From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSun is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starSun is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2006 Featured article candidatePromoted
October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidatePromoted
July 30, 2009 Featured article reviewKept
June 13, 2021 Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
June 20, 2022 Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Unsafe conclusion in Motion and location

Under the subtitle "Motion in the Solar System"

There is an unsupported conclusion with an orphan reference. To wit: "[…] The orbits of the inner planets, including of the Earth, are similarly displaced by the same gravitational forces, so the movement of the Sun has little effect on the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun or on solar irradiance on the Earth as a function of time.[140] […]"

Checking footnote 140 reveals:

Retraction of: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3, published online 24 June 2019 The Editors have retracted this Article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented. S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.

[1] Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R.S. & Kuchynka, P. The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431. "The Interplanetary Network Progress Report", Volume 42–196, February 15, 2014.

[2] JPL Horizons on-line solar system data. Horizons System

Reference: Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
I'm with Cacti on this one, I see no good reason for this duplication. Artem.G ( talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
Agree with the proposed removal. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

No one gets to vote on basic science. Go and vandalize articles from your purview. XiounuX ( talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not helpful. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 01:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply
+1 CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 07:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
Another libel. Dr. Omerbashich is certaintly building his legal case here. XiounuX ( talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
ok CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:NLT, this kind of thing will get you reblocked. MrOllie ( talk) 14:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
No, you do not get to counter peer reviewed science with democracy. XiounuX ( talk) 15:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Or let me be direct: is it obvious now that nobody cares about your expertise? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:Don't be high maintenance might be useful here. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree that this does not belong in this article, let alone in the opening paragraph. MrOllie ( talk) 14:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply

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) reply

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

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. [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Meléndez, Jorge; Ramírez, Iván (November 2007). "HIP 56948: A Solar Twin with a Low Lithium Abundance". The Astrophysical Journal. 669 (2): L89–L92. arXiv: 0709.4290. Bibcode: 2007ApJ...669L..89M. doi: 10.1086/523942. S2CID  15952981.
  2. ^ Carlos, Marília; Nissen, Poul E.; Meléndez, Jorge (2016). "Correlation between lithium abundances and ages of solar twin stars". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 587: A100. arXiv: 1601.05054. Bibcode: 2016A&A...587A.100C. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527478. S2CID  119268561.
  3. ^ do Nascimento Jr., Jose Dias; Castro, Matthieu Sebastien; Meléndez, Jorge; Bazot, Michaël; Théado, Sylvie; Porto de Mello, Gustavo Frederico; De Medeiros, José Renan (2009). "Age and mass of solar twins constrained by lithium abundance". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 501 (1): 687–694. arXiv: 0904.3580. Bibcode: 2009A&A...501..687D. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911935. S2CID  9565600.
  4. ^ Hultqvist, L. (April 1, 1977). "The production of lithium in the solar chromosphere and photosphere during white light flares". Solar Physics. 52: 101–106. doi: 10.1007/BF00935793 – via NASA ADS.

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) reply

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

sun

uiuaa geng geng wallawalla genhgenh 176.88.22.163 ( talk) 18:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

@ Emilehobo: I responded to this on your talk page. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
@ 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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sun&oldid=1218686458"