Talk:Sun characteristics

message: Corrected the value for "Mean distance from Earth" in kilometres (was: 1149 million km). 212.90.206.197 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean distance from Earth 

message: Should the fact titles be bolded so they stand out? If bolded, the template will appear like this:
 The Sun  
                                  	
Observation data                  	Observation data
Mean distance from Earth          	149.6 km (92.95 mi) (8.31 minutes at the speed of light)
Visual brightness (V)        	−26.8m
Absolute magnitude                	4.8m
Spectral classification           	G2V
Orbital characteristics           	Orbital characteristics
Mean distance from Milky Way core 	~2.5 km (26,000-28,000 light-years)
Galactic period                   	2.25-2.50 a
Velocity                          	217 km/s orbit around the center of the Galaxy, 20 km/s relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighbourhood
Physical characteristics          	Physical characteristics
Mean diameter                     	1.392 km (109 Earths)
Circumference                     	4.373 km
Oblateness                        	9
Surface area                      	6.09 m² (11,900 Earths)
Volume                            	1.41 m³ (1,300,000 Earths)
Mass                              	1.988 435 kg (332,946 Earths)
Density                           	1,408 kg/m³
Surface gravity                   	273.95 m s-2 (27.9 g)
Escape velocity from the surface  	617.54 km/s (55 Earths)
Surface temperature               	5785 K
Temperature of corona             	5 MK
Core temperature                  	~13.6 MK
Luminosity (Lsol)                 	3.827 W~3.75 lm(~98 lm/W efficacy)
Mean Intensity (Isol)        	2.009 W m-2 sr-1
Rotation characteristics          	Rotation characteristics
Obliquity                         	7.25° (to the ecliptic) 67.23° (to the galactic plane)
Right ascension of North pole     	286.13° (19 h 4 min 30 s)
Declination of North pole         	+63.87°(63°52' North)
Rotation period at equator        	25.38 days (25 d 9 h 7 min 13 s)
Rotation velocity at equator      	7174 km/h
Photospheric composition (by mass)	Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen                          	73.46 %
Helium                            	24.85 %
Oxygen                            	0.77 %
Carbon                            	0.29 %
Iron                              	0.16 %
Sulphur                           	0.12 %
Neon                              	0.12 %
Nitrogen                          	0.09 %
Silicon                           	0.07 %
Magnesium'                        	0.05 %
                                  	
>Kamope< Talk · Contribs 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about changing the design so that it parallels the redesigned "Planets" template? That one seems to have the bold text you're suggesting, but with an smaller text size. --Ckatzchatspy 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold the fact titles? 

message: I've made a few tweaks to the layout and formatting to improve the readability. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Almost all the data on here is uncited.  I've not been able to confirm any of it, and I corrected the mass a few days ago; however, it would seem the luminosity also differs from both my (various) astronomy texts and from the NASA Planetary Fact Sheet.  Can someone please provide the citations? Otherwise, when I am free next, I will change these to NASA factsheet values with citations. Tigerhawkvok 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: Folks,
I noticed some recent edits (myself included) and I think we may need to discuss.
This article is very much a scientific article and hence SI units should only be used. I recently removed all imperial units from this infobox as they were very much useless. Why would anyone want to know the density in lb/cubic ft or the Sun's motion around our galaxy in ft/sec?
Also, whilst converting to Celsius is normally a good idea, it is a waste of time for large numbers. 15 million Kelvin is 15 million Celsius (minus 273 degrees) and at these levels there is no point.
I would like to see all infoboxes of the planets and dwarf planets looking consistent. I'd like to include the Sun in this. I'm working on Mars as a template and I'd values others' input and consensus.
So I propose:
No imperial units.
Provide conversion to Celsius at reasonable levels (surface of the Sun at 5000 K may be appropriate - but not to two decimal places)
Style and format similar to Mars.
Let me know what you think.
Jim77742 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that these are great ideas, and I'm in total agreement! Popkultur 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like very good guidelines to me also. That Kelvin to Celsius conversion for millions of degrees was ridiculous. One minor point regarding formatting: I recall that a month ago a few people were attached to the idea of having a space every three digits after the decimal point in the infoboxes (Jupiter was, I think, the article), but I've been unable to track down the discussion.  Anyway, either way is fine with me as long as its kept consistent among all the planets (+Sun, etc, you know). Deuar 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One suggestion, looking at Mars - I think we should stick with SI units exclusively, except where SI-derived units make more sense.  Velocity in km/h is okay, but density should be in kg/m^3, not g/cm^3.  I think conversions for AU should only be used to describe orbital distance, for comparison purposes. Popkultur 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine but AU should be there for all interplanetary distances, it's what is usually used by astronomers for describing them (not km) Deuar 06:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units and some recent edits 

message: The picture of the Sun was recently replaced. The summary said it was a "better" picture. Personally I do not think so. The first is one by NASA and the second is one by presumably an amateur astronomer. I myself have taken a nice picture of the sun I could upload. I feel like reverting to what I consider the superior NASA picture, but I'd value others' input. What's the consensus here? Jim77742 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree the filter being used in the "better" picture makes the sun look like an orange, or Alpha Centauri B :-) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Sun 

message: I went to the sun wikipedia entry to look up it's angular size, but it was not listed.  So I found the information I needed at NASA: 31.6' - 32.7'  (although I think the source is mixing up the sizes at perihelion vs. aphelion).    I presume some thought went into this infobox, so I am hesitant to start adding things myself.  Can someone add this in to the box in an appropriate place?  Thanks.  — Eoghanacht talk 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it myself. — Eoghanacht talk 12:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) Deuar 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angular size? 

message: Is the 4e6MT/s figure the correct number and cited and does it represent an energy equivalent as represented by mass for generated energy or is this figure the amount of mass converted into mostly other matter and a small percentage of energy?--Theo Pardilla 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matter to energy conversion rate 

message: Photospheric composition percentages add up to 99.98%. 212.139.69.184 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages 

message: All three of these values listed on the Sun wiki page feature the text (109x Earth). The equatorial radius given is, in fact, approximately 110x Earth, and since the others are only off by a multiplicative factor, repeating (109x Earth) seems unnecessary. Of course, I feel listing all three measures is itself a bit redundant. We could reduce some clutter by allowing wiki users to multiply by 2 themselves.
I just noticed this discussion page actually has all these suggestions taken into account. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse on this one. Jake0Miller (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean Diameter, Equatorial Radius, Circumference 

message: In this article it states the Sun's "velocity" relative to a number of things.  In each case it states the magnitude of the measurement, but fails to mention the relative direction.  Velocity, defined by Wikipedia states that "both magnitude and direction are required to define it", which this article is lacking in every instance.  Now, considering the nature of the measurement it is understandable that there is no direction given, which leads me to believe that the term "velocity" is being mistaken for "speed", which is the form that the measurement is given in.  This may mislead readers to believe that it is correct to use "speed" and "velocity" interchangeably, which is not true.  That is why every place that "velocity" is mentioned and lacks to define the direction, it should then be replaced with "speed".  Thank you for considering my edit and I hope changes can be made promptly accurately.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity 
173.35.222.223 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the velocities in this template do have direction. For example, "217 km/s orbit around the center of the Galaxy" (the direction is italicized). --Stickee (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. I agree with Stickee. The direction is stated as around the center of the Galaxy. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 173.35.222.223, 18 October 2010 

message: In looking at the numbers at the bottom of the table for mass composition, the value for Sulfur is misquoted as .12% when it appears in the cited article as .04% http://history.nasa.gov/SP-402/ch2.htm#37
71.213.70.8 (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thank you for finding that! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.213.70.8, 9 March 2011 

message: Sulphur is spelt Sulphur not Sulfur
86.18.245.162 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are acceptable spellings; see sulfur. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelt Sul'ph'ur wrong 

message: Hello, I was trying to discover the weight of our sun, and In the quick-check bar thing, I noticed that the mass is incorrect. I took the liberty of going to the cited page, and discovered someone indeed transferred the data wrong. The mass should be "10^24 kilograms, not the nonsensical measurement displayed. I would not want people to think our sun is only 1023 kilograms. Thank you for reviewing this case.
76.92.91.229 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: 1,989,100.0 x 1024 is the same as 1.989100 x 1030 it's just written so that it is a simpler to understand, have a look at what scientific notation is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 October 2012 

message: We should probably define these.  We break down the density by region, but the average density is not the average of the bits we break it down into.  Presumably the average is the density out to the given radius, but the regional densities go beyond that. For the average, we should probably specify 'out to the photosphere' or wherever the cut-off is.  — kwami (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  radius and density 

message: Okay I think i understand a little better now. Just ignore old post and look at this one. The age of the sun/solar system has been estimated more accurately. The figure 4,567.30 ± 0.16 Ma is the most accurate to this date. Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6107/651.full (The one I linked before was not the actual paper, use this instead.)
Bastiangronager (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Source looks good, would be a more recent primary source replacing an older one. I am hesitant to make any changes myself as I don't know where consensus stands on how detailed this template should go with significant units and such - I see the prior source listed the age as 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years and the template just lists it as 4.57. If we stick to two significant units, 4.567 just goes to 4.57, so if nobody offers further input in a couple of days, I'll just update the source to the one provided by the edit request. Cannolis (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that the value in the prose should be as accurate as possible.  The value in any info box shouldn't be any more accurate than ≈4.7 billion years. —  (t • e • c) 11:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Partly done: I've adjusted it based on my response above... It now says ≈4.6 billion years (I made sure the edit was rounded proper, I wasn't awake and hadn't enough coffee before). I've also added that source so that people can look it up themselves. I'm marking this partly done and adjusting the template because now just the prose in the Sun article itself needs updating. —  (t • e • c) 13:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Done --Mdann52talk to me! 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014