Talk:Sun

In the spoken Wikipedia version of this page, the narrator admitted that they may not be pronouncing the words correctly. Does anyone know how pronounce these correctly in case the author wants to re-record that section? Could anyone make an audio recording of that section being spoken correctly for future reference? Anthony2106 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

i think the choice of an image of the sun through a solar filter is a terrible representative of our local star. Surely there is a more appropriate image out there Steel-Centurion (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Steel-Centurion, this has been discussed in the past.

• Talk: Sun/Archive 9#Image
• Talk: Sun/Archive 11#should we add a secondary image of the sun for the infobox

A true-color image seems like the most natural choice. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree, that the sun appearance currently depicted in the main photo is misleading - some could be confused when they land on the page thinking that they misclick something. As the current image does not look like anything anyone would expect.

I propose the image to be changed to a recent one from a reputable source (NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory). This is my suggestion:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31213 H3dvp (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Better yet, use this uncropped version straight from their dataset:

https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/browse/2022/10/26/20221026_213729_4096_0193.jpg 4096p

https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/browse/2022/10/26/20221026_213729_1024_0193.jpg 1024p H3dvp (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

That image is on Commons as File:A Smiling Sun.jpg. Three coronal holes that resemble a smiley face would be too jokey to use here.

NASA's page at https://science.nasa.gov/sun uses a false colour picture more like File:Amazing Hi-Def CME (full disk) - Flickr - NASA Goddard Photo and Video.jpg. That does seem closer to the natural and appropriate representations of the topic [and] the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see of MOS:LEADIMAGE. Belbury (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not see how the proposed false-color EUV images are closer to a natural and appropriate representation of the Sun than the current visible-light image. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

"As the current image does not look like anything anyone would expect." I say declare victory: everyone who came to learn about Sun, but did not expect that image, has learned something. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree with the well-said post by Johnjbarton. In fact, the educational experience is so important and encyclopedia-worthy that I've added the image to {{The Sun}} navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Surprising the reader with something they didn't previously know should still be weighed against the MOS recommendation that any lead image should give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. A reader who isn't expecting our Sun to look like this may assume that they've arrived by mistake at a page about "suns" in general. Belbury (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

This reasoning, that an encyclopedic fact which surprises readers is somehow a bad thing, has been used before and actually worked to some extent. But the Sun looks how it looks. What you may be imagining is that an average reader would expect a close up of the Sun to be unseeable and unbearable because of the emitted light's effect on the eyes of Earthbound animals. Actually being shown what the Sun looks like using the benefit of light-reducing lenses can surprise and shock readers but, importantly, does not mislead them. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should gold and uranium be included in this quote?

"Its formation approximately 4.6 billion years ago may have been triggered by shockwaves from one or more nearby supernovae. This is suggested by a high abundance of heavy elements in the Solar System, such as gold and uranium, relative to the abundances of these elements in so-called Population II, heavy-element-poor, stars."

This quote confuses me because the difference between Population I and Population II is not the amount of heavy elements but the amounts of everything other than Hydrogen and Helium (the amount of rarer elements like gold and uranium is not going to affect that. Neither gold nor uranium is produced in supernova shock waves. (If I recall correctly the only mechanism we have for gold production (at scale that we see) is collision of neutron stars.

I could easily be wrong; my knowledge is just large enough to get me in more trouble. TStein (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply