Talk:Sun and Molly Malone: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rmv
 
→‎English: col break
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{For|the silent film actress|Molly Malone (actress)}}
{{ArticleHistory
"'''Molly Malone'''" (also known as "'''Cockles and Mussels'''" or "'''In Dublin's Fair City'''") is a popular song, set in [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]], which has become the unofficial [[anthem]] of [[Dublin]] City. It has also in [[Ireland]] acquired the status of an Irish anthem. The song is [[football chant|sung by supporters]] of [[Dublin GAA]], [[Leinster Rugby]] teams, and the [[Ireland national rugby union team|Irish international rugby team]]. It was also featured in the film, ''[[A Clockwork Orange (film)|A Clockwork Orange]]''.
|action1=FAC
[[Image:Molly malone grafton street.jpg|thumb|Close-up of Molly Malone statue in [[Grafton Street (Dublin)|Grafton Street]], [[Dublin]].]]
|action1date=19:43, 26 February 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sun
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=41342772


==History==
|action2=FTC
The song tells the tale of a beautiful [[fishmonger]] who plied her trade on the streets of Dublin, but who died young, of a fever. Recently a legend has grown up that there was a historical Molly, representing her variously as a hawker by day and part-time prostitute by night, or - in contrast - as one of the few chaste female street-hawkers of her day. However, there is no evidence that the song is based on a real woman who lived in the 17th century, or at any other time, despite claims that records of her birth and death have been located. The name "[[Molly]]" originated as a familiar version of the names [[Mary]] and [[Margaret]]. While many such "Molly" [[Malone]]s were born in Dublin over the centuries, no evidence connects any of them to the events in the song.<ref name = "eire"/> The song was not recorded earlier than 1883, in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
|action2date=22:45, 15 October 2006
<ref name = "who1">{{cite book|last= Hills|first= William H|year= 1883|title= Students' Songs|pages= p. 55|location= Cambridge, Massachusetts|publisher= Moses King}}</ref>
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System
and it was published (by Francis Brothers and Day, 1884, London) as a work written and composed by James Yorkston, of Edinburgh.<ref name=molly>{{cite web |title= Cockles and Mussels (Molly Malone) |url=http://www.folkinfo.org/songs/displaysong.php?songid=618 |work= Folkinfo.org (quoting book by Sean Murphy)|year= 2002|accessdate=2007-08-22}}</ref>
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=81677488


[[Frank Harte]], one of the great Dublin singers, who also sang this song, used to say: "Never judge a song by the company it keeps!"
|maindate=March 20, 2006
|ftname=Solar System
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{physics|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WPSpace|class=FA
<!-- Related projects -->
|astronomy=yes
|astro_object=yes
|solar_system=yes
|SS-importance=Top
|Astronomy-importance=Top
|space_exploration=yes
<!-- Project importance ratings -->
|space_exploration-importance=Mid
|nested=yes
}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Natsci|core=yes|VA=yes}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}


The song is in a familiar tragi-comic mode popular in this period, probably influenced by earlier songs with a similar theme, such as Percy Montross's "[[Oh My Darling, Clementine|My Darling Clementine]]", which was written circa 1880.
<!-- Put new messages at bottom. -->


==Lyrics==
==Life Cycle Image==
{{col-begin}}
I believe the image of the suns life cycle is slightly incorrect because the "Now" arrow is more towards 4.5 billion years old, while the earth is about 4.4 billion years old, the sun is more towards 5 billion years old.
{{col-break|width=50%}}
[[User:Gemroth|Gemroth]] ([[User talk:Gemroth|talk]]) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
===English===
In Dublin's fair city,<br>
where the girls are so pretty,<br>
I first set my eyes on sweet Molly Malone,<br>
As she wheeled her wheel-barrow,<br>
Through streets broad and narrow,<br>
Crying, "[[Cockle (bivalve)|Cockle]]s and [[mussel]]s, alive, alive, oh!"<br>
<br>
''"Alive, alive, oh,''<br>
''Alive, alive, oh",''<br>
''Crying "Cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh".''<br>
<br>
She was a fishmonger,<br>
And sure 'twas no wonder,<br>
For so were her father and mother before,<br>
And they each wheeled their barrow,<br>
Through streets broad and narrow,<br>
Crying, "Cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh!"<br>
<br>
''(chorus)''<br>


She died of a fever<sup>†</sup>,<br>
Adding to that,
And no one could save her,<br>
And that was the end of sweet Molly Malone.<br>
Now her ghost wheels her barrow,<br>
Through streets broad and narrow,<br>
Crying, "Cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh!"<br>
<br>
''(chorus)''<br><ref name = "crick">{{cite web|url=http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/mollylyrics.htm|author= James Yorkston|title=Molly Malone lyrics|date=last modified 1998|accessdate=2008-10-06}}</ref>


Hotly debated theory cited as fact.


<sup>†</sup>Note on pronunciation
'In fact, even during its life in the main sequence the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous, its surface temperature slowly rising. The increase in solar temperatures is such that in about 900 million years, the surface of the Earth will become too hot for the survival of life as we know it.[31] After another billion years the surface water will have completely disappeared.[32]'
Before the [[Great Vowel Shift]], {{IPA|/i:/}} was pronounced as {{IPA|/eɪ/}} This pronunciation lingered in [[Ireland]] and [[Scotland]] (where the song was written) after it had virtually disappeared from [[England]]. The word 'fever' would have been pronounced as 'favour', rhyming with 'save her' in the next line. That pronunciation is still sometimes used in this song, particularly in Ireland.


==Statue==
[[User:Anon|Anon]] 03:57, 24 April 2008 (GMT)
[[Image:Molly alone.jpg|thumb|Statue in [[Grafton Street (Dublin)|Grafton Street]]]]
Molly is commemorated in a statue designed by [[Jeanne Rynhart]]<ref>[http://www.jeannerynhart.com]</ref>, erected to celebrate the city's first millennium in [[1987]]; Placed at the top of [[Grafton Street, Dublin|Grafton Street]] in Dublin, this statue is known [[colloquialism|colloquially]] (in [[rhyming slang]]) as "The Tart With The Cart," "The Dish With The Fish," and "The Trollop With The [[Scallop]]s." The statue portrays Molly as a busty young woman in seventeenth-century dress. Her low-cut dress and large breasts were justified on the grounds that as "women breastfed publicly in Molly's time, breasts were popped out all over the place." <ref name = "eire">[http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/molly.htm Irish Historical Mysteries: Molly Malone]</ref>


==Parodies==
== Updates / Alterations ==
[[Londoners]] adapt the song for their own needs often in a light vein, the major change being the lines:


<blockquote>As she wheeled her wheel-barrow,<br>
I think the description in the first section of this article about the "surface spectral composition" of the Sun is misleading as it implies that the Sun has a solid surface which is factually incorrect. It would be more appropriate to say the spectral composition of the photosphere is ... and then provide a link to the photosphere section of the article.
Through [[Wealdstone]] and [[Harrow, London|Harrow]] (pronounced ''Arra'' in this instance)<br></blockquote>


An altered first verse of the song is usually sung by supporters of [[Bohemian FC]] in [[Dublin]]. The changes being:
Secondly recent research has actually re-established the possibility of the Earth being swallowed up during the Sun's red giant phase, and this should be included. reference for this:


<blockquote>In Dublin's fair city,<br>
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13022.x)
Where the girls are so pretty,<br>
I first set my eyes on sweet Molly Malone,<br>
As she wheeled her wheelbarrow<br>
Through streets broad and narrow<br>
Crying (clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap) Bohs '''(pronunciation / bo-iz /)'''
</blockquote>


Thanks,


A similar version of the Bohemian FC chant is also sung by Gillingham (Kent) Football Club supporters:
Gaz <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/144.124.16.28|144.124.16.28]] ([[User talk:144.124.16.28|talk]]) 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


<blockquote>In Dublin's fair city,<br>
== Life Cycle ==
Where the girls are so pretty,<br>
I first set my eyes on sweet Molly Malone,<br>
As she wheeled her wheelbarrow<br>
Through streets broad and narrow<br>
Crying (clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap) The Gills! '''(pronunciation / Jills /)'''
</blockquote>


==See also==
The "Life Cycle" section contains :-
*[[Dublin statues and their nicknames]]
*[[Roud Folk Song Index]] 16932


== References ==
"Each second, more than 4 million tonnes of matter are converted into energy within the Sun's core, ...". That is true : but it seems to me capable of being misunderstood, by those of inadequate sagacity, as meaning that about 4 million tonnes of hydrogen are consumed per second. See, for example, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/01/nsky01.xml paragraph 4.
{{reflist}}


==External links==
In the "Core" section, we see "About 3.4 × 10<sup>38</sup> protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second"; but the ordinary reader will not rapidly perceive that, since the AMU is 1.66 × 10<sup>−27</sup> kg, the mass of hydrogen uses is about 565 million tonnes per second.
{{wikisource}}
*[http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/molly.htm An article about Molly Malone]
I suggest that the second paragraph of "Life Cycle" be rephrased to include both the 4 million and the 565 million, for clarity. But check the exact numbers.
*[http://www.triskelle.eu/lyrics/mollymalone.php?index=080.010.020.030 Molly Malone "Cockles And Mussels" diverse songs and Clip courtesy of Dan O'Donnell.]
* [http://www.racoons.nnov.ru/mp3/2002_Ticket_To_Dublin/01_Molly_Malone.mp3 MP3 at official site of folk-rock band "Racoons"]


[[Category:Culture in Dublin]]
The page does not appear to be editable by me.
[[Category:Ballads]]
[[Category:Irish songs]]


[[ca:Molly Malone]]
[[Special:Contributions/82.163.24.100|82.163.24.100]] ([[User talk:82.163.24.100|talk]]) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[[de:Molly Malone]]

[[es:Molly Malone]]
The page is not editable by you, because it is [[Semi-protection#Semi-protection|semi-protected]]. I suggest getting an account, which will allow you to edit semi-protected articles such as this one.
[[eu:Molly Malone]]

[[fr:Molly Malone]]
What you say does make sense to me, but I'm not sure about the 585 figure - I cannot find a source to confirm that. [http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/AY4_00/week6/sun_fusionC.html] says that it's actually 685 million. I think that an off the cuff calculation like that would be considered "original research", and be quickly edited out of the article if there is not a scholarly source added to confirm it. [[User:MichelleG|MichelleG]] ([[User talk:MichelleG|talk]]) 13:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
[[ga:Mol Ní Mhaoileoin (amhrán)]]

[[it:Molly Malone]]
== Surface Area ==
[[no:Molly Malone]]

[[pl:Molly Malone]]
Is wrong. That is the value for km^2, not m^2, it should be roughly 6x10^18 m^2. I checked the reference, and its wrong there too, but just do the maths on the diameter. SA = 4*pi*(r^2)
[[ru:Молли Малоун]]

[[sv:Molly Malone]]
Cheers,

Taffy <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.31.163.74|62.31.163.74]] ([[User talk:62.31.163.74|talk]]) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I was just going to say the same thing, except the given value is correct in units of m*km, not km^2 = 10^6 m^2 ( which is a clue to the cause of the error. )

It got my attention because of the "citation needed" notation on the mass conversion rate. This value is just a restatement of the luminosity in units of kg/sec = watts/c^2, to the one significant figure given. It reflects a presumption of equilibrium between the luminosity and the total solar power.

I noticed that the given luminosity is pi*1000 times the given solar area * given mean intensity, instead of the required factor of pi. I was surprised to notice that the discrepancy was in the given area.

[[Special:Contributions/68.77.25.250|68.77.25.250]] ([[User talk:68.77.25.250|talk]]) 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

== does sol=Sun?==
Please could I have some help?

A website was giving information about 'sol'. Does that mean the sun?

from KT.Woot

[[User:KT.Woot|KT.Woot]] ([[User talk:KT.Woot|talk]]) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
:''Sol'' is a name for the Sun. Not commonly used, though, in science or out. [[User:Saros136|Saros136]] ([[User talk:Saros136|talk]]) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

::From the Latin, no? Certasinly its the Spanish/Portuguese word for the Sun. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:::It is the Latin name for the sun yes and as such is also where the adjective Solar (system) comes from, and like [[Luna]] (ad. Lunar) for the moon is the main equivalent to the english names. [[User:Terrasidius|Terrasidius]] ([[User talk:Terrasidius|talk]]) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

== Volume ==

The unit of the volume seems to be wrong. From the source cited (NASA) we can see that the actual volume is 1.412 x 10^18 km^3, that is 1.412 x 10^27 m^3 and not 10^21. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.94.222|99.241.94.222]] ([[User talk:99.241.94.222|talk]]) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
:Indeed. I made the correction (at [[Template:Solar System Infobox/Sun]]). [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User talk:Ashill|talk]]) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Location section ==

I have created a new section titled "Location within the galaxy," since I was disappointed to find that this info was not currently in the article. For now, I have simply copied the wording from the "Sun's Location" section of the Milky Way article. This subject matter is a little out of my field, though I'm sure more qualified editors will add and make changes to it. --[[User:Jleon|Jleon]] ([[User talk:Jleon|talk]]) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

==Contradictions==

there seem to be lots of contradictions in this piece e.g.

overview
“This is suggested by a high abundance of heavy elements such as gold and uranium in the solar system. ……..

No mention of these in the Photospheric composition listed in adjacent table. Presumably this is because here you are referring to the whole solar system and not just the Sun. In that case it would be helpful to explain why the planets have the heavy metals but the sun does not if they are all derived from the same source.

Similarly further down in Chemical composition
Element abundances
According to Bahcal (1990)[42] cited in Thoul (1993:15),[43] the characteristic mass fractions of some elements are:
Hydrogen: 34%
Helium: 64%
Oxygen: 1%
I.e. 99% are the above . So where are the heavy metals?


Also

Location within the galaxy
The Sun may be found close to the inner rim of the Galaxy's Orion Arm, in ....

To a novice this is a little confusing
Perhaps: The Sun is one of many stars in the Galaxy called the Milky Way. Within this Galaxy it is found etc etc [[User:Cmlawrence|Cmlawrence]] ([[User talk:Cmlawrence|talk]]) 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:Re gold and uranium: heavy elements are present only in trace amounts in any star, including the Sun, and aren't among the 10 most abundant elements. However, all heavy elements are more abundant in the Sun than in low metallicity (heavy element abundance) stars. I've (hopefully) clarified that point. [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User talk:Ashill|talk]]) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
the moon is made out of cheese and the sun is made out of tomatoes and hot sauce <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.240.223.248|98.240.223.248]] ([[User talk:98.240.223.248|talk]]) 00:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== The Ultimate Fate of the Sun / Solar System ==

I was thinking that this could be filled this under the Life cycle section, however I feel that this should have its own section.

While many discuss the ultimate fate of the sun as simply the sun turning into a red giant in about 5-6b years and in about 10b years the sun expected to have totally exhausted its fuel, a much larger event looks very likely to occur in about 3 billion years [http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin/000414b.asp ] when the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy's pass very close, possible through each other. [http://www.galaxydynamics.org/future_sky.html ].

This can create many different possibilities. Here are a few.

1- the sun thrown out of the galaxy by gravitational effect into the deep void of the universe

2- the sun thrown out of the galaxy by gravitational effect, however the velocity isn't great enough to have escaped the gravity of the Milky Way's central black hole. This will eventually cause the sun to be pulled back towards the black hole, passing through much hotter, denser gas that surrounds the black hole, and possibly passing very close to the back hole, thrown into the opposite direction into a possible erratic orbit.

3- the sun is thrown out but it is caught by the gravity of Andromeda's black hole.

4- the sun could pass too close to either of the black holes and get caught in the event horizon.

5- when the 2 Galaxies pass each other, major star formation will occur creating many more super massive or hyper massive stars with short lives. The effect of these massive supernova and hypernova explosions could greatly effect the sun in some way.

6- when the two galaxies eventually merge creating a massive super hot elliptical galaxy, two massive black holes will orbit close around each other and possibly merge. Now if the sun was lucky to survive the merger, what effect would these have on the sun?

There are other possibilities, however it is almost certain that the sun will enter a period of severe disruption which possibly could lead to its destruction and I would like this topic to be discussed and eventually be entered into the main article.

This could also be file in under the solar system, as it's future will also be greatly effected by the galactic collision long before the sun turns into a Red Giant.
--anon [[Special:Contributions/87.192.200.169|87.192.200.169]] ([[User talk:87.192.200.169|talk]]) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:None of these&mdash;even if they do occur&mdash;are actually likely to significantly affect the Sun because we're very unlikely to pass near enough to any system in either galaxy, particularly the center of Andromeda, given the vast size of each galaxy. See [[Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Galactic evolution]] for a discussion of the likely effect on the Solar System of the collision between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy. [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User talk:Ashill|talk]]) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

== Age ==

This article claims Sun's age is about 4-5 billion years. But the [[earth]] article claims similar age. Does that mean both celestial objects were born concurrently, independently? It is impossible.[[User:Anwar saadat|Anwar]] ([[User talk:Anwar saadat|talk]]) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:Concurrently, but not independently. [[Formation and evolution of the Solar System]]. [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

==Sun picture Viewer Mars to Sun (Image 15)==
*http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article2033800/Nasa_schwaermt_von_perfekter_Phoenix-Mission.html
[[Special:Contributions/194.66.226.95|194.66.226.95]] ([[User talk:194.66.226.95|talk]]) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== The end of life on Earth Contradictions 500 million years? 1 billion years? 1.9 Billion years? ==

I am a little confused as to what the information on this article and the Earth article says about the end of life on Earth. It says that in 900 million years all plants on Earth will die and in an additional 1 billion years all of the water on Earth will evaporate. Does this mean that in 1.9 billion years the Earth's ocean will evaporate? It is confusing because the sources say in 1 billion years the Earth's oceans will evaporate but the article says a billion years later, meaning after 900 million years the oceans will evaporate. So is it 1 billion years or 1.9 billion years that the Oceans will evaporate. Another thing is that on the Earth article it says also that in only 500 million years all life on Earth will die but this contradicts the place where it says that in 900 million years all plants will die and millions of years later on animals will die. I am so confused by these contradictions. Please help clarify this for me.[[User:Maldek|Maldek]] ([[User talk:Maldek|talk]]) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:The 1.9 billion number was made up; it wasn't in any of the sources. However, there is considerable uncertainty in precisely when the Sun will become too hot for water to exist on the Earth's surface (probably the best criterion for the possibility of life); around a billion years is probably the best estimate, and we really shouldn't try to be any more precise than that. I've updated the section to bring it in sync with the relevant main article, [[formation and evolution of the Solar System]]. [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

== Images ==
Sorry to barge in, the images in the article may have been selected on excellent grounds. However, I found [[:Image:STEREO-B_solar_eclipse.jpg]] and [[:Image:Mass_eject_in_ultraviolet_light.jpg]] and to my untrained eye they look superior to some of those in the article. Thought you might consider them for inclusion. [[User:Dhatfield|Dhatfield]] ([[User talk:Dhatfield|talk]]) 23:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
: Was bold - made the edits I thought appropriate. Please check wording of captions for accuracy. [[User:Dhatfield|Dhatfield]] ([[User talk:Dhatfield|talk]]) 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

== The Sun becomes a Red Giant in 5.43 billion years. ==

The Sun is 4.57 billion years old, as confirmed in this article. and will spend 10 billion years as a Main Sequence Star before it becomes a Red Giant. Is it okay to change 5-6 billion years to a more accurate 5.43 billion years? Thank You.[[User:Maldek|Maldek]] ([[User talk:Maldek|talk]]) 04:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
:See my reply in one of the (at least) [[Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System#The Sun becomes a Red Giant in 5.43 billion years.|two other places]] you made this comment. Short answer: no. [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

== Core figures discrepancy ==

There is a dual discrepancy in the figures of core radius, density, energy output and specific power figures, per volume and per mass units each. Using the figures from the article rounded to 2 decimals: the solar radius is 7.0×10<sup>8</sup>&nbsp;m, the core radius is 0.2 total radius, total core power is 3.8×10<sup>26</sup>&nbsp;W. This yields the volume of the core of 1.1×10<sup>25</sup>&nbsp;m³, and its specific power of 33&nbsp;W/m³. The article gives 0.3&nbsp;μW/cm³ (note that 1&nbsp;μW/cm³ is the same as 1&nbsp;W/m³), 100 times less. Next, given the average density of the core of 1.5×10<sup>5</sup>&nbsp;kg/m³, find the average power per kg be 3.8×10<sup>26</sup>&nbsp;W&nbsp;/ (1.1×10<sup>25</sup>m³&nbsp;×&nbsp;1.5×10<sup>5</sup>&nbsp;kg/m³))&nbsp;= 2.3×10<sup>&minus;4</sup>&nbsp;W/kg&nbsp;= 230&nbsp;μW/kg, while the article cites 6&nbsp;μW/kg, this time 38 times less.

I am only reporting the discrepancy, as, lacking a reliable source for solar core physical parameters, I am unable to sensibly correct the article at the moment.

:— [[User:Fregimus|Fregimus]] ([[User talk:Fregimus|talk]]) 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

== Luminosity figure discrepancy ==

To the best of my knowledge, the value for luminosity should be 3.826×10<sup>26</sup> watts and not 3.846×10<sup>26</sup> watts. There are two different arguments supporting my view.

First: The text cites a mass conversion rate of 4.26 million tons per second which is equivalent to 4.26×10<sup>9</sup>&nbsp;kg/s. Multiplying this by 2.99792458×10<sup>8</sup>&nbsp;m/s squared the result is 3.828697×10<sup>26</sup>&nbsp;W.

Second: If the lumen output, given as 3.75×10<sup>28</sup>&nbsp;lm, is divided by the luminous efficacy of 98&nbsp;lm/W, a value of 3.82653×10<sup>26</sup>&nbsp;W is obtained.

Therefore, I consider the listed value of 3.846×10<sup>26</sup> watts for the luminosity to be in error. I truly hope the staff in charge of this outstanding article performs some checking and decides whether if the changes apply.

:— [[User:Burst3|Burst3]] ([[User talk:Burst3|talk]]) 18:36, 07 July 2008 (UTC)

:The current value looks to be accepted. For example, this paper ([[DOI:10.1086/321493]]: section 2.1) reports that the current best estimate is 3.842, with estimates disagreeing at the 0.2% level. The 3.846 value currently used in [[Sun]] is cited, so it shouldn't be changed without [[WP:reliable source|reliable source]]s that contradict the reliable sources arguing for 3.84. (However, I could see chopping one sig fig off, so we only report 3.84 10<sup>26</sup> W.) [[User:Ashill|ASHill]] ([[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== Comparison of how big the sun appears when seen from the surface of different planets. ==

I created an image named "Comparison_sun_seen_from_planets.svg‎" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Comparison_sun_seen_from_planets.svg). The headline already says what it shows. The image is uploaded to CC and can be added if found useful. The German version of this article is unprotected so you can watch it "in action". :) I used the lens equation with an arbitrary value for the distance eye-lens <-> retina, then normalized the results.
[[User:Nevermore4ever|Nevermore4ever]] ([[User talk:Nevermore4ever|talk]]) 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Solar Cycle references ==
The article states: "Solar activity minima tend to be correlated with colder temperatures, and longer than average solar cycles tend to be correlated with hotter temperatures."

I'd like to see a reference for this info. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kdconod|Kdconod]] ([[User talk:Kdconod|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kdconod|contribs]]) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Chemical composition ==

This section is almost impossible to read and makes little sense to the layman. Could somebody please write it in more accessible language? [[User:ajkgordon|<span style="background:#f3f3f3;border:1px solid #dedee6;color:#930007"><small>AJKGORDON</small></span>]][[User talk:ajkgordon|<span style="background:#dedee6;color:#363636;border:1px solid #dedee6">'''«»'''</span>]] 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, that's bad. I'll try to work on it. (Finding references for Solar abundances is actually annoyingly tricky, so it may take me a bit of time to clean it up.) —Alex ([[User:Ashill|ASHill]] &#124; [[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 14:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you. [[User:ajkgordon|<span style="background:#f3f3f3;border:1px solid #dedee6;color:#930007"><small>AJKGORDON</small></span>]][[User talk:ajkgordon|<span style="background:#dedee6;color:#363636;border:1px solid #dedee6">'''«»'''</span>]] 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Sun&curid=26751&diff=228724435&oldid=228511818 diff]). The new version is much shorter. Much of the material in there was probably not worth saving at all, but some discussion of diffusion is perhaps warranted, although a separate article (something like [[Chemical composition of the Sun]]) is probably a better place for that level of detail. —Alex ([[User:Ashill|ASHill]] &#124; [[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 01:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The material in there needed to be saved. I'll give a try at a rewrite. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week|PotW]]} 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

: Well it seems I can't make much sense of the source material. I've kept things reverted as someone else may succeed where I've failed. Feel free to return to Alex Ashill's version. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week|PotW]]} 03:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

::My intent was not to necessarily permanently remove all the topics, but the chemical composition section [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Sun&oldid=228731625#Chemical_composition as it was] was essentially unreadable and useful as little more than a collection of largely-outdated references. I tried to write a coherent, readable summary. I would be happy to see the topics that sort-of-existed before discussed in a readable manner as well, but the subsections all need to be rewritten essentially from scratch (which is why I deleted them all). In the meantime, I'll revert to my version.
::The sources cited are quite technical; a good review article is probably a better place to go. —Alex ([[User:Ashill|ASHill]] &#124; [[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::: The article of Lodders et al. 2003 (and some references therein) (see ref 59 in [[Uranus]]) should be cited instead of old papers from the 70-th. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The section abut the composition of the sun is flawed:
"The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%).[45]" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.222.17.101|195.222.17.101]] ([[User talk:195.222.17.101|talk]]) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Why? I don't know if the numbers are quite right, but I suspect you are confused about the use of the word "metal". For astronomers, everything heavier than Helium is a metal, thus the sentence is technically ok. See [[Metallicity]]. It might be better to formulate this in a way more friendly to lay readers, though. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::Give that the immediately preceding sentences are "The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium[....] All heavier elements, called ''[[metallicity|metals]]'' in astronomy, account for less than 2 percent of the mass", I think this is adequately explained. The use of the term "metals" in astronomy is confusing, but I think it really does simplify and clarify the discussion of chemical composition. I'm very open to suggestions for clarifying that section, of course. —Alex ([[User:Ashill|ASHill]] &#124; [[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Didn't know that, thanks for the clarification. Maybe you can add a link to the metallicity article? Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.222.17.101|195.222.17.101]] ([[User talk:195.222.17.101|talk]]) 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::The word "metals" is a link to the metallicity article. —Alex ([[User:Ashill|ASHill]] &#124; [[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== Color of the Sun ==

The uncited comment about the color of the Sun appearing yellow because the blue light is scattered in the sky (also explaining why the sky is blue) seems to be, at best, in dispute. I could not find a definitive reference in support of this, and my search found at least one dissenting opinion (the book "Bad Astronomy" by Philip C. Plait, 2002) which claims that the amount of blue light that is scattered is not enough to account for the perceived color shift. Is there a definitive reference that shows that the reason given here is correct? If not, I'd recommend rewriting or removing that claim. [[Special:Contributions/71.164.160.112|71.164.160.112]] ([[User talk:71.164.160.112|talk]]) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference that supports the claim and have added it to the article thanks for pointing it out! [[User:Skeletor 0|Skeletor 0]] ([[User talk:Skeletor 0|talk]]) 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Should it be 'The Sun' ==

A minor point, perhaps, but whenever we refer to this body, we always say 'The Sun', not 'Sun'. Note the heading above the image at the top of the page. I know there is an article called 'The Sun', for the UK newspaper. But that could become 'The Sun (newspaper)'.

Similarly with 'The Moon' - but unlike 'Earth' (although we sometimes say 'The Earth' but it doesn't sound right) and Mercury etc. The article does redirect when using the search term 'The Sun', but I think the article should be 'The Sun' and users should be redirected to it if they put in 'Sun'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jackins|Jackins]] ([[User talk:Jackins|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jackins|contribs]]) 10:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No. See [[WP:MOS#Article_titles]] and [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_the_definite_article_.28.22the.22.29_and_the_indefinite_article_.28.22a.22.2F.22an.22.29_at_the_beginning_of_the_page_name|WP:NAME]]. Articles are avoided unless part of a proper noun. Also, while my "we" may be different then your "we", we do not always use the name with the article, e.g. in "Our sun is a normal yellow dwarf". --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

==i cant edit==
...but i think [[Sunlight]] should go in the 'see also' section, (cos' it's relevant to those still here on this planet) . [[Special:Contributions/79.76.146.25|79.76.146.25]] ([[User talk:79.76.146.25|talk]]) 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:I added a wikilink to [[sunlight]] in the introduction to the article. The normal policy on Wikipedia is to avoid adding links to the 'see also' section that are included in the main text. Thanks for the suggestion, and please do create an account and make any edits you feel appropriate! (Normally, anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, but this article gets so much traffic and vandalism that editing without an account is disabled.) —Alex ([[User:Ashill|ASHill]] &#124; [[User_talk:Ashill|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ashill|contribs]]) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== Song Of The Sun ==

Bob Thomas and Huw Pudner have written "Song For The Sun" in a folk style ballad. Probably inspired by the heavy and persistent rain that fell in August 2008 and with inspiration from" The Worm Forgives The Plough" by John Stewart Collis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.11.213.153|82.11.213.153]] ([[User talk:82.11.213.153|talk]]) 15:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 15:05, 10 October 2008

For the silent film actress, see Molly Malone (actress).

"Molly Malone" (also known as "Cockles and Mussels" or "In Dublin's Fair City") is a popular song, set in Dublin, Ireland, which has become the unofficial anthem of Dublin City. It has also in Ireland acquired the status of an Irish anthem. The song is sung by supporters of Dublin GAA, Leinster Rugby teams, and the Irish international rugby team. It was also featured in the film, A Clockwork Orange.

Close-up of Molly Malone statue in Grafton Street, Dublin.

History

The song tells the tale of a beautiful fishmonger who plied her trade on the streets of Dublin, but who died young, of a fever. Recently a legend has grown up that there was a historical Molly, representing her variously as a hawker by day and part-time prostitute by night, or - in contrast - as one of the few chaste female street-hawkers of her day. However, there is no evidence that the song is based on a real woman who lived in the 17th century, or at any other time, despite claims that records of her birth and death have been located. The name "Molly" originated as a familiar version of the names Mary and Margaret. While many such "Molly" Malones were born in Dublin over the centuries, no evidence connects any of them to the events in the song.[1] The song was not recorded earlier than 1883, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, [2] and it was published (by Francis Brothers and Day, 1884, London) as a work written and composed by James Yorkston, of Edinburgh.[3]

Frank Harte, one of the great Dublin singers, who also sang this song, used to say: "Never judge a song by the company it keeps!"

The song is in a familiar tragi-comic mode popular in this period, probably influenced by earlier songs with a similar theme, such as Percy Montross's "My Darling Clementine", which was written circa 1880.

Lyrics

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sun&oldid=244382341"