Talk:Sun/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Better picture?

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)

I think the current photo is fine, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal. Are saying that it should be replaced with a higher quality, almost identical photo or an entirely different one? If it's the latter, doesn't the current photo depict how the sun looks to the naked eye and is therefore important that it stays? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The current image has a lot of lens flare that makes it look... I guess "blotchy" is the best word. I'm not sure how one would actually go about improving it, though, so maybe it should just be left. Alex Martin (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be replaced. Picture isn't clear. Dinesh | Talk 05:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

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)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or since you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting error intentional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

Why use "visible brightness" instead of "apparent magnitude"?

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)

Removed chart of terrestrial irradiation

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)

The chart that you've removed shows the solar irradiance at a distance of 1 AU and does not include atmospheric absorption. It shows the spectrum that is emitted from the sun without other factors. This convention is quite common as these values can actually be measured while the emission of the sun at the surface cannot. That can only be hypothesized.

In any case, you can make an other chart with the data you want to show. But until that is done the perfectly serviceable chart should stay up. Kardoen (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The sun is a star?

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)

Yes. Charles536 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep. The best star there is (at least to us humans and other Earthlings). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

See https://nso.edu/research/science-research/sun-as-a-star/ CoronalMassAffection (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

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)

 Not done for now: Please provide such a video that has no copyright or licensing issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 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.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)

"Uterne" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Grammar

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Solar Apex

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The infobox

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)

Formation prose structure

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'm not sure I understand the issue here. Supernovae (as an original source of the Sun) are mentioned in the second named section "General characteristics", and then in the first sub-section of the "Life phases" section. How much earlier do you want it mentioned? The "Life phases" section is admittedly halfway down the article, but I don't see a problem with explaining in detail what the sun is, looks like, etc., before describing how it got to this point. The lead only very briefly refers to the formation of the Sun, and nothing about supernovae, but it seems proportionate. It is also not entirely accurate to say that the Sun forms "from the remnants of a supernova". Supernovae are known/speculated to be the triggers of star formation, but not necessarily *all* star formation, and it is likely that only a few percent of the Sun's material originated in an earlier supernova explosion. The Sun is/was mostly hydrogen and helium, which are mostly primordial. Only the heavier elements are likely from supernovae, and even a fair proportion of those from other sources, and these make up less than 2% of the Sun by mass. It is unclear within an order of magnitude just how much of the hydrogen and helium has previously been part of a star, much less ejected from a supernova. Or maybe I've completely missed the point and you're referring to some other paragraph and only tangentially to supernovae? Lithopsian (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: I thought the section heading would explain it, but apparently that didn’t work. I’m only talking about the Sun#Formation section. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The kind of "reverse" origin section is an accident of ease of inquiry. The problem is that it is always easier to reconstruct events in the past that happened closer to the present. Couple this with the problem of infinite regress and you end up with a conundrum for those trying to explain concepts that often results in this kind of preference for picking a series of origin points that go backwards in time as though answering the questions from the five-year-old about, "Yeah, but where did that come from?" In general, the Sun is described as originating from the presolar nebula in most standard accounts. Where the nebula came from is a great question, but is one that doesn't have nearly as clear an explanation and so the vague evidence about "a few supernovae" that provided the metallic content and shockwave physics is definitely something that people who are interested in explaining "origins" of the Sun will add as an afterthought. Sorry that I can't be more helpful than this. It would be great if we could start every article from the Big Bang and move forward, but I think in practice the reverse lookback approach is often a more stable way to present what we know with greater certainty. jps (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: Thank you for such a great comment. I will take some time to think about this. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Heated to incandescence"

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)

"Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions"

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)

I'm not sure what all your complaints are, but the question about opacity of a black body, I can answer. The Sun, as a whole, approximates a black body. A thin slice of relatively transparent atmosphere is not itself a black body, although enough of it together could be (assuming enough variation that it is not entirely transparent at soem wavelength). Generally, black bodies are the sum of many interactions which results in all incoming radiation being absorbed (rather than reflected). Conversely, this black body emits radiation based on its temperature. Going beyond this requires diving into statistical mechanics. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

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)

Correction...

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)

WP:URFA/2020

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)

Power density of the sun myth perpetuated here

"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)

No, the power density at the extreme center of the core is ~280 W/m^3. It is much lower than that when averaged over the entire sun's volume. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The sun is very, very big. So when you times that power density by volume that still gives an insane amount of power. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

HD 162826 and HD 186302 in " Formation"

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)

History of spectroscopy of stars

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)

Marjan Tomki SI, then let's ignore all rules and make it happen! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is sources...

Several (at least 4) decades ago I encountered several books, in my native Slovenian language that influenced me massively on areas of chemistry and biology (and with some others to science in general).

A generation later a niece of mine read the same 4 books from my bookshelf, and it went on through teachers training for biology and chemistry, and university study and graduation in biology, through masters and PhD in moleculary genetics, to what she is working on now. And she was through her studies, and is now an excellent source for current state of science in that area for mne (but not published and peer reviewed I can cite, so not valid as WP verifiable).

I can still recall (and retell) most of the contents of most of those books (and from time to time do that in suitable chunks to interested audience of junior generations, in which case I check the up-to-date validity of the facts the story is about if I can, or we do that check together).

As far as I recall we found those facts still valid, even if in some cases a bit incomplete. But that checking and taking conclusions would be probably taken as original research by WP (unless we would search, and took notes about that, for literal citations for them - which children and also most adults would find boring, and that would kill their interest instead of enticing it. (Being rigorous about sources is a pretty much later step - usually when they ask where I know something from I can introduce both checking and looking for sources, and requiring them being as rigorous with it as they require it from me, and same rules for everybody usually get easily accepted by most).

On biology those books were a series of Paul de Cruifs that can still be found, and cited; on chemistry it was a book (supposedly translated in Slovenian from Russian) Stories about Elements (Povesti o Elementih, in Slovenian) of Nechayew (Nečajev in Slovenian, probably Нечаев in Russian). Problem is that I couldn't find any mention of the author or his book in any language but that edition in Slovenian. My copy from those years back was read by a lot of people and didn't return (yet). I found another copy for my niece (the one mentioned above) for her son in Germany (to have something to read to both keep him used to her native language and get interested in chemistry), so currently don't have a Slovenian copy at hand.

So at the moment I can't add citations to the source for the stories I needed when young, if I retell them. Do we dare to ignore that WP rule? Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction request for equatorial rotation

1. There are inconsistent values for the sidereal equatorial rotation, in the text and the table at top right, and they also differ from those listed in Solar rotation page.
   1. [General characteristics] section says the sidereal equatorial rotation is "aprox 25.6 days"
   2. the overview table says 25.05 days
   3. the Solar rotation page says 24.47 days --- I believe this is the correct value.
2. The rotation should also be given in degrees/hour -- which i calculated as ≈0.613 °/h (0.6129955) or 0.613 arc sec/sec

(Azknn) 70.52.211.122 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple typos on this page.

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:

• The title: 'Celestial NEIGHBOURHOOD' as an example of British English
• On the 1st - 2nd line of the 2nd paragraph, the sentence ' The Local Bubble is a small superbubble compared to the NEIGHBOURING wider Radcliffe Wave and Split linear structures (formerly Gould Belt), each of which are some thousands of light-years in length.' is an example of British English
• In the same paragraph, in lines 4 - 5, we get 'The density of all matter in the local NEIGHBORHOOD is 0.097±0.013 M☉·pc−3.' This is an example of American English.

- 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)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Tollens (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done! The only change I didn't make is the last suggested - Akhenaten lists 'Akhenaton' as an acceptable alternative spelling so I've left it the way it is. Some of the changes had to be made over at Solar System (since some of the issues you referenced were transcluded from that page), which was not unified in its English variation and hadn't been at any point since its creation back in 2001 - there was a fair amount of work figuring out the correct variation for that article and unifying it appropriately. (Luckily for this article, that turned out to be American English, so it all matches nicely!) Tollens (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I understand about the Akhenaten/Akhenaton thing, it makes sense. But I'm glad everything's fixed now. Thanks! Apples13241 (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Dwarf Star

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)

I'm not an expert on this, but please see the article G-type main-sequence star which covers yellow dwarf stars as often inadequate terminology. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Sun is a dwarf star. I think the uncertainty implied in the article with "As such, it is informally, and not completely accurately, referred to as a yellow dwarf (its light is actually white)" is about its colour, not about whether it is a dwarf. The article is trying to say that the Sun is often called a yellow star, even though it is white. That you misread this as meaning the Sun may not be a dwarf star shows an ambiguity in the text. TowardsTheLight (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to simplify and remove ambiguity, feel free to revert if it's not better than before. Artem.G (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much better. TowardsTheLight (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

Thank you TrappistMonkWasTaken (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, the definition of light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see. You cannot provide Wikipedia as a source per WP:NOTSOURCE. Please make sure to use reliable sources, like https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/energy-saving-lamps/l-3/1-light-electromagnetic-spectrum.htm. This source (and many others) do define light as being visible to the human eye. Cocobb8 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Longitude on the Sun

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)

Where do you see longitude mentioned?? Evgeny (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

SolarHam SDO photos

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)

Center density (modeled) 162.2 g/cm3

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 Youtube video is enigmatic. There are no explanation for any of it, just a few spreadsheets (with a mix of French and English). I don't know if the equations are correct... If you think the NASA numbers are incorrect, you should write a paper about it, explaining what is wrong with the current numbers, showing your math and/or your process, get published in a reputable journal, and then we can consider adjusting the article. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

density of a celestial body in gr/km^3 at a given kilometre starting by zero at centre = (1000*((e)^(-0,00025*((km since centre, use only the number not the unit)-((43149*((LOG10(((celestial body mass in gr, but only using the number not the unit)^(1/5))+500000))^1,1))-189573)))))*((((COS((km since centre, use only the number not the unit)^0,45))*0,01))+5)

applying that to the sun, we understand the comment : the centre of the sun has a density of 1238,8 g/cm^3, not 162.2 g/cm3 2A02:8428:F424:A001:90A4:B8F:5E4:68DA (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Sowng" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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)

Picture of the Sun

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)

Limb darkening. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Graphs

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)

This edit, 23rd May, 2022. The removal may have been unintentional, hard to tell from the edit summary. Lithopsian (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there a way to retrieve them? Where were they found in the first place? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:C4DD:72CB:52B5:8898 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Invalid Link

It appears the link "123" takes you to a book that is no longer available. Mwlit (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mwlit:  Fixed (diff). LittlePuppers (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

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)

 Done, thanks —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

atmosphere of the sun -- temperature

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)

Center Density

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)

First sentence

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)

It doesnt need to be this sentence, I just see the need to mention Earth right away to put the Sun easily into relation. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Earth is already specifically singled-out and adequately mentioned in the first paragraph, no need to repeat it in the first sentence. The Sun's relationship with Earth is understood and described with the existing language in the third sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

For ease to follow the discussion, here my last proposal that was taken out now. I liked it for being concise.

"The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System, with Earth as one of its orbiting planets."

... who knows maybe someone else can do something that suits everyone. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Getting close. I think we should stick with the opening clause "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System", and I think a second clause would be useful, but "with Earth as one of its orbiting planets" is both too specific (singling out Earth) and too vague ("...one of its orbiting planets"). How about "...around which the Earth and other planets orbit"? Obviously there is more than planets, but the original "all of the Solar System" didn't sit well and I can't think of something succinct enough to be in the opening sentence and clear enough to cover everything in the Solar System. After all, the article is about the Sun and cluttering up the opening sentence with details of something else (ie. the Solar System) is a great idea). Perhaps better to relegate that idea to a later sentence that could be more complete, leaving the opening sentence very simply describing the Sun? Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System" seems enough. 'Solar System' already covers the planets, the moons, the asteroids, comets and other riff raff (wondering if a giant star's planetary system includes periodic comets as big as Earth). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

...here one more possibility; only because I just thought of this version:

"The Sun is the star at the center of our planetary system." ;) Nsae Comp (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:OUR, and the Sun anchors the named Solar System, not a planetary system which is a term used for other stars outside of the Solar System. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Sun." listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Lascandovasadar (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah≥

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting sun videos

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)

The sun is likely an intelligent organism, but astrobiologists have not yet published something, as far as I know. 2003:E2:473C:31D:8DAC:9260:494:DB54 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

NASA data

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)

Hello CactiStaccingCrane. The chart in the text seems a good addition which was added almost six months ago. I didn't focus on the length of the infobox but yes, it does come across as too large. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think it is a good addition, when we already have the infobox for the same statistics? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

They are laid out better in the chart for the average reader, making the stats more understandable. Information in an infobox does not preclude it from being included in the text, and entries in infoboxes are usually repeated in the text, in most case within the lead or close to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Cacti on this one, I see no good reason for this duplication. Artem.G (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding my $0.02 - I don't think that particular table contributes much. A table of physical characteristics is useful, but if it's in the infobox already, we don't need another. Perhaps we could shorten the infobox (which is pretty cramped), and move some of the data into a table. But this particular table, giving comparison with earth sizes, is something I find uninteresting. The fact that it's a direct copy of a NASA document also leaves me uneasy - copyright isn't an issue, but even so, a direct copy is not quite what I'd like to see on Wikipedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of deleting that table. I don't think it adds any essential new content to the page. Also, the table title is "comparison between sun and earth" but it lists a bunch of solar properties that have no earth analog, like spectral type G2V, or luminosity, where it doesn't make sense to have any comparison at all. And some quantities like "visual magnitude" make no sense for Earth without additional context (like what distance you're assuming you are observing the earth from, or that sort of thing). Aldebarium (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am gonna go ahead and remove the table. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, you don't give discussions much time do you? In my experience that's not how it works on Wikipedia, but not going to make a fuss about it since it seems the way this one would probably ('probably', not 'certainly') turn out. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, no, it's not that I want to do things my own way, but because the problem is blindly obvious and you did not give a detailed explanation about your reasoning. You could extend this thread and challenge my actions if you wish, but I am afraid that without a good explanation from your side, it will not be successful. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Gravity waves

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)

Addressing Changes to the Lede by XiounuX

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)

No one gets to vote on basic science. Go and vandalize articles from your purview. XiounuX (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not helpful. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, the statement "The Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo" (also inserted into Solar dynamo) is a WP:FRINGE theory that does not belong on Wikipedia. It is only supported by a single paper, Omerbashich 2023, whose sole author, Mensur Omerbashich, has been discussed here previously regarding the multitude of other, unrelated fringe theories attributed to them. Additionally, the paper is published in The Journal of Geophysics, which I would consider WP:QUESTIONABLE especially given that Omerbashich is the editor in chief. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good to know - astrophysics is far outside my area of expertise, but [Omerbashich's blog] tells me all I need to know about his academic standards. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:39, 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)

@XiounuX: Who is celebrating your ban? No one used your ban to justify removing the edits discussed in this thread. No one even mentioned your ban here. Your edits to Sun and Solar dynamo should be removed for the reasons given previously by both myself and Marchantiophyta. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the addition made to your above comment in [diff], which I did not see before writing my initial response: I would encourage you and Omerbashich to read WP:LIBEL if you have not done so already. I do not see how Omerbashich was defamed by any of the comments in this thread, but if Omerbashich truly believes a certain response constitutes libel then they can contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org with specific details about their concern.

Additionally, your use of "you undergrad kids" (context: I identify myself as an undergraduate student on my userpage; I cannot say whether or not the other users who have contributed to this thread are undergraduate students) may be considered a WP:PERSONALATTACK. My level of education is not relevant to this discussion, so I do not see any reason why you would bring up this unrelated personal detail of mine other than to discredit my previous statements in an apparent ad hominem. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can add a fact like peer-reviewed scientific reference without discussing it (especially with undergrad kids as in this case). You do not get to discuss peer reviewed literature as that would represent your own POV, but you are welcome to counter it with another peer-reviewed reference.XiounuX (talk)

Peer-reviewed does not mean "100% reliable". If that author is a crank, then extra due is needed. ECREE applies. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Another libel. Dr. Omerbashich is certaintly building his legal case here. XiounuX (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

ok CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NLT, this kind of thing will get you reblocked. MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let's see if simply adding a fact like peer reviewed science can block me using your 3R entrapment method. XiounuX (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No one wants to trap you to get blocked. However, being a high-maintenance editor will not help you on Wikipedia, because ultimately everyone on Wikipedia is replaceable, including you and me. Instead of you throwing around insults and require other editors to expend their efforts to convince you otherwise, someone that has a more collaborative and calm mindset will be more welcomed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you do not get to counter peer reviewed science with democracy. XiounuX (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Or let me be direct: is it obvious now that nobody cares about your expertise? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:Don't be high maintenance might be useful here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 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)

Not sure why you manually reverted (trying to avoid the 3-rev rule?) but that reference talks about global sun so it certainly belongs there.XiounuX (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to get consensus support for your changes, and you certainly do not have it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of anything and everything that can be sourced. I find the arguments on this talk page that this is a fringe statement highly credible. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not get to vote/seek consensus on established facts like peer reviewed science. Your POV (point of view) is irrelevant, even if you had a Ph.D. in the field of that paper you'd still have to have that point of view peer reviewed before it can be used here to counter Dr. Omerbashich's. XiounuX (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You have gravely misunderstood how Wikipedia is written. Everything here is subject to consensus. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not. Established peer reviewed science certainly is not subject to undergrads discussing whether they like it or not. XiounuX (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Issue addressed. The sentence was added in the magnetic activity section. It does not need to be in the lead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, that does not address the issue. The sentence does not belong in the article anywhere at all. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I’ll let y’all hash that out. Currently, the sentence is in the magnetism section and reads, 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 problem here is that peer-reviewed research can be wrong and Mensur Omerbashich has a history of publishing crank ideas (see above). At best, it's WP:TOOSOON, and it doesn't hurt to wait a year or two to see what else about the topic is published by other researchers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Looking into the Journal, it appears that what happened here is the journal went defunct in 1988. Then Omerbashich set up a website in 2020 using the old Journal's name (and laying claim to its old impact factor and etc.). He's been using it as a self publishing venue. Each 'issue', (there have been 3) has his own work in it. This isn't a reliable source and I find claims of proper peer-review highly unlikely. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Would y’all mind if we do a RfC on WP:RSN to determine if academically-published material from Dr. Mensur Omerbashich should be used on Wikipedia? We have this discussion, plus a lot of other semi-personalized comments like “crank ideas”, backed by solid and good reasons & we know he got a scientific PhD and he works at the well-known Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In short, WP:RFCBEFORE is well-satisfied. If y’all wouldn’t be opposed to it, I would be willing to start that RfC so the debate could be solved more or less through a community consensus, rather than on a single sentence. Y’all ok with that idea? (Courtesy pings: CactiStaccingCrane, MrOllie, CoronalMassAffection, Marchantiophyta, Aldebarium. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I guess if you really want to do it, then sure? But Omerbashich's questionable stuff and research is not encouraging. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have to agree it's sus and too soon to cite in a featured article. The articles like "Sun" when featured, I would not expect to cite individual papers like these at all, even when the author and publisher are of unquestionable repute. There should be better sources for everything that ever need to be put into this article, review articles, text books and such, that summarise for us what's established knowledge so we don't have to make that determination. If we cite papers like these, it should be for claims presented as "as is well-known" and never for "whoa look at this totally new thing we just invented/discovered/proved". Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is exactly right. We don't let editors add their own or anyone else's new theories to scientific articles sourced only to their own publications, even when they are well-known academics and peer reviewed papers. We need evidence that such material has been accepted in the wider scientific community and require secondary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• RFC Started — An alert for users in this discussion: An RfC was opened about Dr. Omerbashich‘s reliability on WP:RSN. You can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Rotational axis

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)

Volume of Sun in cu mi appears to be incorrect

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)

Removed for the time being. @RCSmeas, are you sure about 3.39? I am getting 3.38. So, maybe we need to discuss further with maths or sources. To be honest, I don't think it even needs to be in the article. I don't think cubic miles are necessarily more informative at such high values even to people who use miles instead of km. I use km and the value in cubic km is just a large number to me. Comparison with earth's volume is what's helpful even if it's just to go . Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Usedtobecool - I got the value of 3.39x10^17 using a conversion factor of (1.60934 km/mile)^(-3) with the stated volume of 1.412x10^18 km^3, but that second decimal is probably unwarranted in light of the uncertainty in solar radius measurements and the lack of specificity on this page about the definition of radius for a gaseous object (see, for example, the ApJ paper by Emilio et al (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/48/pdf). I agree with your comment about the lack of a compelling reason for including a value for the solar volume in cubic miles, so I'm happy that you have removed the value and suggest we leave this portion of the article as it now is. RCSmeas (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

New word: Suntoid

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)

You are the one, MOS:NEO. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Lithium

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Mode cs2

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)

I made the edit to remove the "cs2" mode from a citation. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit a sentence in the Life phases section of the Sun article

The word "than" should be removed from this sentence in Life phases in the Sun page.

The Sun today is roughly halfway through the most stable part of its life. It has not changed dramatically in over four billion years and will remain fairly stable for about than five billion more. Tjkarani (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch, fixed. Remsense诉 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

More emphasis on this being a hypothetical construct? ++ Concern about uncited images

When I read the article it reads very much like someone stood on the Sun and was able to do actual measurements, even though the constitution of the Sun is fairly unknown. People once believed it was a burning ball of fire, but if that were true, it would have died out really quickly, because there's no oxygen. That explains to some extent the move to nuclear fusion, but one might argue that nuclear fusion actually costs energy rather than produce it.

A viable alternative that was once brought to my attention was that the Sun is made out of an inert gas, most probably Radon. It was brought to my attention, but I have no references, sorry. The reason this explanation is so viable is as follows:

The Sun when it's a highly abrasive solvent with near perfect light absorbing and emitting qualities expends very little energy on itself and replenishes really quickly with matter and light hitting it. The Sun itself as such is very cold, because almost all of the energy it receives as matter or light is sent back out again as light into the Universe, of which only a small portion reaches the Earth, but that small portion by itself is thus big that it can heat us sufficiently.

The formation of stars out of gases provides a good first step for corroborating this theory, because in space inert gases can actually liquify and maybe even solidify due to the extreme coldness of space. Essentially the Sun isn't much different from a tube or bulb of inert gas, but without the glass container around it, and under its own gravity it's probably a lot more dense than gas in a tube or bulb. Emilehobo (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Emilehobo: I responded to this on your talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The clearer point has been made that many of the article's illustrations seem themselves to be uncited either in the caption or on the media page. Thoughts on this? Remsense诉 13:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of Kelvinsong's internal structure diagrams are generally in agreement with scientific consensus of the internal structures of the objects they depict, if not a bit outdated. I do agree that the lack of references is an issue, and they should be supplemented somehow -- perhaps uploading a new version with citations within the image would be helpful, similar to this newer diagram of Mars's interior?[1] ArkHyena (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure new versions are even needed, necessarily—just like text, images can be verifiable to sources they were not directly worked from. But it would be nice to have that squared away on this and potentially other FAs. Remsense诉 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That would work too; I'll probably leave someone else to find appropriate sources for the Sun diagram, as I'm not well-versed in heliophysics. ArkHyena (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Can you be more specific about which images you are concerned about? I'm not seeing anything that leaps out that is concerning. That said, I'm not familiar on the rules about use of images and/or citations for them. I also looked through the current talk page and didn't see any mention about problems for a lack of citations in images. Can you refer me to those specific discussions and any concerns raised or addressed there? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

For one example: File:Sun poster.svg used at the top of § Structure and fusion—to be clear, as stated above this is a minimal concern as the images are mainstream and obviously verifiable if not inline cited, but being cited would be nice. Remsense诉 13:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. That image was "a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article." Also it was "selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for May 5, 2021."

Nonetheless, it does appear to be the work of User:Kelvinsong/User:IsadoraofIbiza rather than directly from a an independent reliable source. Is there a policy related to images that suggests a citation(s) is important or how it is properly implemented? Are there any other examples in similar articles that you are hoping we would follow here? Again, I have little familiarity with the rules around images. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, images are treated just like text: they make claims which may be verified in sources, which may also use various media. It may be more concrete to think in terms of maps and charts, and how they are seen as being able to make specific claims. People become confused because images are in some ways more abstract as a medium, and we primarily deal with text—but it's fundamentally no different. Just because we use one synonym over another doesn't necessarily create a distinct claim, just as use of a certain visual style for the sun's core shouldn't necessarily be treated as making a distinct claim for what is obviously an abstract diagram. I hope that makes sense.

Of course, with both prose and images it must be played by ear and carefully considered from many perspectives, but I've detected literally nothing problematic or unverifiable in the images used to illustrate this article. Remsense诉 15:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It does make sense. I have always wondered. I think to address this, rather than try to pollute the caption with a bunch of refs, it might be better to make sure all of the key components in a diagram or image are mentioned/described in the text and referenced there, e.g. "The core of the Sun extends from the center to about 20–25% of the solar radius.[ref]"--completely consistent with the diagram. Are there any components of that image that are not mentioned and referenced in the text somewhere?

And it just occurred to me that that there are no doubt similar images in reliable sources that can be used as a reference too. I'm not sure exactly how that would be done to make the article and caption the most readable.--David Tornheim (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Keeping in mind what I said above—while conceding that claims are most easily stated as text for purposes of verification—I have an idea for systematically verifying complex images: I propose introducing a format where each claim an image is making is laid out in a tree structure, where citations can be attached to each. This could go in the "source" field on the image's own File: page, or bundled into a footnote.

Here's my tree for File:Heat Transfer in Stars.svg (though it is ultimately already sourced[2]):

• The interiors of stars have different mechanisms of heat transfer according to their total mass. Different layers within a star may propagate heat either by convection or by outward radiation.
  • In stars >1.5M_☉, the core is a convection zone, while the outer layers are a radiation zone.
  • In stars between 0.5 and 1.5M_☉, the core is a radiation zone, while the outer layers are a convection zone.
  • In stars <0.5M_☉, the entire interior is a convection zone.

This way, people can be more clear both about what an image is intended to say, whether it says what it intends to effectively, and whether what it says is verifiable in reliable sources. Many images will have comparatively flat trees, but I could see this being a valuable notion for, say, diagrams of the course of historical battles. Remsense诉 20:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe we are in agreement about the nature of the multiple claims implied by the images in this article. With regard to File:Sun poster.svg, I also saw it as a list of similar claims, starting with the internal 25% the core.

I'm okay with the style of splitting out the various claims as you mention--as long as the caption is not bloated with all the claims. I would rather see the claims distributed appropriately throughout the text. As with professional texts, there could be something along the lines of "(see figure 1.0)" if the claims are not all adjacent. I can't think of any articles that have done that, so it would have to be consistent with WP:MOS.

As for putting the verification of claims in the image itself, this certainly makes logical sense. However, I don't remember seeing it done anywhere. I believe the reason it is not typically done is that these images are shared by various Wikipedias of different languages.

My guess is this must have been discussed somewhere else regarding all articles, hasn't it? If you are not aware of such a suggestion I would support raising the question in a more centralized location, proposing your suggestion there. I would be happy to participate in such a discussion.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Better source needed.

Reading the topic "FAR" (which I believe is wiki-speak for "Featured article review") I saw the article has a "better source needed" tag. I thought I could make a quick fix.

Surprise! The tag concerns a retracted article on Solar motion relative to the solar barycenter (center of mass for solar system). The article failed to account for correlated motions of the planets and thus incorrectly connected the Sun's motion to Sun-Earth motion.

So easy fix: find a different source? Oh, it turns out that one of the leading theories of the cycles of Sun spots relates to the Sun's motion relative to the barycenter, and that in turn relates to climate change. Consequently you can find lots of refs with lots of different stories. I guess that may explain why the paper was officially retracted rather than say publishing a correction.

For this reason I am changing the paragraph to include content based solely on the 1964 paper by Paul Jose. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation.

The intro currently says

• ...radiating the energy from its surface mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation.

but this is not in the article as far as I can tell. The closest thing I found was:

• Sunlight at the top of Earth's atmosphere is composed (by total energy) of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light.

which would mean the intro should say "all as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation." Which is equivalent to "mainly as pretty much anything". Johnjbarton (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement in the intro is correct. A tiny fraction of the Sun’s radiative energy output is in the form of X-rays and radio waves, so it would not be correct to say that “all” of the energy is in the form of visible, UV, and IR radiation. Aldebarium (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your summary but the source does not. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The source (which I just corrected the ref for) ambiguously confusingly defines IR as >0.7 micrometers, visible as 0.4-0.7 micrometers, and UV as <0.4 micrometers. Are you saying that since this range encompasses all wavelengths, it follows that all EM radiation can be considered IR, visible, or UV? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that, the source is saying that. The three ranges add up to 100%.

What we need is a source that says "A tiny fraction of the Sun’s radiative energy output is in the form of X-rays and radio waves" Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. That is what I meant to say. And I agree. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Solar apex ref is synthesis.

The sentence on Solar apex is referenced by combining two sources of data. IMO the content should be removed until there is a proper reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to be snarky. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Praemonitus (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR

I feel like an FAR may be needed. This article contains unsourced text and there is a tag. The lede would also stylistically look better if the second and third paragraphs were about the size of the current fourth paragraph, but that isn't a requirement. 750h+ 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could mark what text specifically needs sourcing. From a quick skim, I could only find one paragraph without citations. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, there's likely more than three paragraphs that aren't unsourced. There's numerous sentences too:

• Third paragraph in "Etymology" section is fully unsourced
• Second paragraph in "General characteristics" has an unsourced sentence
• Third paragraph in "General characteristics" has an unsourced sentence
• Third paragraph in "Magnetic activity" has an unsourced sentence
• Fifth paragraph in "After core hydrogen exhaustion" has unsourced sentences
• First paragraph in "Motion" has unsourced sentences
• First paragraph in "Early understanding" section is fully unsourced
• Fourth paragraph in "Early understanding" section is fully unsourced
• Third and fourth paragraph in "Development of scientific understanding" has an unsourced sentence

There's quite a few more I can count. The article would not pass FAC if it were to go through now. 750h+ 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now. ArkHyena (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This is more nitpicky, but also a lot of the references are missing various fields (authors, etc). Sgubaldo (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is a large problem on many FAs that are over 5-7 years old 750h+ 08:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A notice was also given in 2022. 750h+ 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

An FAR of this article is underway as of May 24, 2024. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sun/archive2. Praemonitus (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph on work by E. Biemont

I deleted an out of place paragraph about solar composition in the solar missions section The parargraph had a few primary references from the 1970s. A modern review like

• Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. (2021). The chemical make-up of the Sun: A 2020 vision. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A141

barely mentions the work. It also did not make much sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the type of content that could belong on Abundance of the chemical elements#Sun. Praemonitus (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The amount hydrogen fused in a second

Is 600 million kilograms and not 600 billion. The page is of coursf protected, thus I am unable to correct it. Dengaleugle (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dengaleugle It's 600 million tonnes of kg, which is 600 billion kg. @Rasnaboy, I've reverted your change. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I missed that. @Sgubaldo, Thank you for spotting it. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Rotation section

In the second paragraph, "vestage" should be "vestige". 24.19.149.125 (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Poetic Access

There is a poem by Baudelaire ´´ The Sun ´´, which is of high quality. Perhaps one of the english versions could improve this article! ( Ulftomme ) 2A00:1830:A001:F007:0:0:0:6 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The original text and various English translations can be found here: https://fleursdumal.org/poem/101 . A mention (that the Sun hasn't only inspired aspects of religions but poetry as well), could be added to the article. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Will the sun go away

Any experts know if the sun will go away. Due to it's age or pollution. 50.106.91.66 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That content already exists, Sun#Life_phases.  Done Johnjbarton (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I am only 11 and the only one who likes astrology in my family I use the Internet for answers. Please look at my "Questions from a kid" on Wikipedia talk 50.106.91.66 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Too much on one ref outdated ref?

This one ref from 1977 with 22 citations is used 7 times in the article.

• Abhyankar, K. D. (1977). "A Survey of the Solar Atmospheric Models". Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India. 5: 40–44. Bibcode:1977BASI....5...40A. Archived from the original on 12 May 2020. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

It seems to me that something like

• Mullan, D. J. (2009). Physics of the Sun: A First Course. United States: CRC Press.

would be much better as a source. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the actual solar (effective) temperature?

The article gives several conflicting values:

1. 5772 K in the infobox
2. 5777 K in the second paragraph of the Sun#Photosphere section
3. 5778 K in the Sun#Sunlight_and_neutrinos section
4. 5772 K (again) in the Sun#Main_sequence section.

Now, of course, all these values are clearly well within any reasonable error margin of each other, but it's sloppy editing to give three different values. I suggest the above (and other numbers, ) be normalised to the nominal values from IAU 2015 Resolution B3 (i.e. Table 1 in Andrej Prša et al 2016 AJ 152 41, DOI: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41; the pre-print of which is already cited as Ref no. 12). 69.165.195.198 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent thanks. In one case I edit the value away in the process of cleaning up some refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... Now that I have read the reference again I am not so sure. The "nominal values" in that publication serve a specific purpose:

• "These nominal values should be understood as conversion factors only—chosen to be close to the current commonly accepted estimates (see Table 1)—not as the true solar properties."

So for example, (as I understand this sentence), the temperature is really a value derived from a formula using measured luminosity and radius, not a "true" experimentally measured temperature. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

As you doubtlessly know, we can't just stick a thermometer into the solar photosphere, and there aren't too many different ways to measure things when the object in question is a sphere of very hot hydrogen at an astronomical distance... As far as I know, applying Stefan-Boltzmann (as described in the IAU resolution paper and here) is the usual method to get the solar effective temperature. The nominal value (being close to the "commonly accepted estimates") is probably as close to a "true" value as we can get, unless someone decides to re-do the necessary experimental measures with currently available instruments. 69.165.195.198 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But the description in the paper of these "nominal values" is very puzzling. What does "commonly accepted values" even mean? "conversion factors only"? "true solar properties"? Bizarre choice of words for what should have been "based on our review, these are the most accurate values of these properties at this time."

But I agree this seems to be the best we can do. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)