Talk:Richard Christopher Carrington

Split off Carrington Super Flare

This is notable by itsel f, as the cause of the solar storm of 1859's geomagnetic storm 76.66.194.183 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both the Carrington and Stewart Flares should be merged into the article on the [[1]]Mzmadmike (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. I was coming to Wikipedia hoping to find a separate article on this flare. Greg L (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• There needs to be an article. It would be good to have a separate article on this event because of its historical and iconic value. I don't think "super flare" makes sense, though, because nothing about it suggests that it fell into a separate category; the physics was just like what we struggle to explain now for other similar events. The fact that this struggle continues underscores the need for the article. Hugh Hudson (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Carrington Super Flare now redirects appropriately to Solar storm of 1859. SilkTork *^YES! 01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Adams Intrigue

The article pays more attention to the Adams Intrigue than to this astronomer's achievements. It is not clear from the article what that "intrigue" was.

Carrington's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography makes no mention of Adams. It attributes the discontinuance of the series to his father's death and the need to assume responsibility for the family's brewery.

It might be appropriate for an astronomer or astronomical historian to review the neutrality of this article and to assess whether the Adams episode deserves such emphasis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The intrigue is carefully described in great detail by a well-known solar physicist/historian, Ed Cliver, in SOLAR PHYSICS (2012)280: 1-31. The Adams appointment was a totally political farce, motivated by the continuing Cambridge effort to promote Adams's failed effort to beat Le Verrier to the discovery of Neptune. This discovery was of far less importance (unfortunately with hindsight) than Carrington's remarkable discovery of the Sun's differential rotation. Airy, Challis, John Herschel, and Adams did not recognize Carrington's work as being far more important than their political jockeying with the French for mathematical pre-eminence.

                                     Thomas G. Franzel   5/14/2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8B01:E1A7:533:309E:D8CF:1C32 (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 

Wasn't this fellow murdered? How about more BIOGRAPHY? help!

This is a request for help adding some solid biographical information to this article. I read somehwere that this guy was killed by his wife's ex BF or something like that. There is a book out about Victorian Astronomy but I will have to get it from the Library. Until then, anything other editors can add such as more about his background and other achievements as well as cause of death and date would be great if they can be reliably sourced. Thanks in advance. I will put that book on hold and get to it.LiPollis (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy Check - Isn't the naming-honor credit the Carrington Rotation, not the (solar magnetic reversal) Carrington Cycle?

He didn't discover the 11 year solar cycle but he did timing of the solar rotation interval as perceived from Earth. I found only references to Carrington Rotations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_rotation 99.48.74.21 (talk)

Example of term Carrington Rotation in use by NASA http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/browse/carrington/2149p5/ 99.48.74.21 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge?

Am I to infer that this fellow held some position at Cambridge? It would be nice if the article could tell us something about it. Right now it tells us a lot about Adams, but there is no indication as to why Adams is relevant.

I second the call for more BIOGRAPHY.

Rwflammang (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Archaic language Comment Suggestion

The expression in this article is odd, very archaic; "But the lease by which he held his powers of useful work was unhappily running out", for example, which leads to suspicions that it is from a nineteenth-century source, and in fact, it is word-for-word from Leslie Stephen (1887) Dictionary of National Biography, Volume IX, and though this reference is credited at the bottom of the article, there have been other writings since. Is this the sole authority on Carrington? Why quote it verbatim in WP.

A thorough rewording of the entire article in more contemporary expression would make it more readable, and the use of other, more recent, sources would make it more authoritative.

The article should be downgraded to start class until that is done, in my opinion. What do others think? sinarau (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur completely. Quoting small sections is one thing, but lifting large chunks word-for-word does not make for a wiki page. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's especially amusing to see phrases like "Carrington's determinations of the elements of the sun's rotation are still of standard authority" lifted directly from text written in 1887?!? Maybe WP could expand on this a bit more. (Carrington's observations of these elements WERE remarkably accurate and ARE indeed still in wide use today.) 15:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermgiles (talk • contribs)

"crochet" link does not use the word "crochet"

I know nothing of this topic, just came to learn. I find it odd that the linked word "crochet" links to "Sudden ionospheric disturbance" and nowhere in that page is there "crochet". Seems like this needs further explanation.--Tallard (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)