Talk:Sunspot

message: It would be nice if people who contributed to this page could also help with the solar cycle (and solar maximum/solar minimum, etc... pages), which really need some extra information. USferdinand 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe not... if you link "Cycle 24" to List of solar cycles, that would explain the reference to anyone who cares to find out about it.  I don't think it should be there with no explanation, however. --Tckma (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: and it would make sense to introduce the term Schwabe Cycle here, with a link to Solar Variation, as well as the concept of Sunspot Numbers--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Solar cycle

message: I'll go ahead and update the history to include the Nov 4 2003 record-setting X28 flare.  Holographic images show there's still amazing activity on the far side of the sun.  We'll see in a handful of days what might sweep across the ecliptic when that part of the Sun comes back into view.
SEWilco 02:10, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003 X28 Flare

message: One of the most obvious questions anyone who knows just a little about sunspots might want to ask is...
Where are we in the sunspot cycle at the moment?
Neither this article nor any of the references seem to address this question, since after all, anyone who's reading technical stuff about sunspots would obviously already know!
As best I can tell from the charts included in the article, we're approaching a minima; would someone who actually knows like to confirm this by adding something to the article to this effect?
: Seems a fair question. I put it into the intro from one of the refs. I'm not sure if it belongs there. William M. Connolley 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where in the cycle 

message: The last sentence in the sixth paragraph says "Even the lack of a solar corona during lunar eclipses was noted prior to 1715."  Shouldn't it be solar eclipses?
RWinther, January 10, 2006, 02:55 (UTC)
===Date of first observation ===
I think the reference to Gan De observing sunspots in 364 BC should be removed unless we have a better source.  On p. 9 of "On Sunspots" by Galileo Galilei & Christoph Scheiner, Translated and Introduced by Eileen Reeves & Albert Van Helden (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the authors state, "Far Eastern observers carefully noted such spots, and records dating back  to at least 165 BC have come down to us."  This statement cites the following reference: K.K.C Yau and F.R. Stephenson, "A Revised Catalogue of Far Eastern Observations of Sunspots (165 BC to AD 1918)", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 29 (1988): 175-197.  --Doesper (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I think the reference to Gan De observing sunspots in 364 BC should be removed unless we have a better source.  On p. 9 of "On Sunspots" by Galileo Galilei & Christoph Scheiner, Translated and Introduced by Eileen Reeves & Albert Van Helden (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the authors state, "Far Eastern observers carefully noted such spots, and records dating back  to at least 165 BC have come down to us."  This statement cites the following reference: K.K.C Yau and F.R. Stephenson, "A Revised Catalogue of Far Eastern Observations of Sunspots (165 BC to AD 1918)", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 29 (1988): 175-197.  --Doesper (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of first observation 

message: It would be nice to have some more information on this event, does it have a name? I have heard
some fascinating stories about it. Maybe it even deserves its own page, after all, it is the most
powerful solar flare in recorded history, it's definitely an important topic. This has major practical
importance too because a repeat of this magnetude of solar flare would be devistating.Dru007 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Event of 1 September 1859

message: Would it be appropriate to mention somewhere that August 2008 was the first month in over 100 years that no sunspot activity was recorded?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.212.66 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2008, no sunspot activity for the first time in over a century

message: There are sections on the history of sunspots in the "17th & 18th Century," "19th Century," and even "21st Century."
It seems odd that there is no section on 20th Century sunspot observation, given the enormous strides in solar observation and understanding thereby gleaned during that time. I'm not an expert in the area, so I'll leave it to another to add the section... DoctorEric (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th Century?

message: On 27 November 2010 Hugh Hudson made an edit (in his words, "corrected a probable error") with respect to sunspot effects on the prehistoric earth. The edit may be legit, but "probable" isn't good enough to change an article without a citation from a reliable, scientific source (preferably more recent than the articles from the 1980's cited for the paragraph). I'll check back later and, unless a citation of a scholarly source is forthcoming, will change back to the pre-edit version of the paragraph. DoctorEric (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Early atmosphere

message: William M. Connolley thinks that William James Sidis was into astrology. Sidis couldn't even listen to irrational things (like the bible). Read his biography! as I wrote in edit summary: link talks about correlation of ionization from the sun radiation on human mood etc. You can compare this with seasonal affective disorder. Lakinekaki 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I think CarolMoore is , whoever she may be. Sidis is probably of historical interest; his theory is junk, because he has it the wrong way round To explain this, I may say that sun spots are rifts in the surface of the sun, exposing a lower layer. This lower layer gives less light and heat than the surface, and therefore, the more spots there are on the sun, the less heat the sun will give, and the cooler will be the climate. However, he's a useful example, so I thank you for providing him! William M. Connolley 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome!69.33.60.41
I see a quote saying "but new estimates suggest a delay until 2009" but no reference given. Is this along the lines of 'okay, there's no massive evidence of global warming this year...but just wait until next year when the sunspot cycle begins again (even though it's 2 years late by then)!' More in hope than in commonsense?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Away White (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunspots and revolutions 

message: Similar phenomena observed on stars other than the Sun are commonly called starspots. - do we really have the rez to see them on other stars? William M. Connolley 08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can see changes in the brightness of other stars that are interpreted to be caused by spots.  Dragons flight 19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I thought it might be something like that. But the text seems misleading as written (not to mention unsourced) William M. Connolley 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added Strassmeier as a source, and the already-referenced Svetlana Berdyugina's comprehensive review of methods and results contains many references to starspots in the literature. This gallery has some interesting "images" of starspots. -Wikianon (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starspots? 

message: I'm no expert but the listed temperatures are low compared to standard sources (e.g., Allen's astrophysical
quantites; Ostlie+Carroll; Zirker) which quote 4000 K
*Not only that, but the article also says "umbra (temperatures around 2200 °C), penumbra (temperatures around 3000 °C)." Yet in the intro, it says they're between 4000 and 4500K. I'm no expert either, but I do know that there's a big difference between 3000C and 4000K... --TheSlyFox 07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I  was wrong, sunspots are cooler despite emitting higher energy radiation. DrBob127 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sunspot temperatures

message: "Although they are at temperatures of roughly 5,000–6,500 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5,800 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots"
This makes no sense.
Sunspots are cooler than the surrounding photosphere. Hence they're dark. Becauyse relative to the surrounding area, they don't emit as much radiation.
The surface of the sun is approximately 5500K (the Sun article quotes it as being 5,780 K, and it would probably wise to be consistent within articles). Sunspot temperatures can be in the region of 3000-4000K, as noted by Wallace et al (Science, Vol 268, pp1155, 26 May 1995).
Any objections?
--InvaderXan (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously...?

message: Is it worth mentioning the life cycle of a sunspot? I.e. that they are born at the equator and die at the poles? Jamie 10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunspot life cycle 

message: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/26/solar.cycle.ap/index.html
potentially affecting airline flights, communications satellites and electrical transmissions. 
can it happen what the article says? Phu2734 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011-2012? 

message: I've removed the following from "Significant events":
: In August 2008, a NOAA observatory reported only a half-sunspot, and another reported zero sunspots. The former had not happened in fifty years, and the latter in a hundred.
The reference was Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century (DailyTech).
It isn't that significant, really--the rate of sunspot production varies naturally over long periods of time.  There were five sunspot groups in October, and four of these were from Cycle 24.  This is uncharacteristic of recent cycle transitions but not a significant deviation from normal, according to David Hathaway of NASA .  --82.18.14.143 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from "Significant events"

message: see
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111230341.htm
paragraph 2 needs to be updated 24.5.69.178 (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection I've removed the "Latest events" section.  It's more like a news item than encyclopedic content.  The significance of the delay in the rise of sunspot activity is a cause of some discussion by solar scientists but the length of the trough appears to be well within historic levels. --TS 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cycle 24 has started 

message: I removed information about cycles in peace and geomagnetic storms from this section primarily because the reference was shoddy at best. It was a secondary source citing a journal called "Cycles" that I couldn't find any reference to online. I also couldn't find any reference to that paper outside of this page and the linked reference. Even if the reference were legitimate, I also wouldn't be comfortable putting that information on this page, because it didn't look like particularly good research. I went looking for the paper to see how they calculated a "0.008 probability" of such a correlation but couldn't find the full reference as I already mentioned.
If it is decided that we should put back the section I removed, the wording definitely needs to be changed as it was very misleading. For one thing, I would choose to call it a 0.8% chance of happening (which means that such correlations exist by chance 1 in 100 times) or leave that part of it out entirely. If you think about it, given that the guy (presumably very reputable-seeming individual) was probably mining for correlations, for every 100 correlations he checks, he'll find one of these "long shot" correlations - even if he is checking ONLY things that have no correlation.
I also take some issue with other citations from "Scientific Frontiers" (there's another citation in the same section regarding influenza) since it seems like a secondary rather than a primary source (and it also seems like a collection of articles from disreputable journals), so I might go through and either replace Scientific Frontiers references with more reputable sources or delete information that I can't find corroboration for.  0x0077BE (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section on human ecology.  This is fringe science at best. --TS 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunspots and Human Ecology 

message: I've removed this from the section "Application":
: This theory has been around a long time. John Mauchly, professor of physics at Ursinus College, worked for several years in the late 1930’s developing a digital electronic computing machine to test the theory that solar fluctuations, sun spots  in particular, correlate with and affect our weather. In 1941, he left Ursinus to work at the University of Pennsylvania. There his computer experience led him, with Presper Eckert, to develop ENIAC, the first digital electronic computing machine, ancestor of the billions of computers in use today.
The story of ENIAC is well known.  The rest (which is applicable to this article) is unsourced. --TS 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mauchly

message: An anon recently added an external link that suggests that the "depth" of sunspots (relative to what?) has been estimated from solar simulations as 1500 km.  The link contains no useful information for checking up on this, but it did make me wonder about how deep the sunspot-associated convection went.  If there's a sensible point here, it might be worth adding something to the article.  I'll leave the external link in as a place-holder for now, although as it's close to content-free, it should really be deleted.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. There's a bit of a spamming campaign going on with that site. - MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought too, but the site does seem to be reporting on genuine science stories.  I thought that there might be some underlying information about stellar convection that could be added to the article.  In the ocean, convection is constrained (in part) by seafloor bathymetry, but there's no equivalent inside stars.  If there's a story here, it'd be nice to add it - at least to give a more complete description of the structure of the spots.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Plumbago. If there really is something to the "depth" of sunspots, I want to know more about it. How deep? Why? How are the measured? Etc. I did some Google Books searches and found some interesting books devoted to sunspots and how they form during "cyclic convection cells ...". This same book states that sunspots can have a diameter as large as 50,000 km, but I couldn't find anything about their depth. It is a start. --Thorwald (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Depth" of sunspots 

message: Do we have any simple, accessible, reliable sources on sunspot temperatures. I know they're supposed to be thousands of kelvin lower than the sun surface temperature, but a quick google doesn't come up with anything snappy.
What prompts this?   Well recently somebody altered the estimate from "roughly 4,000–4,500 K" to "roughly 5,000–6,500 K" and so I went searching in the article for sources.  Finding no obvious references I then searched quickly elsewhere.
It occurs to me that our article needs to say unequivocally what the solar scientists think they know about sunspot temperatures, so if estimates can vary from the first one to the second one (two disjoint ranges) then we should not be precise, and in any case we should provide a readily available reference. --TS 02:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunspot temperatures (again)

message: The graph [] showing a long term reconstruction of the sunspot number shows the number going below zero, is anyone able to justify this? --Damorbel (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative sunspot number? 

message: The article refers to sunspots as discrete entities that can be counted.  The first photo makes clear that this notion is problematic: the shading features vary in size, shape, intensity, and proximity, ranging down to the limit of visibility, and a more powerful telescope would reveal many more.  There could be anywhere from two to eight sunspots in the photo depending on one's criteria for size, shape, intensity, and proximity.
In order to make sense of the notion of counting sunspots one would have to define when a feature was sufficiently large and distinct to constitute a sunspot, when to count a sufficiently tightly packed clump of spots of varying size and shape as one spot (proximity), and so on.  Why does the article say nothing about this?
This is particularly relevant to the question of the significance of the Maunder Minimum.  In the absence of a definition of sunspot, how do we know whether this was a genuine physical phenomenon or merely a consequence of that century's astronomers applying different criteria for when to count something as a sunspot?  One could easily imagine them recording the article's first photo as containing just a single region of significant activity.  The article mentions the issues of lack of observational data and negative observations, but not that of definition of the concept.
As a numerical measure of solar activity, counting sunspots instead of integrating their intensity would appear to have all the drawbacks of counting the zero crossings in a time series instead of computing its variance.  If it's done because it's the traditional thing to do then that's fine, but in that case shouldn't the article say something about the underlying assumptions and drawbacks of this traditional metric?  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sunspot" as an undefined concept 

message: I will try to revert to the article as of Nov. 7, but this may be beyond my Wiki skills to some extent. Most of what has been added in the last few edits makes very little sense and is outside ordinary thinking. The authors of this material should publish somewhere else, since Wikipedia should reflect consensus views as best it can.
Hugh Hudson (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes need undoing 

message: I will check back later on to see what happens, since this is my first experience at a reversion.
I actually am the author of a related article on Scholarpedia, in case anybody wishes to check: .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh Hudson (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, that was easy 

message: The conversion of the colour temperature range of sunspots into degrees Celsius is unduly precise. (That is, because the figures in kelvin are only given to two significant figures, giving the same data in Celsius to four significant figures is misleading and, in my opinion, wrong.) I tried to round the figures to two significant figures, but it seems to have been implemented by some sort of conversion macro. Does anyone know how to enforce a specific precision? Thanks -- Roberdin (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rounding is not a correct solution. If an author says that a temperature is 3,500 K (rounded to two significant figures), he actually says the temperature is 3,500 ± 50 K. Converted to Celsius it should then say 3,230 ± 47 °C. But rounding the temperature to 3,200 °C would mean 3,200 ± 50 °C, which introduces a deviation in the mean and error from the original temperature. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, in its present form, the article suggests that the temperature range is "exactly" (to four significant figures) "2,727–4,227 °C", with an implied error of 0.5 degrees -- surely this is less correct than rounding. From the context, it is clear that this is not the case, but some people may misapprehend, perhaps taking it out of context, and assume it is a far more precise range than it is, whereas some people (like me) find it aesthetically displeasing. If we put 3,230 degrees, this implies an error of no more than ± 5 degrees. I believe that it would also be improper to state that the error is explicitly 47 degrees C, because the author has not explicitly stated this error on the original data, and it is a range anyway. What do you suggest? -- 86.144.52.67 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there are pro's and con's for both views. BTW, I don't see how you derive "2,727–4,227 °C, with an implied error of 0.5 degrees" from 3,230 ± 47 °C. I have no further suggestions, I only feel it's not right to introduce an extra error for the sake of conversion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary to worry about the C conversion. It's in brackets, it's clear that degrees K is the cited figure and that the conversion is derived naively. Barsoomian (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunspot temperatures (conversion into degrees Celsius) 

message: Why "the details of their apparent motion could not be readily explained except in the heliocentric system of Copernicus"? (17th &18th Century)
The Earth in the center and the Sun around it, like in the geocentric model, still the sunspots should behave like as the Sun in the center, should not they?
In other words, sunspots' apparent motion on the surface of the Sun should not be a matter of system of reference.
2.33.251.230 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunspots' behavior and reference systems 

message: This text in Sunspot#Sunspot_observation: "Special purpose hydrogen-alpha narrow bandpass filters as well as aluminum coated glass attenuation filters (which have the appearance of mirrors due to their extremely high optical density) on the front of a telescope provide safe observation through the eyepiece."
It doesn't make sense to me that high optical density (= absorbance) would make the filter have the appearance of a mirror. If it attenuates mainly by absorbtion, it would not look like a mirror. If it mainly reflects (as mirrors do), it is not because of high optical density but because of high reflectivity.
Mats Löfdahl (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attenuation filters 

message: Should this article use "BCE" instead of "BC" with respect to dates before the common era, since this is an astronomy subject (and that is the convention)? Yes. I know all about :WP:DATES and other WP-conventions about "first use", etc. However, I think a good case could be made for using "BCE" in all astronomy-related articles. Thoughts? --Thorwald (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: BCE ''vs.'' BC

message: Diagram with emphasized peak groups: http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1443/1gcrsvstempscorrelation.png 
Basic version: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm 
The state oscillation with an 11 year cycle gets very visible. 
--Alexander.stohr (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlations

message: Sunspots appear dark or black presumably because they don't radiate in the visible light spectrum. Do they radiate at some other wavelength, e.g., microwave or x-ray? Or, are they black simply because they're deep holes in the face of the Sun? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sunspots, rather than black, are just darker than the rest of the sun. (this is because the magnetically induced downdraft prevents the heat/energy from rising up in that area, making it cooler. The rest of the sun simply outshines the spot, like it does to all the other not as bright things in the day time. That said, sunspots do tend to radiate more than the solar average in the UV range. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are Sunspots black?

message: I think it would aid the article to explain if old counts were as accurate as modern counts. Now we can now shoot beams through the sun from earth and send satellites to the far side of the sun. I do know that the earth rotates around the sun and that the sun rotates also, but I do not know the answer to my question: can we detect more sunspots than our forefathers could? Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting sunspots on the far side of the sun 

message: The article at http://nautil.us/issue/22/slow/the-315_year_old-science-experiment contains information which, if correct, should be incorporated into the article. But it should first be verified by other sources.
For example, regarding mythological interpretations of sunspots it says: For ancient Africans living on the Zambezi River, sunspots were mud spattered in the face of the sun by a jealous moon. Is this true? If so it belongs in the "Early Observations" section.
Regarding early Western interpretations it says, Astronomer William Herschel believed they were portholes into a dark subsolar world where people lived beneath the sun's radiant sheath. I have my doubts. Did Herschel really "believe" that or would it be more accurate to say he "speculated" it?
I don't currently have time to look into this myself. Offering it here for anyone who wants to pursue the matter.
121.45.100.90 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A 22-cycle is mentioned only as a hypothesis from 1908.  I heard an astronomer on the radio saying that it is now generally accepted that the physical cycle has 22 years.  I know nothing about this, but someone who does should track down a reference or two and mention it. Zerotalk 03:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject is already discussed, referenced, and wikilinked in . The 22-year cycle is the solar dynamo cycle and the corresponding sunspot cycle (with change in polarity) is known as the "Hale cycle". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know where you are looking.  In Sunspot#Period, the only mention of a 22-year cycle is "Hale suggested that the sunspot cycle period is 22 years.." with a citation to an article from 1908. The word "dynamo" doesn't occur in the whole article. Zerotalk 01:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not being very clear. See Babcock Model linked in that section, though you might find this kind of technical. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, the 1908 paper by Hale is very nice. I often recommend reading classic old papers. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  22-year cycle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sunspot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050315081547/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216030712/http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder%20Minimum.pdf to http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder%20Minimum.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212113926/http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/sharpest_image_sunspot.html?6102005 to http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/sharpest_image_sunspot.html?6102005
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why does active region redirect to sunspot? They are not the same thing.
In simple terms, active regions are areas of strong magnetic field on the Sun's surface that are often, but not always, accompanied by sunspot(s). These sunspot(s) are just one of the many byproducts of the strong magnetic field within the active region. Further, the majority (if not the entirety) of all published literature on the topic refers to sunspots and active regions as two different things. This claim can be easily verified by checking any recently published articles covering the two, so I will not be providing any specific papers as proof. For those looking for a non-technical source, see https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sun-active-region. This claim is even implied within the article when it is said that
:Any given appearance of a sunspot may last anywhere from a few days to a few months, though groups of sunspots and their active regions tend to last weeks or months, but all do eventually decay and disappear.
Given this information, I believe active region deserves its own dedicated article and I will be removing the redirect in 7 days (on 15 July 2021) unless someone gives a legitimate reason as to why this shouldn't be done. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , hi.  Each article needs to satisfy two basic tenets: notability and verifiability. You'll need several sources which discuss the topic in-depth to show that it's notable enough, and then everything in the article needs to be able to be verified in the sourcing provided. Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Active region redirect