Talk:Solar phenomena

Mentioning significant periods of activity?

Should we include major historical events that involved significant activity? I can find several articles in Category:Solar phenomena such as Aurora of November 17, 1882, Halloween solar storms, 2003 or Bastille Day event? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible, as long as there is some context, so that the section doesn't imply that significant events only happened in modern recorded history. - Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As long whatever you write supports the Global Warming theory, Mr. Connolley will be fine with it, and won't delete your edits. Like he did mine. And will delete this as well...

Inclusion of activity on other stars?

The word solar specifically refers to "Of or relating to the Sun", but would it be worth while to discuss the study of solar activity on other stars (if there is such a thing)? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know... if there is enough material/notability, it might be better to cover those activities in a separate article, and just link to it from the Sea also section - Evad37 [talk] 14:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Solar activity of stars other than the Sun would be best defined as magnetic activity I think. Book:Heliophysics: Evolving Solar Activity & Climates of Space & Earth (pg 40 Long-term evolution of megnetic activity of Sun-like stars)

David Condrey (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Found a few great sources that I can't spend a lot of time on right now so leaving them as a note to come back to later, or if anyone else wants to look into..

• Community Input Received by Heliophysics Decadal Survey
• The Source of Solar Energy, Australia Bureau of Meteorology
• Solar Wind: Manifestations of Solar Activity, Encyclopedia of Astronomy & Astrophysics
• Sources of Oscillation Frequency Increase with Rising Solar Activity, Warsaw University Observatory and Copernicus Astronomical Center,Poland
• Sigmoidal Morphology and Eruptive Solar Activity, Geophysical Research Letters, Montana State University

David Condrey (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

These appear to be really good sources and interesting reading. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

It seems to me there are a lot of unnecessary spin-off articles related to the Sun and its activity. Most prominently Solar maximum, Solar minimum, Solar cycle, and Solar activity which I think would be better added as sections within a single article. It may prove difficult to avoid conflicting information with the same subject matter spread out across so many different articles. David Condrey (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Min / Max: agree. Cycle / Activity, less convinced William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Solar max, min, and cycle could probably be merged into one article, but I think it would be too detailed to merge into solar activity - Evad37 [talk] 00:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think sun cycle should be merged into solar activity, the article is already too detailed. Minimum and Maximum could be merged into Solar cycle, not into solar activity. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with max, min and cycle merged but not into solar activity. Gierszep (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• We're already in the penumbra of WP:TOOBIG, which gains importance as small screens proliferate. Better to merge Max and Min into Cycle.

• Agree that Solar minimum and Solar maximum should be merged into Solar cycle, but disagree with merging any of those articles into Solar activity. Leave the short section on Solar Cycle in the article on activity, with a link to Solar cycle as the main article. Although I do wonder when Sunspot cycle will no longer be a redirect to Solar cycle, but be an article in its own right about not only the 11-year sunspot cycle, but the longer cycles of activity, including the Maunder Minimum and Modern Maximum. - Mira Oubliette^talk 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Too many articles about the Sun" for whom? Not me, that's for sure. I admit that I don't like reading the same stuff over and over again, but I also don't like wading through long articles looking for the bits about some sub-topic. And it seems to me that too many long articles repeat themselves anyway, especially when different sections have had different authors. 78.149.18.53 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to look at shorter, more general or more specific articles, instead of dredging through horrendously long articles that contain every detail about every possible subtopic and relationship. That is the beauty of hyperlinks. The topic of the physical phenomenon called "Solar Cycles" certainly contains enough detailed information to stand as its own article. Information about solar cycles beyond a general description of solar cycles and a link should be in the Solar Cycles article. There are many types of Solar Activity that are not solar cycles, and I do not want to pick through all that to read in depth specifically about solar cycles. Merging solar cycles into solar activity does not follow Wikipedia guidelines reprinted below.

Wikipedia:Merging from Wikipedia's guidelines on when not to merge an article:

"Merging should be avoided if:

   The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
   The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
   The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short"

71.20.96.69 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Request involving TAFI articles

Please weigh in at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request involving TAFI articles. It directly affects the DYK nomination.--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Restructure proposal

{{User:Lfstevens/sandbox}}

Comments

• This sounds really exciting. I nominated solar activity for TAFI when it was still a disambiguation page and we collectively made it what it is today. Even then, I thoguht the coverage of sun-related topics was inconsistent and incomplete, so I only have the highest praise to you for attempting this ambitious project. I wish you the best of luck. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Lfstevens (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Solar phenomena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150714173049/http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/langley.html to http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/langley.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080213192823/http://users.zoominternet.net:80/~matto/M.C.A.S/sunspot_cycle.htm to http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/sunspot_cycle.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar phenomena. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140507031551/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov:80/NOAAscales/ to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Radioactive decay rates affected by the Sun

In 2010, there was research published by Stanford and Purdue researchers regarding radioactive decay rates being affected by the Sun's magnetic field. For example, <ref>http://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.html<ref> Another article came out recently that said the effect is negligible, but I can't find it. If anyone has information on this, it would be good to include it on this Solar Phenomena page.

Sallyseaver (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Towards solar minimum.

Greetings,

This NASA image compares sunspot activity between solar maximum at 27 February 2014 and its appearance on 20 March 2017 (when it had no sunspots for about 15 days) on its march towards solar minimum. Would the 2017 image be valuable for comparison?

• NASA’s SDO Sees a Stretch of Spotless Sun = https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2017/nasa-s-sdo-sees-a-stretch-of-spotless-sun
  
• Image Use Policy = https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image-use-policy
  

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the GIF in its original form comparing the (visible light) Sun in solar max and in solar min side by side would be the most useful. It would also work well on the Solar cycle and Sunspot articles. Comparing other wavelengths or magnetograms during solar max and min might be informative as well. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Minnie'smom03 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Minnie'smom03 (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Howdy! When looking through Wikipedia, this article peaked my interest. I have thoroughly read through the article and the talk page to become more familiar with it. Over the next few weeks, I will be taking a closer look on what I think this article needs to improve. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions about any edits I make or any suggestions I have. I am excited to engage in conversation regarding this Wikipedia article. Minnie'smom03 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Comment

I agree with the merge proposal comment as mentioned above. There are a lot of spin off articles related to each section, so it looks to me like the information is being repeated and then condensed from these other articles into this article. Is there a way to restructure the content to not include the same information from other articles? Minnie'smom03 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Minnie'smom03. I also agree that the issues raised in #Merge Proposal have not been adequately addressed. While its totally okay to summarize another article (see Wikipedia:Summary style), I think the article in its current form relies too heavily on them.

Before addressing this, I think that it is important we define what exactly constitutes "solar phenomena" since the term is very vague and does not refer only to "phenomena within the atmosphere of the Sun" as is stated in the lead (hence the maintenance templates at the top of the article). We could also rename the article to something like Solar-atmosphere phenomena so that it better matches its contents. However, I think defining what solar phenomena includes and modifying/expanding the article from there would be better. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)