This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The first non-infobox photo in this article ("The Sun, as seen from the Earth's surface") is actually... not great quality? Should we add a picture taken with a better camera? Or maybe I'm just underestimating how hard it is to take a good photo of something as bright as the Sun. Alex Martin ( talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I would like to edit this piece of work because I noticed one or two spelling mistakes and there is some more information about the sun I would also like to add. That is all and thank you for reviewing this request. Please don't mind the strange username as my son created this account for me. BigBumpoo ( talk) 01:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 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.   𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The sun is the the most important thing in our solar system as it gives us life down here on earth 2001:8003:27F7:DD00:3860:87D2:BD36:C440 ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sun&oldid=1034522630 Seems like this edit "broke" the page's formatting, and it was left as such. It's almost been a month now, and nobody has bothered to fix it. Is there any specific reason for this? Dinsignis ( talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The article's sidebar says: Visual brightness (V) −26.74[5]

On WP for other stars the term apparent magnitude is frequently (perhaps exclusively?) used, and clicking on the "Visual brightness" in the sidebar brings you to the apparent magnitude article. Also, the term "visual brightness" doesn't appear in the apparent magnitude article. And finally, Google says the term "absolute magnitude of the sun" appears 78,000 times on the web, but the term "visual brightness of the sun" appears only ten times. Perhaps the term in the sidebar could be changed to apparent magnitude? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I've removed a misleading chart with commit. The main problem is that it shows irradiance levels of what the Earth receives per m³ (minus atmospheric absorption), and not what is emitted from the surface of the Sun, which should be the topic. (The supplementary text was nice, however.) It would be nice to have a chart that shows actual radiation values at the source (63MW/m³ I think?) with both black body values and actual, showing the Sun's own absorption lines. Daniel Santos ( talk) 14:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add an video of the sun's surface taken with an amateur telescope

thumb|Sun - active region time-lapse Daviddayag ( talk) 07:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 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)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Uterne. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Uterne until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes ( talk) 17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The final sentence in the “life phases/main sequence” section is grammatically incorrect (as of 12/4/21). since the page is locked I am unable to edit it. 2601:41:200:5260:8D2D:2AF4:14D0:B869 ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 June 2019 and 1 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goakes5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Heatheromg4420.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the wiki article Solar Apex, the Sun is moving towards the constellation Hercules, not Cygnus as reported here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 ( talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Where the article states that the sun will expand to a red giant, it says that it will not expand into earth's orbit. I have done research that says the sun will not only expand into earth's orbit, but into the marsian orbit as well. I do not know which of the statements is more accurate, but I thought I would mention this. Son-why ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Is very tall. Can the sections be default collapsed? It's good info, but the general reader probably don't need it so prominently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that a lot of highly technical and detailed science articles write origins sections backwards for some reason, when the reader expects them in chronological order. For example, we don’t find out that the Sun was likely formed from the remnants of a supernova until the end, instead of explaining this at the beginning. I’ve seen this kind of thing in many different articles and I’ve never understood why people write like this. Wouldn’t it make more sense and clear up a great deal of confusion and facilitate understanding and comprehension by reversing the chronological narrative structure of the paragraph? Viriditas ( talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I'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)

I think "heated to incandescence" is redundant, since the same sentence already mentions hot plasma. Can a hot plasma be "heated to incandescence"? Perhaps "to incandescence" should be dropped so that the sentence would be "It is a nearly perfect ball of hot plasma, heated by nuclear fusion..." Brandmeister ^talk 14:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

While the properties of plasma are familiar to you and I, a good chunk of the readers of this page won’t have the same knowledge and will probably benefit from having the “heated to incandescence” line. I support its continued inclusion. Marchantiophyta ( talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

How can this have a black body spectrum? Oscar Blauman 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman ( talk • contribs) Furthermore: "The photosphere is tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, and is slightly less opaque than air on Earth." How a BB can be less opaque than something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

The Sun has several alternative names listed in English. However, none of the alternatives are commonly recognized names for the Sun itself and instead refer to Greek and Roman deities. Even the cited sources don’t acknowledge those as accepted alternative names. 109.43.114.27 ( talk) 12:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Every second, the Sun's core fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium, and in the process converts 4 million tons of matter into energy.

This should read 620 million.. The nuclear fission page has it updated already.

Cheers. 1.132.108.130 ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a source for File:Evolution of a Sun-like star.svg?

Several sentences are also unsourced. A455bcd9 ( talk) 11:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"The large power output of the Sun is mainly due to the huge size and density of its core (compared to Earth and objects on Earth), with only a fairly small amount of power being generated per cubic metre. Theoretical models of the Sun's interior indicate a maximum power density, or energy production, of approximately 276.5 watts per cubic metre at the center of the core, which is about the same power density inside a compost pile."'

This is wrong. The cited source is some abc austrailia blog.. This is the power density of the entire sun, NOT the core. Fusion only takes place in the core. This lie is being repeated all across reddit and the internet, it is an embarrassment and should be removed. 2800:BF0:A400:D2F:E139:9AFB:9816:4CEA ( talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

I have found a possible source to prove the following sentence:

HD 162826 and HD 186302 are hypothesized stellar siblings of the Sun, having formed in the same molecular cloud.

In the German Wikipedia a similar assumption was made and cited with the following publication:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1723.pdf

I am not a professional astronomer, but in my scientific experience this source seems to be plausible...

Basketcase88 ( talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I miss info about history how these things were discovered and/or developed. I tried to find more, and found info about close to current affairs, but most articles about EM spectrum, spectroscopy etc. lack a section about history, and where I saw it, it was more superficial than not.

Some might say that that is not notable, but if we need, and want, next generations of passionate researchers, they need, preferably as children, to be able to see how we got to the current level of knowledge, not only how to find useful data in WP. Marjan Tomki SI ( talk) 15:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are multiple typos within this page, even if it is a featured page. I will list all of them.

- Under heading 'Composition' there is text on the 3rd - 4th line of the 4th paragraph that reads as follows: 'The proportions of heavier elements is unchanged.' This is incorrect, it should be: 'The proportions of heavier elements ARE unchanged.'

- Under heading 'Solar activity', which is, in turn, under 'Magnetic activity', the 3rd - 4th line of the 1st paragraph states: 'Both coronal-mass ejections and high-speed streams of solar wind carry plasma and interplanetary magnetic field outward into the Solar System.' It should be 'Both coronal-mass ejections and high-speed streams of solar wind carry plasma and THE interplanetary magnetic field outward into the Solar System.'

- Under heading 'Celestial neighbourhood', which, in turn, is under 'Motion and location', there are examples of which both British English and American English are used in the same context. These are:

• 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)

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)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph, the phrase "The Sun radiates this energy mainly as light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation" should be changed to "The Sun radiates this energy mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation". Notably,the change being changing the word "light" to "visible light".

This is because visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, not just "light". Please see here for further information: /info/en/?search=Visible_spectrum

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

 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)

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)

This website hosts detailed and current sun SDO pictures and videos: https://www.solarham.net/

The source of the media data is NASA SDO, so that should be usable by Wikipedia or not? Polymorphismus ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

it must be 1238,8 g/cm^3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhf27ZqbQG0&list=PLXyXbp7bY8yajkjhlS2iQJhZdN02VitEI&index=5 81.65.127.18 ( talk) 01:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The 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)

The redirect Sowng has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3 § Sowng until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Phoebus is said to be a poetic name for the Sun, but it's not mentioned here anywhere. 188.146.106.132 ( talk) 13:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the picture of the Sun. Why is the light intensity of the Sun graduated (less intense at the periphery)? Normally, projection of a lighted ball will have the same light intensity all over the projection. Henrikoesterbro ( talk) 13:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

What happened to the graphs of the temperature, pressure, density, and mass in a given radius of the sun? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:C4DD:72CB:52B5:8898 ( talk) 21:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first two mentions of the word "photosphere" are both linked to Article:Photosphere when only the first mention should have a link to the article. SightedStar ( talk) 00:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

We can read: The average temperature of the corona and solar wind is about 1,000,000–2,000,000 K; however, in the hottest regions it is 8,000,000–20,000,000 K. source 81 the source doesn't confirm. Hard to find sources but at most it would be 5 millions K???? please confirm Chanterel G ( talk) 02:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

How can 162.2 g/cm³ be 12.4× Earth while Earth is at mean 5.513 and even if we use a molten iron core of 7.87 we get a factor of 30. 2A01:C23:855F:3900:D975:C91E:BCDA:F14F ( talk) 16:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I get the argument about "keep it simple", but how about the following, because I find it important to spell things out as much as possible for people who have no clue about astronomy:

"The Sun is a star and the center which Earth and all of the Solar System moves around."

What do you think? Nsae Comp ( talk) 01:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

The redirect Sun. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Sun. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym ( talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Nah≥

 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)

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)

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)

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)