Talk:Sun/Archive 6

rename article to Sol
Please move this article to Sol, the sun's official name. Sun can also refer to a different sun or the philosophically scientific explanation of suns.--24.171.1.195 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sun is the Sun's official name. It's only called Sol in science fiction novels.  Serendi pod ous  01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * while the article should be called the sun, it is simply not true that its only called sol in sceince fiction novels. Outerstyx (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop making false -- and even ridiculous -- claims. There is no office responsible for the name of our star, so there cannot be an official name, but if you check an English dictionary you will find that it goes by "the sun" or "the Sun". -- 98.108.219.226 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IAU is responsible for such matters; they are the ones who have clearly stated that the formal (i.e. official) name for the Sun in English is, well, the Sun. --Ckatz chat spy  06:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It should still be referenced somewhere on the page that it's also commonly known as "Sol" whether its' informal or not. just pretending the alternate name doesn't exist is contrary to wikipedia's policy of being an encyclopedia. Not to mention it will confuse a lot of people who come to wikipedia and cant find the article. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not commonly known as "Sol" in the U.S. While I have seen the phrase "Old Sol" two or three times in my life, I have never heard it spoken and I don’t know how "Sol" is pronounced (Saul or Soul). I don’t know anybody who would understand a sentence such as, "isn’t Sol bright today" or "we’ll eat when Sol sets." (Or is it "the Sol"?) —Stephen (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think the article should be moved to Sol, I think the current redirect of Sol to this page is most parsimonious. However, I do agree that there should be mention somewhere of the name of the star being Sol, as "the Sun" is its title.  Every other star with a name is "officially" called by its classical name (be it Greek, Roman, or Arabic), which for the Sun is "Sol"; we don't officially call Sirius "Dog Star", nor Polaris "North Star", though we refer to them as such colloquially.  We use Sol when referring to the Sun in adjective form, such as the Solar System - not the Sun system.  And, correspondingly, we also refer to any large body orbiting a planet as a "moon" of that planet, making the word "Moon" titular and not nominal, since its name is Luna, just as "Sun" is for Sol.Westerncenter (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sun" and "Moon" are the proper names in English, per the IAU (not "Sol" and "Luna"). --Ckatz chat spy  07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've claimed that twice now, though I can find nothing from the IAU or the Internet at large to support that claim, which you havent cited your source for. Rather, Cornell University (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=155) asserts that there is no official scientific name for the Sun as a star, at least as of 2001, and NASA (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/faq/index.cfm?Category=Sun#q5) specifically claims that the IAU has never officially sanctioned a name for our primary star.  While "the Sun" and "the Moon" are the encouraged names when discussing the object in English, in other languages the name for the star is etymologically unrelated.  And "official" names are generally non-Anglocentric, which usually means Latin names are used, e.g. as with the international symbols for elements.Westerncenter (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Historically, as English speakers, "Sun" (in fact, once personified as a pan-Germanic goddess) is indeed the name of our star, and "Moon" (personified as a god in Norse paganism, likely the same among the pagan English) is the name of our natural satellite. These names are about as traditional as names get. Replacing our English names for the objects with Romance names is completely pointless. Might I remind you that this is English Wikipedia. bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B3l_(sun) is also the Norse name for the SunWesterncenter (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, which has zero bearing on my comments. If this were Old Norse Wikipedia, then we'd be talking. bloodofox: (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be referenced somewhere on the page. NASAs JPL uses the name Sol. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00022  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.20.58 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As per Common name it should be the sun and nothing else. That said we should mentioned that Sol is used  in rare occasions. Moxy (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sol as the latin name for sun should definitely be mentioned in the article. Most names for the stellar bodies of the SOLAR system (see what i did there?) have names originating or coming straight from ancient greek/roman mithology. Also many expressions related to the sun are using the term solar. So while we might not refer to the sun as sol directly, the name sol is still being used in everyday scenarios. 89.134.67.154 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic field strength
There is no direct mention of the size and strength of the Sun's magnetic field; it should be listed in amps and teslas, as well as compared to that of Earth and Jupiter. Plus, the statement that the interplanetary magnetic field is stronger than the Sun's magnetic field needs to be explained.  Serendi pod ous  16:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Trojancowboy (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sun section gives a field strength in the photosphere of 50–400 μT. This ranges from a little less that the Earth's field at the equator to 6 times it.  The 'magnetic field' section should be moved to its separate page at Solar magnetic field and expanded.  It should be replaced by a somewhat simplified version of same.

Units (again)
I've undone Ckatz' recent change to remove non-metric units from the article. This is similar to the reverts back in January which resulted in this discussion. Changing units to match some arbitrary preference seems disruptive. Please discuss your reasoning first rather than just imposing that preference on the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please avoid using the loaded term "disruptive" in a situation where it clearly does not apply. Such actions are counter-productive, especially since your example is entirely unrelated to this matter and presented out of context. (The spelling change discussed in January was settled on the basis of established practice, which is exactly what the minor changes made first by Saros and supported by me were intended to do - restore an established standard.) The use of SI units is certainly not an individual decision; there has been a convention for quite some time to do so in the core articles on the Sun and the planets. The initial discussion began on the talk page for Saturn, and has held up for a long time now. That is why the recent changes made by Saros and myself only required removing three conversions out of the many dozens of units presented in the article. I'm going to sift through the history of Sun to try and find when the non-SI units were added and will also try to get links to the various discussions that have supported this convention. --Ckatz chat spy  17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion at Talk:Saturn
 * Discussion at Talk:Sun
 * More on the use of SI only
 * MOSNUM ("In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI...")
 * (continuing to look for others)
 * The addition of F occurred as a single edit in the spring, and had been only K and C for a long time before that. The use of miles for the diameter in the lead section did not arise from a desire to use a conversion, but instead because of a request to list the diameter in the lead. It was inadvertently listed in miles ("added sun's diameter, per talk page suggestion"), and then converted to the standardized kilometres; unfortunately, the miles were never removed. Again, the use of non-metric units was a case of isolated changes and errors that were never corrected, not a discussion to purposefully add said conversions. --Ckatz chat spy  17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * En:wikipedia is not only american. All over the world people reads (and writes) it. For me, and I think for most Wikipedia readers which are not anglo-american, the use of the converted units in science matters looks a bit strange, especially when one is speaking of quantities, like the diameter of Sun, which have no immediate comparison with every-day quantities (nobody is going to circumnavigate sun with his car). So, reading (especially in the leading section) how many miles a star is wide sounds a bit "vulgar", and adds no information to the numbers given by the correct SI unit.--GianniG46 (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @ckatz: I am not aware of anything in the MOS which prohibits the use of non-SI units in our articles. I am aware that imposing a personal preference without a valid reason for changing an article is considered disruptive. Your edit summary, "Honestly, please do not revert without discussion; this has held up over several years and is accepted for the Sun and the planetary articles", misleadingly suggests you are correcting recent changes away from some broad consensus and that is not the case. Please undo your revert or I will have to report you for edit warring. If there is such a broad agreement, please let me know and I will be glad to restore your changes.
 * @GianniG46: That sort of sophomoric snobbery does not impress most people and is not a valid argument. The vast majority of readers here are more comfortable with miles than with kilometers as a large distance measurement. Including a conversion for those readers does no one any harm. Celestra (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the terminally insular use the word "here" in an international forum without stating where "here" might be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.244.90 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: I read those two brief discussions. One doesn't reach a conclusion and the other is a hand full of like-minded editors agreeing to remove units they don't like. Surely this has been discussed by larger groups. I'll go see what I can find as well. Celestra (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see you haven't reverted yourself yet. I find that WP:MOSNUM still talks of the arbitration committee deciding it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one approved style to another without significant reason. I see that scientific article should give preference to metric units, but no prohibition of conversion. I see an example under conversion of "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth" which suggests that articles on astronomy are not an exception to conversion. I find a number of discussions at WP:Measurements debate which don't reach a single conclusion but seem to favor conversion over exclusion. Please undo your changes, they are "inappropriate". Celestra (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would again ask that you avoid making unfair accusations. (I would also point out that it is an act of bad faith to make a statement such as your "I'm sorry to see you haven't reverted yourself yet" when I clearly had not been on-line in the interval between your two posts.) I have made an honest effort to demonstrate both the conventions in play with regard to astronomy articles (note the use of SI in the Sun and planet articles), and the evidence proving that the three (three of dozens or hundreds) conversion we are disputing were introduced not through a broad consensus for non-metric units, but instead through an accidental process common to Wikipedia's editing process. It is not merely my "personal preference", but instead a convention that was implemented quite some time ago - one that has been repeatedly defended and maintained by a long list of editors monitoring the astronomy articles. If need be, I'll even go through the edit histories for the articles in question to prove this reality. Furthermore, this is by no means a case of a "change from one approved style to another without significant reason". That applies to whole-sale conversion, not the process of bringing three non-conforming edits into line with the rest of the article. Again, the simple fact that there were only three conversion present - and not in any logical pattern for that matter - should be proof enough. --Ckatz chat spy  22:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any unfair accusations; I don't see any accusations at all, just observations and characterizations. (Your own words from one of the discussions you reference: "I'd support removing them... it's a personal bias, I'll admit, given that I use the metric system, but I also agree with the guideline and the idea of reducing the extra detail in the infobox.") I made a simple statement of fact ("I'm sorry to see you haven't reverted yourself yet") and you accuse me of bad faith on the assumption that I should somehow know you haven't been online? In your position, I would have simply stated the fact: "I haven't been online." Regardless, you are now, or have recently been, online and yet that situation continues. Please revert yourself while we discuss this reasonably.
 * I've already read the first two discussions and characterized them. Do you disagree with either characterization? The quote you selected from MOSNUM is part of what I already brought up to show that there is little in the way of support for your position there. Your fourth discussion is again those same like-minded editors agreeing with one another, this time about an infobox. Do you have examples of broad discussions between people who disagree about the subject?
 * The convert template in the lede is the one you put there yourself during the January unpleasantness over the spelling on kilometer(vs kilometre). Coming back after almost ten months and "correcting" that merits more discussion than your edit summary invites. Celestra (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you make such a provocative statement - one that implies a definitive action (or lack thereof) - without first checking the other editor's contributions to see if they were actually around? Furthermore, why would you use such overly dramatic language to characterize a simple series of reverts in January? (I may be biased, but I would hardly characterize my two reverts - yes, only two, with the summaries "rv" and "repair" - as examples of "unpleasantness". It may be lacking in discussion, for which I'm apologetic, but given that the initial edits by a low-edit editor appeared to contradict the existing article, they are easily understandable. You'll note - and should include here - that after you drew attention to the WP:RETAIN discussion on the talk page, I immediately ceased reverting what had before appeared to be an error on the part of a new editor.)
 * However, you have completely ignored my assessments posted above, not the least being the detailed analysis of the manner in which the conversions came to be in the article, the lack of any consensus to use conversions here, and the fact that the article is devoid of said conversions with the exception of those three random placements. The article history clearly demonstrates a long-term acceptance of an SI-only presentation, and said standard has been maintained by many, many editors other than myself. --Ckatz chat spy  02:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Celestra, Ckatz is right. Many editors—some American like me—have been keeping the astronomy articles SI-only. The article does have the far more helpful comparison to the Earth's size. Saros136 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saros, but I didn't doubt that several editors removed conversions from these articles and have been keeping them out. What I'm looking for is the intelligent conversation between editors on both sides of the issue. If you read through the WP:Measurements debate, you'll see a multi-sided set of discussions which seem to conclude otherwise. I can see that this discussion is going nowhere, though, so I'll take it up over at MOSNUM.

Ckatz: I see nothing provocative in stating my disappointment that you hadn't reverted yourself. You have still not reverted yourself and I am still disappointed. Likewise, I think "unpleasantness" is a good description of a set of reverts over the spelling of a word. You did stop reverting after I researched the issue and pointed out that RETAIN supported the other editor. Thanks? I'm not sure what you mean by your assessments or why the number of changes seems important to you. You don't appear to have a broad consensus for having removed conversions. Rather than continue this conversation with you, I think it would be more useful to get that broad discussion started somewhere. Celestra (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you'd continue this conversation here or not, it should be pointed out the Sun is already compared to the Earth, Solar System, and other stars. This is the meaningful standard. Most people do not have any 800,000 mi references in mind. Saros136 (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to star articles, I think that the temperatures should use Kelvin only, not Celsius or Farenheit. Distances to stars should be expressed in light-years and parsecs only, no metres or miles, those numbers just get uselessly large. As for galaxy articles, distances to far away galaxies should not get converted tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sun&action=edit&section=7 megaparsecs or lightyears, from redshift, it should stay the dimensionless z quantity. Again, those numbers just get too large, and increasingly inaccurate in conversion; as for converting to miles or metres, they just end up useless. There is little advantage to adding how many quadrillions of miles something is from the Earth, and having that many digits in the article or infobox would get most readers lost in the digits. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the stars. But for far away galaxies, larger prefixes keep the numbers down. Saros136 (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

With the old cgs system, it was fairly simple. You just had to remember that a year was 10e7.5 sec and that c was 10e10.5 cm/sec so that a light year was 10e18 cm and a parsec was 10e18.5 cm and, of course a megaparsec was 10e24.5 cm et cetera. Also a fermi was 10e-15 cm et cetera. The IS system is what started to get it all fouled up by moving from the erg to the joule. But we'll have to deal with that, but if you can remember most of the conversions to the cgs units you can get by, except with the purists.WFPM (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The base 10 is implicit in the e notation. So a year is 10^7.5 or 1E7.5 s. More important here is the point that in SI the numbers are just as easy to deal with. It's simply 107.5,108.5, 1016, and 1016.5 for your numbers. Simple. Saros136 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And the cm exponential is simpler for area and volume computations because you only have to multiply the digital information and you can add the exponential info. And just for you, I'll try the 10^7.5 that I notice on my typewriter (for the first time) Okay!! But for atomic physics the cgs system is simpler. Like a fermi is 10^-13 cm, which is bad enough without it being increased to 10^-15 meters. And then we have the nonchalant use of the nanometer, which I have to think about seriously to get translated to the Angstrom (10e^-8 cm) So there!! I guess the French aren't interested much in small numbers.WFPM (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer 9 operated for a particularly long time, transmitting data until 1987.
The above statement is made in this article and has a citation. However, I can't immediately find in the cited page where it states that the probe was operational until 1987. This seems to contradict the Pioneer 6, 7, 8, and 9 article, which states that Pioneer 9 failed in 1983. Therefore the information appears to be wrong either on one article or the other (I don't yet know which one). Regards, Green Lane (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I found this Nasa link: which could explain the confusion. It appears that contact was maintained until May 1983 and then lost. Contact was again attempted in 1987, but failed and at that point, the mission was declared inactive. Green Lane (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I amended the article accordingly and added a supporting reference. Green Lane (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Surface temperature

 * In this spectral class label, G2 indicates its surface temperature of approximately 5778 K (5500 °C)

I can see how that figure came about but it looks silly. The parentheses imply a conversion to Celcius from the approximated figure in Kelvin, when the reverse is obviously true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.5.158 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it obvious the reverse is true? Saros136 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and the conversion is wrong also (should be 5773 K). I've fixed that and reversed the numbers. S  B Harris 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The figure for the temperature was taken from the NASA fact sheet, which gives a value of 5778 K. The Celsius figure is a conversion of this. Spacepotato (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, groan! But we were fooled by the fact that the Celsius temp then must be 5505, not a rounded 5500. If you input 4 digit numbers then you need to return 4 digit numbers. S  B Harris 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the figure of 5505 is more accurate than 5500? I just finished reading Weinberg's "the first 3 minutes" and he boggled my mind with his temperatures, and all the time I'm thinking, "There's no such thing as a temperature, there's just a mix of velocities!!" And "the temperature is a function of the velocity squared, so why don't we talk about that?WFPM (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If a figure is in a science publication is given to 4 significant digits, there's usually a reason. The Sun's temperature, like everything else far away, is given by fitting the curve of its black body radiation, which is of a very particular form, to a temperature equation. This can be done quite precisely. S  B Harris 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So thermodynamics is wrong? Sure there is a temperature. In the atmosphere for instance, the temperature is a the average kinetic energy of the particles. Here, though, we are using the effective temperature. Saros136 (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

But Temperature is just another name for velocity mix, and not nearly as well defined. And when somebody (Weinberg) starts talking about "a few thousand million degrees Kelvin" I think i"m being snowed, and when we're arguing about the difference between 5505 and 5500 degrees Kelvin I don't think there's any difference worth the discussion. That's where Maxwell got started by trying to sort it all out and rationalize it.WFPM (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC) And I'm in favor of Kelvin temperature notations due to its relationship to gas pressure values, and I just wish that someone would store a quantity of OO9F18 at 0 degrees Kelvin for a while to see if it would still spontaneously convert to EE8O18.WFPM (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I love The First Three Minutes. Weinberg makes extensive use of temperature, and as the others here point out, it is not a name for velocity mix (and I'm not sure what exactly that means.) In fact, the temperature used for surface temperature of stars or of the universe is not tied to the velocities of particles. I agree, though, that a difference of five degrees Celsius is worth worrying about. Although one argument in favor of using the 5505 instead of 5500 is that the latter might be thought to be rounded off to the nearest hundred degrees. Although even that would in fact be enough precision in this context. Saros136 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that the five degree difference is not worth worrying about. Saros136 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if you're going to print the 4 sig digit number from the NASA fact sheet, you're obligated to give the 4-digit conversion, which is just kelvin minus 273 degrees. If you want to round the Kelvin figure to 1 or 2 sig figures, then it's fair to round the conversion. But the same rule must apply to both. Otherwise we're headed to the same place we've just been above, where some new reader will think the Kelvin is the conversion OR the 5500 C figure has been rounded (which, in this case, it had been). 5505 C at least shows it hasn't been. S  B Harris 00:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Saros136 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Temperature is not another name for velocity mix. It has to be a velocity mix of a particular statistical distribution. Look at the article on temperature. S  B Harris 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 5778 K figure is an effective temperature, which is the temperature of the black body which would emit the same amount of radiation, overall, as the Sun. You could say that it's not a temperature at all, but a measure of luminosity: Teff=(L/4&pi;&sigma;R2)1/4.  The actual temperature of the photosphere will decrease as you move outwards from the center of the Sun (from 6400 K to 4400 K, according to this reference.) Spacepotato (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What I had heard was 6000 Kelvin, and I didn't have anything against that. Now you have 5778 Kelvin and an argument about a 5 degree celsius discrepancy. And I understand the need for a Hopefully Kelvin Temperature estimate With it eventually increasing as you move away from the sun. And it is related to the square of the involved velocity, and so the the difference in the involved velocity between 5500 and 5505 and is accordingly the difference between the square root of same or only a fraction of a tenth of a percent on my calculator. But maybe I just don't know enough details, as is usual.WFPM (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) But I don't have a desire to learn every last detail about the sun. I'm just trying to find out if it isn't possible for some deuterons to be around at the improbable times when 2 alpha particles get together momentarily so that they could also fuse with them to form OO5B10. And then we would have a process of fusion accumulation of the elements in accordance with the periodic table sequence, and particularly with the indications of the Janet periodic table that the 3rd alpha particle should be created at the end of the series rather than in the middle.WFPM (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The creation and existence of deuterons in the sun is discussed in the Proton-proton chain reaction, and in his book "A star called the sun" George Gamow credits Charles Critchfield as calculation that for the sun and less massive stars, the H-H fusion process is the dominating one in the interior of the sun. This would indicate the simultaneous occurrence of alpha particles and deuterons in the sun.WFPM (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ownership claimed by woman in Spain
Go figure: http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Spanish-woman-claims-ownership-of-sun-20101126 Rauterkus (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is serious then she is quite powerful and could in theory force humanity to pay for use of her property. Can't be good. """ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthurricane (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A friend wants to sue her for a recent sunburn. The liability for those with skin cancer is too great to hold onto the asset too. Rauterkus (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So does this get mentioned in the article or not? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's verifiable, so on one level it's legitimate. On the other hand I have absolutely no intention of adding it myself, and I suspect quite a few editors would race to revert it if it was added to this article. Perhaps it could be added to The Sun in human culture. Kiore (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It is not notable. If people are still talking about her in five years time, maybe. But this is just 'the lighter side of the news' fluff. Ashmoo (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind that the Sun is public domain by international treaty (see the Agreement Governing the Activities of States

on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, which bans countries from delegating celestial bodies or parts thereof to individuals, entities, themselves, and so on and so forth). 198.151.130.69 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out that's a "failed treaty" not recognized by most countries, but the Outer Space Treaty (which is recognized by most countries) bans countries from "nationally appropriating" celestial bodies (and so Spain can't delegate the Sun to the claimant because Spain is banned from doing so). 198.151.130.69 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

snap out of it, folks
The Sun is YELLOW GREEN Naturally, this is only the majority of the color, and it all blends WHITE You can read all about it. Lawstubes (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

THE solar system?
Sorry to add such a minor point, but shouldn't the article say "our solar system" not "the solar system"? There are after all an uncountable number of solar systems, and while it may be obvious to us which one we mean wiki should attempt to be more accurate. I cant edit this due to the protected status. 81.141.169.208 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Solar System with capital S's is a proper noun and can only refer to ours. A. di M. (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to that, "solar system" refers to the Sun's system (Sol), and thus cannot mean any other star. --Ckatz chat spy  09:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass energy conversion
The top section says 430 to 600 million metric tons per second are converted to energy. The "Core" section says it's 4.26 million tons. Please will the real answer step forward... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 430-600 million tons is the amount of hydrogen fused each second. Since hydrogen fusion is only 0.7% efficient at converting mass to energy, only 0.7% of that is converted into energy. Spacepotato (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For consistency, I changed 430-600 million tons to 620 million metric tons = 6.2&times;1011 kg, the figure used in the "Core" section. Spacepotato (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

neutrino detector locations
In the section on the neutrino problem, the article states "Several neutrino observatories were built in the 1980s to measure the solar neutrino flux as accurately as possible, including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory at Kamiokande". In fact, Sudbury is in Canada, whereas Kamiokande is in Japan. A better phrasing might be "...including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada and the Kamiokande observatory in Japan" (but the article is semi-locked, so I can't change it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.177.207 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; I have fixed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The sun in New Astronomy
See Croatian Wikipedia: http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:Sunce -- 78.0.187.91 (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The text over there is ref'd from a facebook page. I don't think we can do anything useful with that. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly is "New Astronomy"? — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a new and exciting form of Astronomy, free of those pointless and irritating restrictions imposed by verifiable evidence and accountability. It has nothing to do with Astrology and New Age Cosmology because... um... the name is different. (PS - just for the record, there actually is a legitimate science journal named "New Astronomy". But that's not what the above refers to. ) Manning (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pedant point: The Croatian Wikipedia is hr.wikipedia.org. The domain bs.wikipedia.org is the Bosnian one. I don't see any mention of a modern subject of "New Astronomy" there, although I note that "New Astronomy" is the English translation of the title of Kepler's book Astronomia nova. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

New Measurement of the Sun's radius
Radius ≈ 696,342 ±65 km. Source: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/publications/preprints/12preprints/Emilio_12-43.pdf 74.202.23.198 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Source appears to be reliable, and should more specifically reflect that the information is on p.12 in section 4.

Would like to get consensus on 2 points. 1) Should radius value be updated on page? 2) Should related commonly calculated values be likewise updates on the page? both of these contingent on final publication in Astrophysical Journal

Note that with the upcoming Transit of Venus the team has indicated that they are hoping to be able to further refine and reduce the uncertainty. Abyssoft (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stands, it's only represented in the article in relation to the Earth's radius, as opposed to in km as the above states, right? I support making it a quantitative measurement in km instead of its proportion to Earth anywhere possible. Dancindazed (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My understand it, there is considerable debate as to where to measure. From the edge of the chromasphere, photosphere, etc. So, to quote a diameter, one must mention which reference one is using. That said, updated, accurate information is always valued!Wzrd1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sol's interior
216.70.22.249 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Please reference O Manuel's Iron Sun theory. I cannot find either O Manuel or Iron Sun using the wiki. This theory is by a reputable scientist and in view of recent events carries weight. Chandra's latest pictures of Casseopia A show what can only be vindication of O Manuel's Iron Sun theory. Casseopia A is imaged showing its layered elements, one of O Manuel's initial findings, still intact around the almost gutted interior. The center core of the sun appears to have suffered a blow out directly from the interior. This supports O Manuel's theory. The neutron star was created and birthed directly from the iron womb of Casseopia A. Chandra pic: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/0203long/


 * Sorry, but that is pseudoscience. It claims that the sun is actually a neutron star, which defies gravitation, as neutron stars are thousands of times more dense than the sun is and they also possess greater mass than the sun has, else they'd not be neutron stars, they'd be white dwarfs. Iron "poisons" thermonuclear reactions, so a sun high in iron wouldn't be able to sustain fusion at all and it most certainly does NOT fuse hydrogen at the surface, but at the dense core, where fusion is possible due to pressure and heat. In short, the iron sun theory is even WORSE than the electric sun nonsense.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Observation and effects section
There is mention of lens implants (aka IOL) passing more UV than normal aging eyes. That may have been true in the past, but many, many IOL implants now are UV blocking. Perhaps an expert can re-write it, along with citations for the improved implants of today.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2012
Section "Life Cycle" Paragraph 3

Currently "...around 100 million kelvins,..." Should read "...around 100 million kelvin,..."

Small and pedantic, I know, but kelvin should always be used in the singular.

131.111.184.8 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently both are equally used, as can be verified on Google Books. Materialscientist (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made the change for the sake of consistency, if nothing else, given that our own article kelvin states "The singular "kelvin" should be used for any quantity of temperature". --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  18:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Center of the Solar System
The article begins by stating that "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System" &mdash; this is not true. The center of the Solar System lies somewhere outside the surface of the star. The Sun is not a fixed object in our star system, it too is affected by the gravity of the planets and it wobbles (orbits) around the center of the Solar System. I've changed the article to say "approximately at the center". -- Diego_pmc  Talk 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had to revert your change as it does not work in the lead sentence. Such a point would be better suited to the body of the article; in the lead, it will only confuse the average reader. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think it's better to try to rephrase that, that sentence is wrong as it is right now. Maybe we should remove any reference to the center of the Solar System in the first phrase? Maybe something like "The Sun is the only star in the Solar System." -- Diego_pmc  Talk 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, we have to look at this from the perspective of the average reader. From what I can find, the barycentre of the Solar System may sometimes be above the Sun's photosphere, but never outside of the corona. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "The Sun is the star at the approximate center of the Solar System." ? It's correct on all points, and it may intrigue the new student of this topic into reading further. Jeh (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Although it wobbles, averaged over time, it is at the center. I agree with Ckatz that, for the opening of the article, saying it is "at the center" is perfectly reasonable in conformance with the straightforward tone of the first paragraph. Similarly, the Observational Data says that light takes 8 minutes 19 seconds to reach the earth although, as pointed out elsewhere, this is also an average, with light from the edge taking longer due to its greater distance from the earth. Henrodon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Although it wobbles, averaged over time, it is at the center" - isn't that statement about the *average* location true of the Earth (or any planet/satellite) equally? 2.27.98.79 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were to say something like "The Sun is a star at the approximate center of the Solar System.", it's not confusing to the average reader. It's just a bit clunky and pedantic. The Sun, and the Earth are the two most famous things in the world (Literally). The average reader coming here already knows the Sun is the center of the Solar System. If they don't already know that, then they still need to learn what the "Solar System" is anyways, so there's no way to avoid confusing such a person, if he exists. So to the contrary, I would say such a pedantic opening would only spark the average reader to learn more about the Sun, in that they would seek out why the word "approximate" is in that sentence, and subsequently learn about the Sun's wobble, if they didn't already know. Dancindazed (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that opening the article with a phrase more like "The Sun is the star about which (all of?) the objects (planets, whatever...) revolve..." would convey the same meaning without the problem of "where the center of the solar system is"? Plusaf (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Plusaf

"Sol" at end of article ??
I'm absolutely baffled by the placement of the term "Sol" at the very end of the article. I was under the impression it was the technical scientific name for the sun. I thought the first line of the article would be, "The sun, officially known as Sol..." Where did I get this notion if it's so off? Science fiction, perhaps? Even if I got a false notion from science fiction, sci-fi is so prevalent that I figure other people will be looking for the same thing. I had to search for "Sol" and click "next" throughout the whole article to find mention of the term. Perhaps the first line could be, "The sun (derived from the Latin "Sol", a rare term for it)", or something like that? Squish7 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rare terms should not be mentioned in the lead, and the English word "sun" is not derived from the Latin "Sol". I'm baffled by your impression that "Sol" is the "official name", though, like you, I'm familiar with the usage.  Perhaps we have read too much science fiction?  Did Asimov invent the usage?    D b f i r s   20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I raised this issue a few months back (see earlier comment above or in archive) because I found that there were numerous other articles that were presenting 'Sol' as if it were a technical term. The consensus decision was there was no basis for this, and an effort was then made to correct the other articles. Manning (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, an anonymous editor had been adding this term as if it was "the technical scientific name for the sun". I can't find any remaining instances.    D b f i r s   03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then, how about a line that Sol is not the technical word for sun? Could there be precedent that it's a myth somewhere?  For instance... "Science fiction frequently refers to 'Sol' as a scientific name for the sun[references; Asimov, etc.], but this is a myth."  My annoyance is not being able to find that information on the page.  If it's not official, that's fine, but I really think the issue should be mentioned.(?) Squish7 (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Squish on this point. A lot of people (myself once included) are falsely under the impression that "Sol" is a genuine technical term, chiefly due to science fiction, so it would be worth clearing this up. I've been able to find "Official" evidence about the name of the Moon, but nothing unambiguous for the Sun. This page of the IAU makes it clear that the Sun should be capitalised, but doesn't categorically state "the official name is the Sun". Manning (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd put forth that it can be difficult to get the opinion of a real reader into these discussions. I think all this evidence strongly indicates a wider myth that more people than we know want addressed.  If editors are randomly going around putting in Sol in multiple articles "as if it were the scientific name", then how many middle/high school kids think the same thing, i.e. who might look up this article specifically to see if the name "Sol" in the sci-fi book they're reading is fact or fiction.  I honestly think the issue should be addressed right at the top.  A simple parenthetical can be extremely space-efficient when clarifying terminology.  I think a very careful parenthetical that gets at the heart of the issue would be warranted.  How about this for the first line:
 * The Sun (often Sol in myth/fiction)...
 * Squish7 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the change (if this was inappropriate, let me know; I just can't get a handle on the precise procedure for such things; editors often remove my edits yet absolutely refuse to discuss an issue and the points I make). There should be something in the article clearly addressing the issue.  I think this is an elite tentative.  Using "myth" and "fiction" gives a great blanket summary of the term and its status.  A) They both declare "Sol" is not scientific, while explaining the source of the confusion to boot.  B) They hint for readers to investigate the matter further.  C) They suggests to editors that more heavy addressing may be in line (a section on "use in sci-fi", for instance.)  D) It warns that editors not start going around adding "Sol" everywhere.  This is the best place to ward off that problem. Squish7 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede is not a place to "ward off problems." The lede is supposed to summarize the most important points of the article and I cannot at all agree with the notion that this is one of the most important points. I would support moving the "terminology" section to immediately follow the lede. Jeh (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. I just reverted this change on that basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Folks, this is really all very simple. In English, Moon is the name of our natural satellite, and Sun is the name of our star. All other Germanic languages have cognate terms that, like English, ultimately go back to a Proto-Germanic ancestor, Proto-Germanic itself a descendent of Proto-Indo-European. Sol, the Latin proper name for the star, may be employed by a few modern writers, but this is either out of sheer confusion or preference for the Latin term, which itself is connected to the Germanic terms on the Indo-European level. If Sol is to be mentioned as employed by some writers, then it should probably go in the etymology section. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just that it's employed, it's that it's a common misconception that's it a technical term. The word "Sol" doesn't even occur in the content index.  It's very difficult to even find the word "Sol" on the page, and still, none of it addresses where this confusion comes from (probably sci-fi). Squish7 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(new indent) - Gotta agree with Squish here. I started this discussion a few months back, because (despite being fairly well educated) I was also under the misapprehension that Sol was a legitimate technical term. I just did a google search and easily found several sources asserting that Sol is the "Official" name of the sun (eg. this one). These obviously aren't WP:RS but they serve to illustrate that the misconception is potentially widespread. Hence a simple section establishing that "Sol" is NOT a legitimate term is definitely warranted here. Manning (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think about having the "Terminology" section immediately follow the lede? Note that this is the pattern followed by Moon, and it flows well there. Speaking of which, I imagine a similar number of people believe that "Luna" is somehow the official name for Earth's Moon, and for similar resaons. I don't think WP articles should be written from a standpoint of disabusing false beliefs, but it looks to me as if this change in sequence would address Squish's and Manning's concerns. Come to think of it I think the "history of observations" material could come earlier as well. Also, the lede is too long. Jeh (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I stated above in my agreement to Jeh's earlier comment, I agree that moving the terminology section to follow the lead does no harm, but dwelling on semantics still seems unnecessary for the lead section.
 * As for being a common misconception, the burden of proof for that assertion is finding a source that explicitly says that it's a common misconception that Sol is the official name of the sun. I disagree that this is a common misconception, but I could be wrong. Finding a few misguided non-reliable sources that say this isn't sufficient. This is the same burden that all entries must meet before inclusion in the article list of common misconceptions. If anyone can find a source for that, it would be a good entry for that article too. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was also surprised to find that a name and etymology section wasn't front and center as is normally convention. Indeed, this is crucial for the very reasons illustrated here on this talk page; one can't expected to get any further without having a handle on the terminology. I've now bumped the section up and added to it. This should have ward off any further confusion on the matter. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The new layout absolutely satisfies my concerns with the article - well done. Cheers Manning (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, much better with the terminology section first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad to help. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that "Sol" is not the official and is a somewhat rare term for the Sun. However, may I remind all that there's some irony in the fact that, while all this is true, it is nevertheless the case that it is the Solar System that we officially speak of, not the Sunar System. :). Luna and lunar, Terra and terrestrial are similar-- we seem to prefer the Latinate form when it comes to making English adjectives out of Germanic nouns. It sounds so scholarly, don't you know. We even go to Greek when the English noun is Latin. During the upcoming transit you're going to see references to the Cytherian atmosphere of Venus! It's all putting on airs. S  B Harris 16:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add a bit to this discussion, Sol is the Roman God name personified by the Sun (Greek was Helios.) It has never been a scientifically accurate name for the Sun although some scientists (and non-scientists) use it. I too read those Sci-Fi books. I came here as a reader of the article for information on our Sun and came across this debate. If I had seen referances to its name as Sol other than in the less than accurate etymology section (where no reference to the Roman context exists which predates the Germanic I believe, 700BC {Titus Tatius} vs 800AD {Viking Era}) I would have discounted the article to some degree as less than scientific. See the following. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sol?s=t and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552806/Sol and even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_(mythology) The only reason I added to this post was because someone above wanted a "common reader" and I'm it. When I come to the WIKI pages I like scientifically accurate information and terms. I do agree with sbharris above, the irony is there. 174.102.140.128 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem confused. English is a Germanic language that stems from Proto-Germanic. It far predates Old Norse. What exactly are you claiming to be inaccurate in the etymology section? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Proto-Germanic dates to about 200BC while Roman references use the word far earlier. I do not know the exact dates of language movements and beginnings, however, the word SOL as reference to a deity, per the links I provided, predate those listed. I may be seriously confused and would welcome clarification. It does seem odd to me that the Mythology Wiki link I provided is at odds with this page. It claims "The Latin sol for "Sun" is the continuation of the PIE heteroclitic." Perhaps a link to that page would help. PRR 174.102.140.128 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

True color
Why not have a true color image of our sun somewhere in the Sun article? Very few people, sadly, have any notion of what it really looks like to the human eye in space. -Silence (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, may I suggest that a collection of "photographs" of the Sun at several or many different wavelengths, from... well, radio or infrared through ultraviolet, X-, gamma and so on, be considered, to flesh out that aspect? Plusaf (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The "true color" of any light source is difficult to define since it is impossible for humans to observe the Sun from space with the naked eye. There will always have to be either an atmosphere (Earth) or a thick transparent material (spacecraft window, astronaut's helmet). However, it is possible to simulate the color tone of (diffuse) sunlight since the true spectrum is well known. Here are two sites about this issue: casa.colorado.edu and www.vendian.org (both assuming D65 standard white balance). Another issue is the variability of human vision with illumination. At low lighting levels (indoor lighting, but also the night sky) the visible colors are biased towards the blue since the L-type rod cells which are sensitive to long wavelength (yellow-green to deep red) are decreasing in acitivity for lower lighting faster than the others, which is known as the Purkinje effect. Even if we had lamp which exactly reproduces the sun spectrum but would illuminate the room with only several 100 Lux (daylight would be 100,000 Lux) it would appear slightly blueish rather than white or yellowish white. There are LED lamps with 5000 K and Ra=80 (i.e. not too wrong in appearance) which appear white at night (maybe with a very little blueish tint), but slightly yellowish under daylight environments. Similarly, distant stars with the same spectral class and temperature as the Sun (G2V) would also appear slightly blueish near the zenith where even our Sun looks slightly yellowish white (at least if seen from sea-level). In addition, our eyes cannot easily determine the colors of point sources (distant stars) as well as that of sources with extremely high illuminance (the Sun), where we could only estimate the colors of illuminates white surfaces.


 * Below the line: The question for the 'true color' of the Sun cannot easily be answered.--SiriusB (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SUN-NASA
you NASA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.251.40 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

composition
The "Chemical composition" section must have an error, as there reads: '''The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively. All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass. The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%).'''

But when I sum them up (74.9, 23.8, 1, 0.3, 0.2, 0.2), I get 100.4%. I doubt that "roughly 1%" would be 0.6%, so I think something is not right. The other four sum to 1.7% which is about same than 1.69% in the header of the article. But 74.9 and 23.8 leave only 1.3 for the rest. 82.141.94.110 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the reason for the numbers not adding up is that they are for different parts of the sun. The hydrogen and helium numbers are for the photosphere and the rest seems to be for the whole sun. I agree that this is a bit confusing and should be fixed. Ulflund (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass is carried away ? ! ?
In the core section the sentence: "This mass is not destroyed to create the energy, rather, the mass is carried away in the radiated energy, as described by the concept of mass-energy equivalence." is misleading at best and wrong at worst. First of all the phrase 'mass is carried away' clearly implies that the radiation is 'carrying' the mass like the wind carries dust or an ocean current carries flotsam. My guess is whomever wrote this had a problem with the word 'destroyed', but the solution is worse than the problem. Normal matter IS destroyed (or if you prefer, 'converted'). While the electromagnetic radiation and the sub-atomic particles (perhaps neutrinos should be mentioned here, also?) do possess mass, generally the current usage for the term mass is equivalent to rest mass. I argue that 1) the mass IS destroyed and 2) that it is highly misleading to claim it is carried away. In point of fact, hydrogen is converted to helium, neutrinos and electromagnetic radiation, some of which is converted to heat inside the Sun. It isn't clear to me why it isn't simply stated that way. In the core of the Sun hydrogen is converted to Helium, neutrinos and x-rays <or is it gamma rays?>. This converstion of mass to energy results in a loss of mass by the Sun of 4. million metric tons per second. { as an aside, i came to this article looking for the mass loss of the Sun by the solar wind and couldn't find it - it should be pointed out that the movement of mass from the Sun as well as the conversion of mass both contribute to mass loss, imho } — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.152.220 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be a victim of one of most pervasive screwups in science education, which is the idea that "mass" can be destroyed by "converting" it to energy. No. It is matter (not the same as mass) that may be "destroyed" (matter being particles like electrons and positrons) and converted into "energy" (photons, kinetic energy, etc). Matter is a poorly defined word, and it is best not to use it. In any case, mass is conserved, even in relativity. The reason is that all energy has mass (mass is a property of energy and vice versa-- they are the same thing) and you can't destroy energy (and so you can't destroy mass, which stays around with the energy). All this means is that the Sun does not destroy mass-- it merely radiates mass into space. All that sunlight has mass-- since single photons have no mass, but collections of photons going in various directions actually DO have invariant mass. This is a simple calculation in relativity. I would suggest a careful reading of the articles mass and mass energy equivalence. Also mass in special relativity. They all say the same thing, but in different ways and with different examples. The bottom line is that the Sun grows less massive only because it radiates mass away in the form of light. Anything absorbing that light would grow more massive, because mass is conserved, period, end. You only see mass lost from a system when you let it out. S  B Harris 22:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Miles
The well-known approximation "93 million miles" has been removed from the article by user Ckatz who argues that this has been extensively discussed, but doesn't say where. My view is that this figure is so widely known that it deserves a place in the article which, though coming under the topic of astronomy, is also an article of general interest. Is there a policy to remove all non-metric units from astornomical articles?  D b f i r s   06:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This comes up every so often, but there is a (now long-standing) convention within these articles to use the metric figures and avoid miles etc. I'll try to track down some of the relevant discussions. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  08:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd appreciate seeing what has been said before, rather than trying to repeat arguments.   D b f i r s   21:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, it appears to me that it's exclusively about the sun as an astronomical body. Using a mix of standard astronomical and scientific units seems reasonable, and adding miles would not really be appropriate as it's only used in a few countries and never in science. --TS 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with you about the content of the article, Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, intended for general readership worldwide, not just for a metricated scientific community. Perhaps we should link to the Simple English Wikipediafor the majority of readers?   D b f i r s   21:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no question the the mean distance in miles should be at least mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.212.124 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The (limited) discussion here seems to be evenly balanced. I'd still be interested to know where the decision was made to ban mention of miles.    D b f i r s   06:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sunsire and sunset photos
To:Cadiomals, I personally never liked the photo of the Sun on the bottom left side of the page. However, since it was there forever and the two shots I took with a Sun filter (so that if one were to blow it up you could actually see the shape of the sun) were added long ago, I was content to leave it there. Then around the 11th of September without coming here first to discuss any photo changes. you decided to eliminate those photos from the middle right hand side, and move the sunrise photo which you mis-labeled a "sunset" photo to the bottom left. When I caught the error, I re-labeled it and exchanged the daytime photo for a sunset photo. Just one of those photos alone, gets 2 times the views from this page than the daytime photo did. That's because, no one wants to see a photo of a Blur of a bright sun they can see by just simply looking up. If you feel you 'must' display the daytime photo for some reason. Please find another spot to use it, or add it to the right side opposite the text. However, in my opinion it is useless in the article. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed such pictures because 1) They were causing far too much clutter and squeezing the text and 2) There were duplicates you apparently didn't catch. As a compromise, we can remove the midday sun picture and just leave one sunrise or sunset picture, but i don't agree with having two pictures that look too similar (one sunset and one sunrise picture). In any article we have to be careful about how we use images and especially make sure we don't put too many. I already feel this article is cluttered with images, many of which look similar to one another. Cadiomals (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Number two: Also, how can you say the photos look similar? One is the eastern sky shot at actual distance, and one is a zoom of the western sky. The colors are similar because I used the same Sun filter on them. The conformity of the two are what them so special sitting together. The similarity of a sunset and sunrise should be noted, not dismissed. I'll leave the photos how you have arranged them on the bottom left, even though I hate the daytime sun photo. I will replace the sunset photo where it was on the middle right before you removed the two, and we'll have our compromise. Pocketthis (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Number one: I don't recall eliminating any photos when I originally added the sunrise and sunset. I would have come here first before removing photos, even if I thought they were crap. (which the two at the bottom were at the time).


 * Thank you for joining me in this forum and working this out together. Happy editing.... Pocketthis (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Glad we could work something out. Cadiomals (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sun v Sol
This is observation not limited to just this article, but there seems be a lot of usage of the term 'Sol' within several articles (eg Stellar_classification - I only just added the clarifying edit "(the Sun)" to that article.)

This article doesn't mention the term 'Sol' until very near the end, which is unhelpful to those who aren't aware of the meaning. We should either standardize the usage of 'The Sun' over 'Sol' in the other articles, or else make a reference to 'Sol' in the lead paragraph, so that people (like me) don't get confused. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic to decide. Manning (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This needs to be changed to "Sun" whenever encountered. The proper name of our star, as has been the case through the entire history of the English language, is "Sun". bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should shy away from using the correct terminology in the manner used by experts in the field. To do otherwise is not serving our reader base, it is dumbing down.  Sol is a term in wide use and it does have legitimate use to disambiguate our Sun in particular. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC).
 * We're talking about stars here. If you speak a Romance language, Sol is the correct name of the star at the center of our solar system, but Sol is not and has never been what we've called this star in English. bloodofox: (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is an English encyclopaedia designed for general readership, not a Latin publication, or a reference designed for specialist usage in one particular field.  Only Science Fiction writers consistently use "Sol".    D b f i r s   06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * False, Sol is the scientific name. The English language came into being when geocentric was the common model of the universe around us and astrology was relied upon as much as science, very wrong and silly ideas.  'Sun' is often used to describe a local star; 'star' is the only broadly-accepted generic term for a natural gravitationally-confined fusion reaction.  Our star system is widely referred to as "The Solar System" by a lot more people than science fiction writers, so it is erroneous to claim only science fiction writers refer to our specific star as Sol.  Chibiabos (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "The English language came into being when geocentric was the common model of the universe around us and astrology was relied upon as much as science, very wrong and silly ideas" is inaccurate; we don't know what the model was among the ancient Germanic peoples and "geocentric" certainly does not describe the view of the cosmos found in the sources we have on Norse cosmology (see Yggdrasil, etc.). You might want to look further in the subject before dismissing it as "silly". Further, Latin Sol is most certainly not in common use, and our native English Sun remains the proper name for our particular star in the English language. Indeed, this is nothing new; see Proto-Germanic *sunnōn and the pagan Germanic personified Sun, the goddess Sól-Sunna. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting conversation. Science or linguistics aside, statements in the spirit of "this is the way we've always done it" are not always a good reason for an argument in the legal realm either. While it is true that precedence (of habit) can be a justification, logic is a stronger determinant. When the two conflict, logic wins. Also, I find the arguing over terms to the point of excluding one of them to be a faintly reminiscent of "learn the language" when talking to someone who is of another primary speech. I wonder if there are any other languages that are similar arguments or dogmatic requirements. --Trakon (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only person here to make the (microcosmic) leap of wisdom that 'every star system has a sun', but only the 'solar system' has Sol? I mean, I'm sure not one for all the book learnin' and stuff (I lie, dual bachelors, two masters and a doctorate, you're all unworthy of my astounding brilliant (really)), but I believe Sol -is- and has up until the last seven to eight hundred years been the most commonly used (and is still, within any academic field) to refer to the sun that lies within our star system. I actually came here originally with the intent to double check before starting a White House petition to enforce the mandatory usage of the term Sol, given that you sound like a 5 year old making daisy chains and drawing with crayons up your nose when you say 'Sun' when every star system has one. 211.30.150.155 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many suns (small s), but only one Sun (captialized S) which is sometimes called Sol. Likewise, there are many moons, compared to our Moon. --Iantresman (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, what about "Sol" being the name for our sun? It would certainly be worth mentioning that this name is often used when trying to give the sun a name (in English texts). However, I'd rather think of our sun as a celestial body that simply doesn't have a name. Regarding the name alleged use in scientific texts, I did a Google Scholar search with the keywords "Sol" and "distance", and I didn't find a single text about astronomy. After changing "Sol" to "sun", I found plenty. I also compared how often "sun" was capitalised and it seems that the capital S appears more often in recent texts. The IAU website indicates that they recommend capitalisation for earth, sun and moon since 1989. 116.53.168.225 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I see "The Sun" (with capital S) somewhere, I think of a newspaper but not a star. I wonder if the word "sun" has ever been used as a name (i.e. with capital S) in anything else than contemporary books and websites. The word "sun" is a synonym for "star". The reason we say "the" sun is that there is only one in our solar system. If we had two stars, we wouldn't call one of them "the sun". It's like having a pet, e.g. a dog. If it's only one, you'd say "the dog" when you talk about it in your home. That doesn't make "dog" a name. I believe that the idea of using a capital S here is simply one of those IAU standards and has nothing to do with the English language. The idea of turning the "Sun" and the "Moon" into proper nouns assumes that they are unique. Of course, in a self-centered world view, one could argue that they are unique, but once humankind reaches the level of technology to travel to other "moons" and "suns", they would instantly realise how ridiculous that is. I think that also explains the frequent use of Sol and Luna in science fiction, as using "the Sun" and "the Moon" is confusing and incorrect once we leave the vicinity of Earth. I think by analysing the word "moon", it is easier to understand this contradiction. I know that the Wikipedia page on proper nouns states that the meaning of "moon" and "Moon" is different because of the capitalisation of the latter. However, I don't see how the meaning changes when I use "the Moon" instead of "the moon". I would never say or write anything like "Titan is Saturn's largest moon. What makes the moon different from the Moon is the fact that it has a dense atmosphere." It would be far too confusing. Of course, I wouldn't use "Luna" either, as no one is actually using that name, but I would say something like "our moon" to make clear which moon I'm actually talking about. I perceive a sun as a star viewed from a planet. I doubt I would use the word "star", if I stood on another planet in a distant solar system. I would say "sun", and if there were two stars in that system, I would say "suns". On the other hand, I would always say "star" when looking at a star map. If I were somewhere else in the galaxy, I might call our sun "Sol" but I probably would avoid any name altogether and instead use "Earth" to specify the location of our solar system. I doubt that "the Sun" could never be a name like "Jupiter", "James" or "London". At the very least, it is a matter of perspective. If you have a sun-centered world view, using "the Sun" as a name and proper noun would seem correct, otherwise it would be only confusing.


 * I think perhaps a look would be wise before your "leap of wisdom". Sol was a sun god (or goddess in Norse mythology), or a word for gold, and is a currency unit.  The word has several other meanings uncapitalised.   In everyday English suns are called stars, and our nearest example is called the Sun by the majority of academics.  You cannot change the English language just because you prefer a Latin term.    D b f i r s   23:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A look for you would be wise. I have never heard an 'academic' nor anyone, for that matter, refer to our star system as "The Sun System," but instead as "The Solar System."  I find it utterly bizarre that others' experiences would vary so greatly from this.  Further, I have a number of friends who are actual bonafide astronomers, and each of them cites Sol as the name for our local sun.  --Chibiabos (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

216.70.22.249 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I absolutely agree our star's name is Sol. Sun/star are both generic. Sol is specific. It is only logical.


 * Indeed yes, "Solar System" is the standard term, but the word "Sol" is just not used in any academic circles I've come across. If your experience differs, perhaps you could cite some journals or publications other than Science Fiction where "Sol" is common.  Logic doesn't determine usage in practice, even if you think it should.  "The Sun" is the term in English for our nearest star, but the adjective is "solar".    D b f i r s   18:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we use the word "sun" for other stars doesn't mean much. If we were speaking Latin, or Spanish for that matter, we'd be using for the word "sol" for other stars in the same context. So there's really no case for "Sol" on that basis, whatever other reasons there might be for prefering a fancier name than "the Sun". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.4.31 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Germans call the solar system "das Sonnensystem".


 * An idea: can we just use it like in the moon site: "The Moon (Latin: luna) "?.

So in this case it should be: The Sun (Latin: Sol).

Depth of the Convective Zone
Hi, The Convective zone section states that this zone "is approximately 200,000 km thick (or 70% of the solar radius)". However the top of the article states that the solar diameter is about 1,392,684km. This implies a radius of about 700,000km. Therefore the convective zone should be 30% of solar radius, NOT 70% ? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.136 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The 70% is measured from the center of the Sun. So, the text is saying that the bottom of the convective zone is 200,000 km beneath the surface of the Sun, or 70% of the solar radius away from the center of the Sun. Spacepotato (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Chemical composition
The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively.[81] All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass. The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%).[82]

Oxygen is not a metal! The word "Metal" should be edited into "Elements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powertripp (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a closer look at the text you quoted: All heavier elements (than helium) are called metals in astronomy. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  16:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article uses the unusual specialist sense of "metal". Perhaps putting quotes round the word (though usually discouraged in Wikipedia) would help to clarify the use of language.  I'll try it.    D b f i r s   20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  ...(later)...   The word is already italicised and linked to an appropriate article, so I think it's clear enough as it is.  Sorry HHHIPPO, I should have taken a closer look, too!   D b f i r s   20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, it looked indeed a bit like the emphasis was mine. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change to the Radiative zone section
I'm not allowed to volunteer changes to this locked article, so here's one for someone with more privileges than li'l ol' me:

".. This zone is free of thermal convection, however the temperature drops from seven (7) million to (2) million Kelvin with increasing distance from the core." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.206.251 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 November 2012‎

What's the source of this? - Sidelight12''' Talk 23:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is the paragraph "The Radiative Zone" in the page <http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/interior.shtml>.
 * The article already contains very similar wording.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not hard to get a wiki account, if that's what you want to do. This looks like a reasonable contribution, and good sourcing. I made a minor edit based on your suggestion. Sidelight12''' Talk 00:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that the sun got colder now you can stand on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.215.29 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kelvin
Please change "Kelvin", which is a man's name, to "kelvins", which is the correct form for the unit of temperature.76.18.184.9 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting the error. I've changed Kelvin to kelvin on the one occasion it was wrong.  I don't think the use of the plural is common is it?    D b f i r s   16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fate of sun - articles are inconsistent
Some articles state the sun will become a White dwarf.

The article Formation and evolution of the Solar System is a lot more detailed:


 * The helium-fusing stage will last only 100 million years. Eventually, it will have to again resort to the reserves of hydrogen and helium in its outer layers and will expand a second time, turning into what is known as an asymptotic giant branch star. Here the luminosity of the Sun will increase again, reaching about 2,090 present luminosities, and it will cool to about 3500 K. This phase lasts about 30 million years, after which, over the course of a further 100,000 years, the Sun's remaining outer layers will fall away, ejecting a vast stream of matter into space and forming a halo known (misleadingly) as a planetary nebula. The ejected material will contain the helium and carbon produced by the Sun's nuclear reactions, continuing the enrichment of the interstellar medium with heavy elements for future generations of stars.


 * This is a relatively peaceful event, nothing akin to a supernova, which our Sun is too small to undergo as part of its evolution. Any observer present to witness this occurrence would see a massive increase in the speed of the solar wind, but not enough to destroy a planet completely. However, the star's loss of mass could send the orbits of the surviving planets into chaos, causing some to collide, others to be ejected from the Solar System, and still others to be torn apart by tidal interactions.

and also summarizes:


 * Sun passes through helium-burning horizontal branch and asymptotic giant branch phases, losing a total of ~30% of its mass in all post-main sequence phases. Asymptotic giant branch phase ends with the ejection of a planetary nebula, leaving the core of the Sun behind as a white dwarf.

Can various descriptions be merged, as we have different descriptions in different articles. FT2 (Talk 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the inconsistency. The summary in the sun article is shorter and easier to read (less numbers) as it is should be. Both articles say that the sun will end as a white dwarf and describe how this will happen consistently. Ulflund (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding a new file
I would have been bold and done it myself, but I thought it should be better if its asked on the talk page first. Should we add this file to the article and where(which file to replace)? I doubt there will be any objections at all though, but its better to check TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)



Just add it, you don't even have to replace any images. The only concern is if its a copyright one: it does look kind of commercial.Sidelight 12 Talk 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it does look like one. But it isnt. Added it though after replacing one of the other images on the same topic TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the author of that picture—I drew it myself, with NASA pictures as tracing templates for the textures.—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys must revert the page back to original condition. The file is OK, However, you have not done what was asked of you by the one person who gave you permission to do it. He said NOT to eliminate other files. Also, the file is way too big. It must be shrunk, and placed in a spot that doesn't leave 13" of free space on the page. This file can add to this article, but it has to be placed without destroying what is already there. I would shrink it and place it for you, however, my computer is running slow today, and this page is a monster. I would be there all day. Please put the page back to its original condition, and then work together in your Sandbox until you have made it smaller, and found the perfect spot to place it. If a reader wants to read what's on the Poster in detail, he/she can click on it to blow it up. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you see the page you will find that the file we replaced had exactly the same thing as this pic, which is why it was removed. The reason I had the file so big is because the picture is most useful only when its size is bigger. Still I shall try to see if a smaller size suits the article better. As for the rest, the spot looks perfect enough and the rest of the pics seem to be in sync with the article to me. Not sure if you have any other opinions though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello T.O.S., When you made the first edit there was a 13" free space under "Core". Then Kelvin came in and tried to fix it at the same time I was trying to revert it..lol. As it stands right now, there is still a 6" space under "Core" that wasn't there until this file was added. On a page this size, I feel it is extremely important that there be no free space at all. Usually this occurs when a file is placed in a poor spot; and tends to "un-format" the page. My first suggestion is that you make the file exactly the size it is shown here, and not a bigger version of it. It is overwhelming in the article. Then try and put it on the left side in the middle of text that may apply to it. That should eliminate the free space under "Core" we have right now. Like I suggested earlier: working with this file in your sandbox until you have nailed the placement won't disfigure the article in the meantime. I really like the chart. I just happen to really like perfect formatting as well. Happy Holidays. Pocketthis (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm what? I do not see any free space anywhere. Maybe thats what leading to a confusion between us. Let me see if Firefox has something different to show. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Firefox and IE both show the same thing to me as Chrome. So either I did not understand what the problem was, or its not there for me. A screenshot would help. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just changed browsers, and I don't see any free space anymore. I don't know whether you just fixed it, or my other browser wasn't allowing proper formatting to be viewed. So at this point, it's fine other than I would suggest you make the chart the same size as it is here. Thanks again, and if it was a faulty browser of mine causing this discussion, other than the size of the chart....I apologize. Pocketthis (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not do anything, which means it was probably your browser (Maybe you were not reading the full article? If you read only the section, its a different formatting). As for the size, 300 seems to be very small to be even vaguely understable or clear. I much prefer a 420 size or around it. Is that agreeable? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion as to the size being perfect as displayed here. You don't have to be concerned with me reverting any size you choose. I've expressed my two cents here, and "time" always makes the best adjustments in articles. :) Thanks again....Pocketthis (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the boss here; the general concensus is. If you decide on a size, and if someone else doesn't agree with you, they will edit it down.
 * Thanks. I understand. I was hoping for further feedback on what my POV was on the size of the image. If both of us would have agreed on the size, it would have allowed me the liberty to think that the image size wasn't off by a wide margin.
 * In any rate, thank you for your constructive feedback in the addition of this image. Lets see what happens to the image with time (Hopefully nobody will remove it completely). Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. My feedback is: The chart is 41/2" wide right now. It is a good inch wider than any other chart or photo on the entire page. It stands out like a sore thumb. It should be at least inch smaller in width. I think I can say with the utmost confidence, that another editor will eventually shrink it. thanks Pocketthis (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduced it even further. I am not sure I can reduce it now. It would be sacrilege to make it smaller now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor, and look at the chart under yours. It's the same type of theme. If someone is interested in reading the fine print, they click on it. If you do a stats check on that chart under yours, you will find that well over a thousand folks a month blow it up to read the fine print. Why should your chart be any different than any photo or fine print file on the entire site? Now 'you' can either make it the same size as the one you used as an example here, (that's what we were judging, not a monster version of it) or another editor will. You should take my advice and do it yourself. Why be edited behind if you don't have to. Do the right thing. Pocketthis (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just went and shrunk the image to 350px—the same size as the next largest image on the page(Not counting the 600px star cycle picture).—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you guys are young, smart and full of enthusiasm, however, you seem to think your chart loses credibility if it's smaller. Here's the truth. I am a photographer. I love putting up a photo that will enhance an article of as much as you guys do. However, if the photo is so large that no one needs to click on it to blow it up to see it better, it won't get any hits. If it doesn't get any hits, it will lose credibility and be exchanged by another editor. A file gains its credibility by how many hits it gets, both in commons, and in en.org. If I were you guys I would be looking to see how small I could get it and still look great; not how large. Life lessons are hard learned....lol Pocketthis (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)




 * I didn't mean to incite an argument. I implied that nothing had to be taken down, for one to be put up. Its up to everyone's discretion really. Actually the old diagram didn't have much information on it. The new picture is good: the wording the sun "drawn to scale" could have been smaller, but other than that, there's no better picture . The screen zoom or text size may be why it shows differently on everyone's screen, as you've figured.
 * The resolution of the original picture would only make a difference for a 40 inch tv, which is what its actually set for, and it won't matter on a monitor. The text resolution, however, is very low for even an old monitor, could also be the font. This is why the picture has to be made larger to view the wording. I uploaded a cropped png version of it, the lettering looked not much different than the high resolution svg image. Sidelight 12 Talk 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I reverted you—that png is blurrier than the SVG—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Stepping back, never thought my little sun picture could set off so much controversy...—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you size the photo to 300 like the sample, hope it sticks, and call it a day. Oh... and Kelvin, I see you have exchanged the .png on the Sun Stereo. That was good, now will one of you please caption the photo? Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ...your little Sun file.....the size of the real Sun!!......:) It's been fun playing with you kiddies today, however the truth is, when one of the serious science editors gets an eye full of this page, and the never ending edits you kids are doing, Playtime will be over.


 * But I don't wanna go to bed!!! :P Anyway, I'm confused—I did caption the S photo, are you talking about the Sun poster.svg file(Which has a caption as well)?—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you crop it. The text resolution is still low, regardless. I had the same resolution at 3mb. SVG is difficult to work with. Sidelight 12 Talk 02:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cropped it and increased the label size—Kelvinsong (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Sidelight 12 Talk 03:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Noticed a problem—after resizing the image, now the picture on the Wikipedia mobile app is all distorted—it has the wrong aspect ratio—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't use or know anything about "Mobile Apps", however all appears well now. Perhaps we can finally put this puppy to rest now. My fingers are getting sore from typing..:) Pocketthis (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what size you tried to make it, but I guess we can live with the size it is now and hope it sticks. "Kelvinsong", you did a really nice job making that chart, and it does enhance the page....nice work. :) Pocketthis (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Picture tutorial upright factor or pixel height might be it. Sidelight 12 Talk 16:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not talking about the XXpx wikimarkup—I think its because I cropped the image. The mobile app is using the old height, but the new width.—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

or SVG is making it stretch to a set height/width ratio on the wiki, regardless of the real proportion. Sidelight 12 Talk 17:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)