Template talk:Solar System Infobox/Sun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mean distance from Earth
Corrected the value for "Mean distance from Earth" in kilometres (was: 1149 million km). 212.90.206.197 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bold the fact titles?
Should the fact titles be bolded so they stand out? If bolded, the template will appear like this:
 |
|
| Observation data | |
|---|---|
| Mean distance from Earth | 149.6×106 km (92.95×106 mi) (8.31 minutes at the speed of light) |
| Visual brightness (V) | −26.8m |
| Absolute magnitude | 4.8m |
| Spectral classification | G2V |
| Orbital characteristics | |
| Mean distance from Milky Way core | ~2.5×1017 km (26,000-28,000 light-years) |
| Galactic period | 2.25-2.50×108 a |
| Velocity | 217 km/s orbit around the center of the Galaxy, 20 km/s relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighbourhood |
| Physical characteristics | |
| Mean diameter | 1.392×106 km (109 Earths) |
| Circumference | 4.373×106 km |
| Oblateness | 9×10−6 |
| Surface area | 6.09×1018 m² (11,900 Earths) |
| Volume | 1.41×1027 m³ (1,300,000 Earths) |
| Mass | 1.988 435×1030 kg (332,946 Earths) |
| Density | 1,408 kg/m³ |
| Surface gravity | 273.95 m s-2 (27.9 g) |
| Escape velocity from the surface |
617.54 km/s (55 Earths) |
| Surface temperature | 5785 K |
| Temperature of corona | 5 MK |
| Core temperature | ~13.6 MK |
| Luminosity (Lsol) | 3.827×1026 W ~3.75×1028 lm (~98 lm/W efficacy) |
| Mean Intensity (Isol) | 2.009×107 W m-2 sr-1 |
| Rotation characteristics | |
| Obliquity | 7.25° (to the ecliptic) 67.23° (to the galactic plane) |
| Right ascension of North pole[1] | 286.13° (19 h 4 min 30 s) |
| Declination of North pole | +63.87° (63°52' North) |
| Rotation period at equator | 25.38 days (25 d 9 h 7 min 13 s)[1] |
| Rotation velocity at equator | 7174 km/h |
| Photospheric composition (by mass) | |
| Hydrogen | 73.46 % |
| Helium | 24.85 % |
| Oxygen | 0.77 % |
| Carbon | 0.29 % |
| Iron | 0.16 % |
| Sulphur | 0.12 % |
| Neon | 0.12 % |
| Nitrogen | 0.09 % |
| Silicon | 0.07 % |
| Magnesium' | 0.05 % |
>Kamope< Talk · Contribs 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about changing the design so that it parallels the redesigned "Planets" template? That one seems to have the bold text you're suggesting, but with an smaller text size. --Ckatzchatspy 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
I've made a few tweaks to the layout and formatting to improve the readability. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tilde
Are the ~ symbols supposed to be approximation signs (≈), or am I just being ignorant? A ~ (in place of an ≈) should only be used on a typewriter, where no approximation sign is available.
-
- — The Man in Question 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Data
Almost all the data on here is uncited. I've not been able to confirm any of it, and I corrected the mass a few days ago; however, it would seem the luminosity also differs from both my (various) astronomy texts and from the NASA Planetary Fact Sheet. Can someone please provide the citations? Otherwise, when I am free next, I will change these to NASA factsheet values with citations. Tigerhawkvok 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Units and some recent edits
Folks,
I noticed some recent edits (myself included) and I think we may need to discuss.
This article is very much a scientific article and hence SI units should only be used. I recently removed all imperial units from this infobox as they were very much useless. Why would anyone want to know the density in lb/cubic ft or the Sun's motion around our galaxy in ft/sec?
Also, whilst converting to Celsius is normally a good idea, it is a waste of time for large numbers. 15 million Kelvin is 15 million Celsius (minus 273 degrees) and at these levels there is no point.
I would like to see all infoboxes of the planets and dwarf planets looking consistent. I'd like to include the Sun in this. I'm working on Mars as a template and I'd values others' input and consensus.
So I propose:
No imperial units. Provide conversion to Celsius at reasonable levels (surface of the Sun at 5000 K may be appropriate - but not to two decimal places) Style and format similar to Mars. Let me know what you think. Jim77742 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think that these are great ideas, and I'm in total agreement! Popkultur 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like very good guidelines to me also. That Kelvin to Celsius conversion for millions of degrees was ridiculous. One minor point regarding formatting: I recall that a month ago a few people were attached to the idea of having a space every three digits after the decimal point in the infoboxes (Jupiter was, I think, the article), but I've been unable to track down the discussion. Anyway, either way is fine with me as long as its kept consistent among all the planets (+Sun, etc, you know). Deuar 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- One suggestion, looking at Mars - I think we should stick with SI units exclusively, except where SI-derived units make more sense. Velocity in km/h is okay, but density should be in kg/m^3, not g/cm^3. I think conversions for AU should only be used to describe orbital distance, for comparison purposes. Popkultur 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds fine but AU should be there for all interplanetary distances, it's what is usually used by astronomers for describing them (not km) Deuar 06:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture of the Sun
The picture of the Sun was recently replaced. The summary said it was a "better" picture. Personally I do not think so. The first is one by NASA and the second is one by presumably an amateur astronomer. I myself have taken a nice picture of the sun I could upload. I feel like reverting to what I consider the superior NASA picture, but I'd value others' input. What's the consensus here? Jim77742 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I Agree the filter being used in the "better" picture makes the sun look like an orange, or Alpha Centauri B :-) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angular size?
I went to the sun wikipedia entry to look up it's angular size, but it was not listed. So I found the information I needed at NASA: 31.6' - 32.7' [1] (although I think the source is mixing up the sizes at perihelion vs. aphelion). I presume some thought went into this infobox, so I am hesitant to start adding things myself. Can someone add this in to the box in an appropriate place? Thanks. — Eoghanacht talk 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and did it myself. — Eoghanacht talk 12:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Deuar 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Matter to energy conversion rate
Is the 4e6MT/s figure the correct number and cited and does it represent an energy equivalent as represented by mass for generated energy or is this figure the amount of mass converted into mostly other matter and a small percentage of energy?--Theo Pardilla 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
