Talk:Richard Christopher Carrington

message: This is notable by itsel f, as the cause of the solar storm of 1859's geomagnetic storm 76.66.194.183 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off [[Carrington Super Flare]] 

message: The article pays more attention to the Adams Intrigue than to this astronomer's achievements. It is not clear from the article what that "intrigue" was.
Carrington's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography makes no mention of Adams. It attributes the discontinuance of the series to his father's death and the need to assume responsibility for the family's brewery.
It might be appropriate for an astronomer or astronomical historian to review the neutrality of this article and to assess whether the Adams episode deserves such emphasis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adams Intrigue 

message: This is a request for help adding some solid  biographical information to this article.  I read somehwere that this guy was killed by his wife's ex BF or something like that.  There is a book out about Victorian Astronomy but I will have to get it from the Library.  Until then, anything other editors can add such as more about his background and other achievements as well as cause of death and date would be great if they can be reliably sourced.  Thanks in advance.  I will put that book on hold and get to it.LiPollis (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't this fellow murdered?  How about more BIOGRAPHY? help! 

message: He didn't discover the 11 year solar cycle but he did timing of the solar rotation interval as perceived from Earth.  I found only references to Carrington Rotations.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_rotation
99.48.74.21 (talk)
Example of term Carrington Rotation in use by NASA
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/browse/carrington/2149p5/
99.48.74.21 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Check -  Isn't the naming-honor credit the Carrington Rotation, not the (solar magnetic reversal) Carrington Cycle? 

message: Am I to infer that this fellow held some position at Cambridge? It would be nice if the article could tell us something about it. Right now it tells us a lot about Adams, but there is no indication as to why Adams is relevant. 
I second the call for more BIOGRAPHY.
Rwflammang (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambridge? 

message: The expression in this article is odd, very archaic; "But the lease by which he held his powers of useful work was unhappily running out", for example, which leads to suspicions that it is from a nineteenth-century source, and in fact, it is word-for-word from Leslie Stephen (1887) Dictionary of National Biography, Volume IX, and though this reference is credited at the bottom of the article, there have been other writings since. Is this the sole authority on Carrington? Why quote it verbatim in WP.
A thorough rewording of the entire article in more contemporary expression would make it more readable, and the use of other, more recent, sources would make it more authoritative.
The article should be downgraded to start class until that is done, in my opinion. What do others think? sinarau (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur completely. Quoting small sections is one thing, but lifting large chunks word-for-word does not make for a wiki page. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how "archaic" it is... it is just colorfully written with flourishes of vocabulary, as if from a non-encyclopedic source.  But yes, it really does need to be cleaned up.  Although I love the verbiage used, it is not appropriate here. Mercster (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's especially amusing to see phrases like "Carrington's determinations of the elements of the sun's rotation are still of standard authority" lifted directly from text written in 1887?!? Maybe WP could expand on this a bit more. (Carrington's observations of these elements WERE remarkably accurate and ARE indeed still in wide use today.) 15:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic language Comment Suggestion 

message: I know nothing of this topic, just came to learn. I find it odd that the linked word "crochet" links to "Sudden ionospheric disturbance" and nowhere in that page is there "crochet". Seems like this needs further explanation.--Tallard (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "crochet" link does not use the word "crochet"