as the Sun. Alex Martin ( talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I would like to edit this piece of work because I noticed one or two spelling mistakes and there is some more information about the sun I would also like to add. That is all and thank you for reviewing this request. Please don't mind the strange username as my son created this account for me. BigBumpoo ( talk) 01:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sun is the the most important thing in our solar system as it gives us life down here on earth 2001:8003:27F7:DD00:3860:87D2:BD36:C440 ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sun&oldid=1034522630 Seems like this edit "broke" the page's formatting, and it was left as such. It's almost been a month now, and nobody has bothered to fix it. Is there any specific reason for this? Dinsignis ( talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The article's sidebar says: Visual brightness (V) −26.74[5]
On WP for other stars the term apparent magnitude is frequently (perhaps exclusively?) used, and clicking on the "Visual brightness" in the sidebar brings you to the apparent magnitude article. Also, the term "visual brightness" doesn't appear in the apparent magnitude article. And finally, Google says the term "absolute magnitude of the sun" appears 78,000 times on the web, but the term "visual brightness of the sun" appears only ten times. Perhaps the term in the sidebar could be changed to apparent magnitude? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I've removed a misleading chart with commit. The main problem is that it shows irradiance levels of what the Earth receives per m³ (minus atmospheric absorption), and not what is emitted from the surface of the Sun, which should be the topic. (The supplementary text was nice, however.) It would be nice to have a chart that shows actual radiation values at the source (63MW/m³ I think?) with both black body values and actual, showing the Sun's own absorption lines. Daniel Santos ( talk) 14:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not know the sun is a star. Is the sun a star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.202.204 ( talk) 18:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add an video of the sun's surface taken with an amateur telescope
thumb|Sun - active region time-lapse Daviddayag ( talk) 07:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
What copyright issues?? this is my own video, i've captured it myself and uploaded to wikipedia. it has creative rights same as all images.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Where should this be included, and is it a necessary image on par with the quality of other images in the article?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
10:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Thanks. I tried writing you but you are probably busy.. Those images are in higher quality than most images there. The animated gif shows how the chromosphere reacts to the magnetic fields. Please contact me if you have any questions: daviddayag@gmail.com Daviddayag ( talk) 16:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you get my messages? Daviddayag ( talk) 12:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Uterne. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Uterne until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Certes (
talk)
17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence in the “life phases/main sequence” section is grammatically incorrect (as of 12/4/21). since the page is locked I am unable to edit it. 2601:41:200:5260:8D2D:2AF4:14D0:B869 ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 June 2019 and 1 August 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Goakes5.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Heatheromg4420.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the wiki article Solar Apex, the Sun is moving towards the constellation Hercules, not Cygnus as reported here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 ( talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where the article states that the sun will expand to a red giant, it says that it will not expand into earth's orbit. I have done research that says the sun will not only expand into earth's orbit, but into the marsian orbit as well. I do not know which of the statements is more accurate, but I thought I would mention this. Son-why ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Is very tall. Can the sections be default collapsed? It's good info, but the general reader probably don't need it so prominently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that a lot of highly technical and detailed science articles write origins sections backwards for some reason, when the reader expects them in chronological order. For example, we don’t find out that the Sun was likely formed from the remnants of a supernova until the end, instead of explaining this at the beginning. I’ve seen this kind of thing in many different articles and I’ve never understood why people write like this. Wouldn’t it make more sense and clear up a great deal of confusion and facilitate understanding and comprehension by reversing the chronological narrative structure of the paragraph? Viriditas ( talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think "heated to incandescence" is redundant, since the same sentence already mentions hot plasma. Can a hot plasma be "heated to incandescence"? Perhaps "to incandescence" should be dropped so that the sentence would be "It is a nearly perfect ball of hot plasma, heated by nuclear fusion..." Brandmeister talk 14:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
While the properties of plasma are familiar to you and I, a good chunk of the readers of this page won’t have the same knowledge and will probably benefit from having the “heated to incandescence” line. I support its continued inclusion. Marchantiophyta ( talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
How can this have a black body spectrum? Oscar Blauman 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman ( talk • contribs) Furthermore: "The photosphere is tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, and is slightly less opaque than air on Earth." How a BB can be less opaque than something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The Sun has several alternative names listed in English. However, none of the alternatives are commonly recognized names for the Sun itself and instead refer to Greek and Roman deities. Even the cited sources don’t acknowledge those as accepted alternative names. 109.43.114.27 ( talk) 12:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Every second, the Sun's core fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium, and in the process converts 4 million tons of matter into energy.
This should read 620 million.. The nuclear fission page has it updated already.
Cheers. 1.132.108.130 ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a source for File:Evolution of a Sun-like star.svg?
Several sentences are also unsourced. A455bcd9 ( talk) 11:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"The large power output of the Sun is mainly due to the huge size and density of its core (compared to Earth and objects on Earth), with only a fairly small amount of power being generated per cubic metre. Theoretical models of the Sun's interior indicate a maximum power density, or energy production, of approximately 276.5 watts per cubic metre at the center of the core, which is about the same power density inside a compost pile."'
This is wrong. The cited source is some abc austrailia blog.. This is the power density of the entire sun, NOT the core. Fusion only takes place in the core. This lie is being repeated all across reddit and the internet, it is an embarrassment and should be removed. 2800:BF0:A400:D2F:E139:9AFB:9816:4CEA ( talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I have found a possible source to prove the following sentence:
HD 162826 and HD 186302 are hypothesized stellar siblings of the Sun, having formed in the same molecular cloud.
In the German Wikipedia a similar assumption was made and cited with the following publication:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1723.pdf
I am not a professional astronomer, but in my scientific experience this source seems to be plausible...
Basketcase88 ( talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I miss info about history how these things were discovered and/or developed. I tried to find more, and found info about close to current affairs, but most articles about EM spectrum, spectroscopy etc. lack a section about history, and where I saw it, it was more superficial than not.
Some might say that that is not notable, but if we need, and want, next generations of passionate researchers, they need, preferably as children, to be able to see how we got to the current level of knowledge, not only how to find useful data in WP. Marjan Tomki SI ( talk) 15:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
(Azknn) 70.52.211.122 ( talk) 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are multiple typos within this page, even if it is a featured page. I will list all of them.
- Under heading 'Composition' there is text on the 3rd - 4th line of the 4th paragraph that reads as follows: 'The proportions of heavier elements is unchanged.' This is incorrect, it should be: 'The proportions of heavier elements ARE unchanged.'
- Under heading 'Solar activity', which is, in turn, under 'Magnetic activity', the 3rd - 4th line of the 1st paragraph states: 'Both coronal-mass ejections and high-speed streams of solar wind carry plasma and interplanetary magnetic field outward into the Solar System.' It should be 'Both coronal-mass ejections and high-speed streams of solar wind carry plasma and THE interplanetary magnetic field outward into the Solar System.'
- Under heading 'Celestial neighbourhood', which, in turn, is under 'Motion and location', there are examples of which both British English and American English are used in the same context. These are:
- Under heading 'Solar space missions', which is, in turn, under 'Observational history' states, in the 1st line of the 4th paragraph: 'In 1980, the Solar Maximum Mission probes WAS launched by NASA.' This should be changed to 'In 1980, the Solar Maximum Mission probes WERE launched by NASA.', as probes is a plural, and requires a plural verb (in this case, 'were') for the sentence to make sense grammatically.
- Under the same heading, 'Solar space missions', when talking about the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) mission in paragraph 9, in lines 1 - 3, the following sentence is stated: 'Two identical spacecraft were launched into orbits that CAUSE them to (respectively) pull further ahead of and fall gradually behind Earth.' This should be 'Two identical spacecraft were launched into orbits that CAUSED them to (respectively) pull further ahead of and fall gradually behind Earth.', as the beginning of the sentence clearly stated that this had already happened with the use of the word 'launched' in past tense, all verbs in the sentence should also be in past tense, therefore, 'CAUSE' should become 'CAUSED'.
- Under heading 'Religious aspects', in the last line of the 3rd paragraph, the text reads: 'In the form of the sun disc Aten, the Sun had a brief resurgence during the Amarna Period when it again became the preeminent, if not only, divinity for the Pharaoh Akhenaton.' 'Akhenaton' is a straight up typo, and should be replaced with 'Akhenaten' as even it's Wikipedia page spells it like this.
I hope you understand this request. Apples13241 ( talk) 06:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The article suggests that the Sun is incorrectly called a dwarf star. This is not the case, the Sun IS a dwarf star. NASA refers to it as a "yellow dwarf star" ( https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/in-depth/) , Space.com calls it a "G dwarf star" ( https://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html) . You're not going to find more authoratative sources, so the article is incorrect to suggest that the Sun is not a dwarf star. 94.175.102.211 ( talk) 12:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph, the phrase "The Sun radiates this energy mainly as light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation" should be changed to "The Sun radiates this energy mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation". Notably,the change being changing the word "light" to "visible light".
This is because visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, not just "light". Please see here for further information: /info/en/?search=Visible_spectrum
Thank you TrappistMonkWasTaken ( talk) 11:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Is the Sun a featureless sphere, that is, without any mountains or valleys that persist as long as mountains and valleys on Earth persist? Are there sunspots that regularly recur at a given location, analogous to a Yellowstone or a Hawaiʻi? If there are no features on the surface of the sun, what does that mean for calculation longitude, since there is no stable reference point? -- Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This website hosts detailed and current sun SDO pictures and videos: https://www.solarham.net/
The source of the media data is NASA SDO, so that should be usable by Wikipedia or not? Polymorphismus ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
it must be 1238,8 g/cm^3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhf27ZqbQG0&list=PLXyXbp7bY8yajkjhlS2iQJhZdN02VitEI&index=5 81.65.127.18 ( talk) 01:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Sowng 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/2023 July 3 § Sowng until a consensus is reached.
CycloneYoris
talk!
10:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Phoebus is said to be a poetic name for the Sun, but it's not mentioned here anywhere. 188.146.106.132 ( talk) 13:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Concerning the picture of the Sun. Why is the light intensity of the Sun graduated (less intense at the periphery)? Normally, projection of a lighted ball will have the same light intensity all over the projection. Henrikoesterbro ( talk) 13:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
What happened to the graphs of the temperature, pressure, density, and mass in a given radius of the sun? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:C4DD:72CB:52B5:8898 ( talk) 21:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears the link "123" takes you to a book that is no longer available. Mwlit ( talk) 06:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first two mentions of the word "photosphere" are both linked to Article:Photosphere when only the first mention should have a link to the article. SightedStar ( talk) 00:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
We can read: The average temperature of the corona and solar wind is about 1,000,000–2,000,000 K; however, in the hottest regions it is 8,000,000–20,000,000 K. source 81 the source doesn't confirm. Hard to find sources but at most it would be 5 millions K???? please confirm Chanterel G ( talk) 02:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
How can 162.2 g/cm³ be 12.4× Earth while Earth is at mean 5.513 and even if we use a molten iron core of 7.87 we get a factor of 30. 2A01:C23:855F:3900:D975:C91E:BCDA:F14F ( talk) 16:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I get the argument about "keep it simple", but how about the following, because I find it important to spell things out as much as possible for people who have no clue about astronomy:
"The Sun is a star and the center which Earth and all of the Solar System moves around."
What do you think? Nsae Comp ( talk) 01:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Sun. 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/2023 November 6 § Sun. until a consensus is reached.
Gonnym (
talk)
12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lascandovasadar ( talk) 09:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Nah≥
20221026235753 193 Å NASA SDO video of the sun. I mean videos like reference 1.
The sun surface changes all the time and this face was only visible on that day. Polymorphismus ( talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Randy Kryn, personally I think that this table at Sun#General_characteristics should be removed mainly because it is essentially another infobox but in the body, which increase maintenance cost for future editors; we already have much more precise and comprehensive information in the infobox cited to reliable sources (even for occasional comparison with Earth's statistics). I have a feeling that you want to make the infobox less long by offloading some of the statistics to a dedicated table, and to be honest that's a pretty good idea that we should discuss further here.
In the edit summary you said that "infobox does not preclude the same information appearing in the text, and most infobox information usually appears in the text", but in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, it is explicitly said that "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I am gonna go ahead and remove the table. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 01:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The article mentions "gravitational waves" - this almost certainly is wrong. Gravity waves are hydrodynamic surface waves while gravitational waves relate to general relativity. Turns out words matter. (I saw gravitational waves mentioned here as a cause of coronal temperature, and clearly the effects of GR under that gravitational regime are negligible.) 98.21.213.85 ( talk) 16:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to preface this by acknowledging that @ XiounuX seems to be knowledgeable about the topic and acting in good faith. That being said, I believe that the sentence they've inserted into the very first paragraph of the lede ("The Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo") does not belong there.
The sun is of interest to all human beings and the writing of the article needs to reflect that. The first few paragraphs must be accessible, concise, and informative. The sentence in question is both too technical and insufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the lede, much less the first paragraph. As it stands, the article deals with magnetohydrodynamic models of the sun before fundamental questions like "What is the sun made of?", "Where did the sun come from?", and "How long will the sun last?"
As of the time of writing three people (@ Aldebarium, @ CactiStaccingCrane and myself) have removed this sentence from the lede, and each time @ XiounuX has re-inserted it while claiming to have "reverted vandalism". Perhaps the sentence could be moved to the "Magnetic Activity" subsection instead?
-- Marchantiophyta ( talk) 00:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
About you celebrating my permanent ban and using it as a justification to remove my edits: indeed, a pretty nervous admin had banned me permanently. But then another admin took a look into that ban, and I am now unbanned. Oh well. Some people just can't help it. So yeah, I am unbanned now. Nothing wrong with these additions to the Sun articles, and you (still) don't get to vote on basic science, so I'm reinstating them. By the way, I also notified Dr. Omerbashich about the above libel by you undergrad kids, and the man is contacting Wikipedia's legal department as we speak. XiounuX ( talk) 07:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this does not belong in this article, let alone in the opening paragraph. MrOllie ( talk) 14:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Based on research in 1982, Dr. Mensur Omerbashich with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory determined that the Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo, which reads and sounds more encyclopedic than what was being edit warred over. Also, it isn’t in the lead of the article & to be fair, I did check the academic paper out and it does verify. My person take, the sentence is perfectly fine where it is now. You can interpret this more as a “keep” !vote now. I’m not siding with XiounuX or anything like that. Just making the point that I verified the information and removed it from the lead. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The Sun rotational data can be found in USNO's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac Table 15.7. Jbergquist ( talk) 20:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The volume of the Sun is shown as 1.412x10^18 km^3 and 0.887x10^17 cu mi, but these values are inconsistent. The value in km^3 is correct, but the value in cu mi should be 3.39x10^17. RCSmeas ( talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
a suntoid is a star that isn't a red dwarf or a blue giant, in other words is a yellow dwarf star like the Sun. 177.47.230.129 ( talk) 02:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The Sun's low lithium level is key to its stable luminosity and low large solar flare events. Yet lithium is not in the page at all. Should be added. [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Can we somehow change the reference named "IAU2015resB3" to not use "cs2" mode, to avoid the article being in the "CS1 maint: overridden setting" maintenance category? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The first non-infobox photo in this article ("The Sun, as seen from the Earth's surface") is actually... not great quality? Should we add a picture taken with a better camera? Or maybe I'm just underestimating how hard it is to take a good photo of something as bright as the Sun. Alex Martin ( talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I would like to edit this piece of work because I noticed one or two spelling mistakes and there is some more information about the sun I would also like to add. That is all and thank you for reviewing this request. Please don't mind the strange username as my son created this account for me. BigBumpoo ( talk) 01:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sun is the the most important thing in our solar system as it gives us life down here on earth 2001:8003:27F7:DD00:3860:87D2:BD36:C440 ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sun&oldid=1034522630 Seems like this edit "broke" the page's formatting, and it was left as such. It's almost been a month now, and nobody has bothered to fix it. Is there any specific reason for this? Dinsignis ( talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The article's sidebar says: Visual brightness (V) −26.74[5]
On WP for other stars the term apparent magnitude is frequently (perhaps exclusively?) used, and clicking on the "Visual brightness" in the sidebar brings you to the apparent magnitude article. Also, the term "visual brightness" doesn't appear in the apparent magnitude article. And finally, Google says the term "absolute magnitude of the sun" appears 78,000 times on the web, but the term "visual brightness of the sun" appears only ten times. Perhaps the term in the sidebar could be changed to apparent magnitude? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I've removed a misleading chart with commit. The main problem is that it shows irradiance levels of what the Earth receives per m³ (minus atmospheric absorption), and not what is emitted from the surface of the Sun, which should be the topic. (The supplementary text was nice, however.) It would be nice to have a chart that shows actual radiation values at the source (63MW/m³ I think?) with both black body values and actual, showing the Sun's own absorption lines. Daniel Santos ( talk) 14:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not know the sun is a star. Is the sun a star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.202.204 ( talk) 18:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add an video of the sun's surface taken with an amateur telescope
thumb|Sun - active region time-lapse Daviddayag ( talk) 07:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
What copyright issues?? this is my own video, i've captured it myself and uploaded to wikipedia. it has creative rights same as all images.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Where should this be included, and is it a necessary image on par with the quality of other images in the article?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
10:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Thanks. I tried writing you but you are probably busy.. Those images are in higher quality than most images there. The animated gif shows how the chromosphere reacts to the magnetic fields. Please contact me if you have any questions: daviddayag@gmail.com Daviddayag ( talk) 16:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you get my messages? Daviddayag ( talk) 12:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Uterne. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Uterne until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Certes (
talk)
17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence in the “life phases/main sequence” section is grammatically incorrect (as of 12/4/21). since the page is locked I am unable to edit it. 2601:41:200:5260:8D2D:2AF4:14D0:B869 ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 June 2019 and 1 August 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Goakes5.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Heatheromg4420.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the wiki article Solar Apex, the Sun is moving towards the constellation Hercules, not Cygnus as reported here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 ( talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where the article states that the sun will expand to a red giant, it says that it will not expand into earth's orbit. I have done research that says the sun will not only expand into earth's orbit, but into the marsian orbit as well. I do not know which of the statements is more accurate, but I thought I would mention this. Son-why ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Is very tall. Can the sections be default collapsed? It's good info, but the general reader probably don't need it so prominently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that a lot of highly technical and detailed science articles write origins sections backwards for some reason, when the reader expects them in chronological order. For example, we don’t find out that the Sun was likely formed from the remnants of a supernova until the end, instead of explaining this at the beginning. I’ve seen this kind of thing in many different articles and I’ve never understood why people write like this. Wouldn’t it make more sense and clear up a great deal of confusion and facilitate understanding and comprehension by reversing the chronological narrative structure of the paragraph? Viriditas ( talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think "heated to incandescence" is redundant, since the same sentence already mentions hot plasma. Can a hot plasma be "heated to incandescence"? Perhaps "to incandescence" should be dropped so that the sentence would be "It is a nearly perfect ball of hot plasma, heated by nuclear fusion..." Brandmeister talk 14:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
While the properties of plasma are familiar to you and I, a good chunk of the readers of this page won’t have the same knowledge and will probably benefit from having the “heated to incandescence” line. I support its continued inclusion. Marchantiophyta ( talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
How can this have a black body spectrum? Oscar Blauman 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman ( talk • contribs) Furthermore: "The photosphere is tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, and is slightly less opaque than air on Earth." How a BB can be less opaque than something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The Sun has several alternative names listed in English. However, none of the alternatives are commonly recognized names for the Sun itself and instead refer to Greek and Roman deities. Even the cited sources don’t acknowledge those as accepted alternative names. 109.43.114.27 ( talk) 12:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Every second, the Sun's core fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium, and in the process converts 4 million tons of matter into energy.
This should read 620 million.. The nuclear fission page has it updated already.
Cheers. 1.132.108.130 ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a source for File:Evolution of a Sun-like star.svg?
Several sentences are also unsourced. A455bcd9 ( talk) 11:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"The large power output of the Sun is mainly due to the huge size and density of its core (compared to Earth and objects on Earth), with only a fairly small amount of power being generated per cubic metre. Theoretical models of the Sun's interior indicate a maximum power density, or energy production, of approximately 276.5 watts per cubic metre at the center of the core, which is about the same power density inside a compost pile."'
This is wrong. The cited source is some abc austrailia blog.. This is the power density of the entire sun, NOT the core. Fusion only takes place in the core. This lie is being repeated all across reddit and the internet, it is an embarrassment and should be removed. 2800:BF0:A400:D2F:E139:9AFB:9816:4CEA ( talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I have found a possible source to prove the following sentence:
HD 162826 and HD 186302 are hypothesized stellar siblings of the Sun, having formed in the same molecular cloud.
In the German Wikipedia a similar assumption was made and cited with the following publication:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1723.pdf
I am not a professional astronomer, but in my scientific experience this source seems to be plausible...
Basketcase88 ( talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I miss info about history how these things were discovered and/or developed. I tried to find more, and found info about close to current affairs, but most articles about EM spectrum, spectroscopy etc. lack a section about history, and where I saw it, it was more superficial than not.
Some might say that that is not notable, but if we need, and want, next generations of passionate researchers, they need, preferably as children, to be able to see how we got to the current level of knowledge, not only how to find useful data in WP. Marjan Tomki SI ( talk) 15:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
(Azknn) 70.52.211.122 ( talk) 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are multiple typos within this page, even if it is a featured page. I will list all of them.
- Under heading 'Composition' there is text on the 3rd - 4th line of the 4th paragraph that reads as follows: 'The proportions of heavier elements is unchanged.' This is incorrect, it should be: 'The proportions of heavier elements ARE unchanged.'
- Under heading 'Solar activity', which is, in turn, under 'Magnetic activity', the 3rd - 4th line of the 1st paragraph states: 'Both coronal-mass ejections and high-speed streams of solar wind carry plasma and interplanetary magnetic field outward into the Solar System.' It should be 'Both coronal-mass ejections and high-speed streams of solar wind carry plasma and THE interplanetary magnetic field outward into the Solar System.'
- Under heading 'Celestial neighbourhood', which, in turn, is under 'Motion and location', there are examples of which both British English and American English are used in the same context. These are:
- Under heading 'Solar space missions', which is, in turn, under 'Observational history' states, in the 1st line of the 4th paragraph: 'In 1980, the Solar Maximum Mission probes WAS launched by NASA.' This should be changed to 'In 1980, the Solar Maximum Mission probes WERE launched by NASA.', as probes is a plural, and requires a plural verb (in this case, 'were') for the sentence to make sense grammatically.
- Under the same heading, 'Solar space missions', when talking about the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) mission in paragraph 9, in lines 1 - 3, the following sentence is stated: 'Two identical spacecraft were launched into orbits that CAUSE them to (respectively) pull further ahead of and fall gradually behind Earth.' This should be 'Two identical spacecraft were launched into orbits that CAUSED them to (respectively) pull further ahead of and fall gradually behind Earth.', as the beginning of the sentence clearly stated that this had already happened with the use of the word 'launched' in past tense, all verbs in the sentence should also be in past tense, therefore, 'CAUSE' should become 'CAUSED'.
- Under heading 'Religious aspects', in the last line of the 3rd paragraph, the text reads: 'In the form of the sun disc Aten, the Sun had a brief resurgence during the Amarna Period when it again became the preeminent, if not only, divinity for the Pharaoh Akhenaton.' 'Akhenaton' is a straight up typo, and should be replaced with 'Akhenaten' as even it's Wikipedia page spells it like this.
I hope you understand this request. Apples13241 ( talk) 06:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The article suggests that the Sun is incorrectly called a dwarf star. This is not the case, the Sun IS a dwarf star. NASA refers to it as a "yellow dwarf star" ( https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/in-depth/) , Space.com calls it a "G dwarf star" ( https://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html) . You're not going to find more authoratative sources, so the article is incorrect to suggest that the Sun is not a dwarf star. 94.175.102.211 ( talk) 12:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph, the phrase "The Sun radiates this energy mainly as light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation" should be changed to "The Sun radiates this energy mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation". Notably,the change being changing the word "light" to "visible light".
This is because visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, not just "light". Please see here for further information: /info/en/?search=Visible_spectrum
Thank you TrappistMonkWasTaken ( talk) 11:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Is the Sun a featureless sphere, that is, without any mountains or valleys that persist as long as mountains and valleys on Earth persist? Are there sunspots that regularly recur at a given location, analogous to a Yellowstone or a Hawaiʻi? If there are no features on the surface of the sun, what does that mean for calculation longitude, since there is no stable reference point? -- Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This website hosts detailed and current sun SDO pictures and videos: https://www.solarham.net/
The source of the media data is NASA SDO, so that should be usable by Wikipedia or not? Polymorphismus ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
it must be 1238,8 g/cm^3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhf27ZqbQG0&list=PLXyXbp7bY8yajkjhlS2iQJhZdN02VitEI&index=5 81.65.127.18 ( talk) 01:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Sowng 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/2023 July 3 § Sowng until a consensus is reached.
CycloneYoris
talk!
10:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Phoebus is said to be a poetic name for the Sun, but it's not mentioned here anywhere. 188.146.106.132 ( talk) 13:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Concerning the picture of the Sun. Why is the light intensity of the Sun graduated (less intense at the periphery)? Normally, projection of a lighted ball will have the same light intensity all over the projection. Henrikoesterbro ( talk) 13:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
What happened to the graphs of the temperature, pressure, density, and mass in a given radius of the sun? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:C4DD:72CB:52B5:8898 ( talk) 21:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears the link "123" takes you to a book that is no longer available. Mwlit ( talk) 06:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first two mentions of the word "photosphere" are both linked to Article:Photosphere when only the first mention should have a link to the article. SightedStar ( talk) 00:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
We can read: The average temperature of the corona and solar wind is about 1,000,000–2,000,000 K; however, in the hottest regions it is 8,000,000–20,000,000 K. source 81 the source doesn't confirm. Hard to find sources but at most it would be 5 millions K???? please confirm Chanterel G ( talk) 02:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
How can 162.2 g/cm³ be 12.4× Earth while Earth is at mean 5.513 and even if we use a molten iron core of 7.87 we get a factor of 30. 2A01:C23:855F:3900:D975:C91E:BCDA:F14F ( talk) 16:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I get the argument about "keep it simple", but how about the following, because I find it important to spell things out as much as possible for people who have no clue about astronomy:
"The Sun is a star and the center which Earth and all of the Solar System moves around."
What do you think? Nsae Comp ( talk) 01:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Sun. 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/2023 November 6 § Sun. until a consensus is reached.
Gonnym (
talk)
12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lascandovasadar ( talk) 09:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Nah≥
20221026235753 193 Å NASA SDO video of the sun. I mean videos like reference 1.
The sun surface changes all the time and this face was only visible on that day. Polymorphismus ( talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Randy Kryn, personally I think that this table at Sun#General_characteristics should be removed mainly because it is essentially another infobox but in the body, which increase maintenance cost for future editors; we already have much more precise and comprehensive information in the infobox cited to reliable sources (even for occasional comparison with Earth's statistics). I have a feeling that you want to make the infobox less long by offloading some of the statistics to a dedicated table, and to be honest that's a pretty good idea that we should discuss further here.
In the edit summary you said that "infobox does not preclude the same information appearing in the text, and most infobox information usually appears in the text", but in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, it is explicitly said that "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I am gonna go ahead and remove the table. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 01:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The article mentions "gravitational waves" - this almost certainly is wrong. Gravity waves are hydrodynamic surface waves while gravitational waves relate to general relativity. Turns out words matter. (I saw gravitational waves mentioned here as a cause of coronal temperature, and clearly the effects of GR under that gravitational regime are negligible.) 98.21.213.85 ( talk) 16:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to preface this by acknowledging that @ XiounuX seems to be knowledgeable about the topic and acting in good faith. That being said, I believe that the sentence they've inserted into the very first paragraph of the lede ("The Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo") does not belong there.
The sun is of interest to all human beings and the writing of the article needs to reflect that. The first few paragraphs must be accessible, concise, and informative. The sentence in question is both too technical and insufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the lede, much less the first paragraph. As it stands, the article deals with magnetohydrodynamic models of the sun before fundamental questions like "What is the sun made of?", "Where did the sun come from?", and "How long will the sun last?"
As of the time of writing three people (@ Aldebarium, @ CactiStaccingCrane and myself) have removed this sentence from the lede, and each time @ XiounuX has re-inserted it while claiming to have "reverted vandalism". Perhaps the sentence could be moved to the "Magnetic Activity" subsection instead?
-- Marchantiophyta ( talk) 00:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
About you celebrating my permanent ban and using it as a justification to remove my edits: indeed, a pretty nervous admin had banned me permanently. But then another admin took a look into that ban, and I am now unbanned. Oh well. Some people just can't help it. So yeah, I am unbanned now. Nothing wrong with these additions to the Sun articles, and you (still) don't get to vote on basic science, so I'm reinstating them. By the way, I also notified Dr. Omerbashich about the above libel by you undergrad kids, and the man is contacting Wikipedia's legal department as we speak. XiounuX ( talk) 07:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this does not belong in this article, let alone in the opening paragraph. MrOllie ( talk) 14:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Based on research in 1982, Dr. Mensur Omerbashich with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory determined that the Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo, which reads and sounds more encyclopedic than what was being edit warred over. Also, it isn’t in the lead of the article & to be fair, I did check the academic paper out and it does verify. My person take, the sentence is perfectly fine where it is now. You can interpret this more as a “keep” !vote now. I’m not siding with XiounuX or anything like that. Just making the point that I verified the information and removed it from the lead. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The Sun rotational data can be found in USNO's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac Table 15.7. Jbergquist ( talk) 20:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The volume of the Sun is shown as 1.412x10^18 km^3 and 0.887x10^17 cu mi, but these values are inconsistent. The value in km^3 is correct, but the value in cu mi should be 3.39x10^17. RCSmeas ( talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
a suntoid is a star that isn't a red dwarf or a blue giant, in other words is a yellow dwarf star like the Sun. 177.47.230.129 ( talk) 02:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The Sun's low lithium level is key to its stable luminosity and low large solar flare events. Yet lithium is not in the page at all. Should be added. [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Can we somehow change the reference named "IAU2015resB3" to not use "cs2" mode, to avoid the article being in the "CS1 maint: overridden setting" maintenance category? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)