Talk:List of solar cycles

message: It seems like it would make good sense to put this list into a table, showing the maximum, start date, and end date of each cycle, and perhaps any other useful info (total # of spots?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.154.235 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: Wikinews: Sun begins Solar Cycle 24. Wikinews January 2008. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that the table can be updated? 83.251.110.137 (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cycle 

message: Waht about the following paragraph in solar cycle: 
:Until recently it was thought that there were 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008, giving an average length of 11.04 years, but recent research has showed that the longest of these (1784-99) seems actually to have been two cycles.. etc, etc, 
Shouldn't this article be rewritten correspondingly?Kope (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of the table? 

message: Off topic?
FOX news says/said that would bring 30-50% stronger Solar Flares (I mean auroras) with Earth's weaker magnetofield that would disrupt EHV eletricity of USA and high-power electricity, meaning $2-4 Trillion in damages, nearly erasing virtually-all life in existence on earth. So it was in 2006-2008.
The satelite THEMIS observed the Solar Flares in Solar Cycle 23-24 as NASA said. I didn't know that.
But no, don't let this happen, know nor predict of solar flares that would kill us.
Ahh, Solar Cycle 24 will have less than 90 sunspots to peak in May 2013 but not December 2012 as NASA and NOAA predicted. This would mean Sun's activity will be exhausted. But in 2012, Sun's poles will invert but not the earth's poles. Nothing to worry about it.
Or the Sun will be in the next Maunder Minimum around 2012-2013 or so, keep imagining!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Cycle 24 now in 2013

message: Sunspot counting goes back to the early 17th century. This graph shows at least three clear cycles before the first one listed here. Even during the Maunder minimum five cycles (listed there) can be extrapolated. So why does the list start in 1755?--87.162.34.226 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier cycles? 

message: The last line is saying the cycle began in Dec 2008, but the previous line is including thru Feb 1, 2010. This needs brought in synch. I don't know which is right since they are both sourced. Jon (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that at the end and at the beginning of cycles there are several spotless days but none in the middle of cycles. Also, the the starting point of a new cycle is defined as the point when the number of sunspots of the new cycle starts being larger than those of the old one. This separation point was determined as December 2008. But spotless days are still coming for a while, this is why the number in question increases for some time. There is no contradiction in the table. Kope (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the 2008 to current data? http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml Bizzybody (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  table appears to contradict itself 

message: All the sunspot numbers on this article and the individual articles for each cycle are now obsolete . SIDC (which is responsible for the official International Sunspot Number) has changed all the data . At some point we need to go through all this and update it to the new data . Jozsefs (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated one of the links that notes it has been moved to the SIDC SILSO site. I updated the total spotless days numbers where they didn't match the new page which was only in a couple of cycles and only by a few spotless days here and there. I presume those discrepancies are due to this dataset change although I'm not an expert. Hopefully that takes care of at least one small piece of getting this page up to date Phil (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete 

message: @Speminallium recently made  to the formatting of this article which were undone by @Braintic with the following  summary
:I have been managing this page for three years and intend to keep doing so. Feel free to ADD or CORRECT information, but please do not impose your mere preferences over mine.
I am pointing this out as it should be clear that no one WP:OWNs this list. Changes should be up to consensus, not to the sole discretion of one editor.
In my opinion, the formatting changes made by @Speminallium improve the navigability of the article—as they explain (e.g., in the edit summary of )—and therefore should remain if there are no other objections besides ownership. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership