Talk:Carrington Event
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carrington Event article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 28, 2016, August 28, 2020, September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. |
Insert heading edit
This sentence: "Carbon-14 levels stored in 775 suggest an event about 20 times the normal variation of the sun's activity, and 10 or more times the size of the Carrington Event." is based on a non-scholarly (Knowable magazine) article which sites Miyazaki et al's original strength estimate of the 775-775 event. However, a more recent scholarly article exists which challenges the estimated size of a corresponding solar event. I would therefore suggest the exact size estimates from the article be deleted. Here is the relevant article: Usoskin, Ilya G., et al. "The AD775 cosmic event revisited: the Sun is to blame." Astronomy & Astrophysics 552 (2013): L3. 2601:194:400:DED0:C5F8:B93C:E46E:18C (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there an argument to switch from CE dating to BC here? edit
The article was originally written to use CE/BCE to identify years rather than AD/BC? Is there an argument to be made for switching? signed, Willondon (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- The standard rule is that the existing date format should not be changed unless there is a strong reason to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style. However, I do not think it is needed at all in most cases. I see it still leaves one BCE. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's why I argue for maintaining the established format, rather than the recent changes asserted. I'm not sure that just eliminating "CE" (leaving one "BCE", as you say) is a solution or an improvement.
The signature of a large solar storm has been found for 774–775 and for 993–994. Carbon-14 levels stored in 775 suggest an event about 20 times the normal...
I don't think it's very clear, at least on the first couple of scans, that the numbers refer to years. I recommend restoring the "CE" as originally provided. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's why I argue for maintaining the established format, rather than the recent changes asserted. I'm not sure that just eliminating "CE" (leaving one "BCE", as you say) is a solution or an improvement.