Talk:Aurora

Could there be a bit clearer summary for amateurs?

I went to this article to confirm that auroras are indeed solar wind particles hitting upper atmosphere particles, exciting them and emitting energy in the form of light. However, it's really hard to find this information in the article, it's quite obfuscated. There is various talk of "disturbances in the magnetosphere" and "particles altering trajectories" and "interaction of solar wind and magnetosphere". I mean, I am sure it's all scientifically correct, but isn't the basic fact of particles hitting particles a bit more understandable to the average reader? I guess it requires a brave person to make such an edit. Jackissimus (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Aurora

Is an aurora dangerous? Is an aurora dangerous? 122.161.52.154 (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you are in the wrong place. This section is for discussing the article itself, not asking questions about the article. To answer your question, no an aurora is not dangerous. Luna Wagner (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Earliest depiction of Auroras

"The earliest depiction of the aurora may have been in Cro-Magnon cave paintings of northern Spain dating to 30,000 BC."

Is there a real source for this instead of The Times' "20 surprising facts you might not know about the northern lights" ? I couldn't find anything myself except maybe a scientific ebook stuck behind a paywall. Anyway right now it doesn't seem very trustworthy Absobel (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Absobel. I have access to the ebook. From page 12: Some of the drawings made by the Cro-Magnon people on the walls and ceilings of caves in southern France most probably depict the northern lights. These drawings date back 30,000 years. It is not mentioned whether these are the earliest depictions, however.

I have found the full claim repeated in two other books, 1, 2. Both cite Siscoe 1976, which does not appear to be available online. For now, I think it will be sufficient to cite 1, but it would be great if another editor could check Siscoe's paper to verify. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 ^talk_contribs 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Earth

Remove any specifications lf Earth. Aurorae can happen in any atmosphere, even some stars, such as brown dwarves. 199.45.195.249 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We live on earth, so I believe it is highly relevant to talk about aurora on earth primarily. It is good to mention that they may also occur in other atmospheres, but not enough to warrant removing earth from the article. Luna Wagner (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Use one plural

Currently the article uses both plural forms (aurorae and auroras). I am of the opinion that it would be better to use only one plural. My preference is auroras, but either is fine. Luna Wagner (talk)

Subject-subject agreement

In the first paragraph, the Northern Lights are equated to the Aurora Borealis. However, aurora itself is singular, as stated earlier in said paragraph. Could someone please change those instances to Aurorae? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e As you can see in the Google Ngram Viewer, both aurora borealis and northern lights are more common than aurorae [sic] borealis and northern light [sic], respectively. Mat0329Lo (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo Thus? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e It's more important for Wikipedia to adhere to a policy of descriptivism rather than attempt to prescribe to a never-used 'correct" term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, attempting to reflect the world, WP:NOT attempting to pontificate its own reality. Mat0329Lo (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo Me and you would both agree that which reflects the world to not necessarily correct. If that does not matter, then what is the point of regulatory authorities, such as those of the French Academy or for sport, say badminton? Or Wikipedia? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e Not everybody subscribes to the Académie Française, like on the case of oignon 'onion' and ognon. Wikipedia also relies heavily on common usage, like with the Chinese Communist Party (common usage, not sanctioned by the party) and the Communist Party of China (officially-sanctioned translation, not commonly used). Mat0329Lo (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo So are you saying that the Académie Française is irrelevant? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e I'm saying that prescriptivism isn't exactly something that is welcomed, in the world overall (Académie Française) or in Wikipedia (Communist Party of China). Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@[User:Mat0329] Thus, in your view, if the object cases me and you are used as subjects instead of the subject cases you and I have acquired widespread usage, then should style guides (as the English language has no regulatory authority) recommend me and you instead of you and I? 1P4S5e (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e Then why have many styles guides changed from Internet to internet, or accepted the singular they? Mat0329Lo (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo How does that relate to my question? 1P4S5e (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e That is to say, we do not necessarily follow the "officially-prescribed" guidelines. Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

To relate back to your original problems with aurora borealis and northern lights, why is it that northern lights and aurora borealis be two different names for the same thing? Why can aurora borealis not be interpreted by some as a single meteorological light, while northern lights be interpreted as several different types of lights in the same event? They are, after all, two different names for the same thing, and equally valid names for the same thing. Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, guidelines are fluid and flexible. Just as yesterday's to go boldly is today's to boldly go, today's you and I could as well be tomorrow's me and you. Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo If the two are equated to each other and yet are singular and plural, respectively, then that is absolutely and most definitely incorrect. To go boldly and to boldly go have the same meaning, whilst the Northern Lights and an Aurora Borealis do not. Nor is singular and plural simply "guidelines." Any graduate of first grade would understand that a car and two cars are different things, regardless of language. Also, even if Northern Lights and Aurora Borealis are more common than Northern Light and Aurorae Borealis, that does not mean the two should be equated. After all, if a majority believe in the flat earth, that does not, by any means, turn the third rock from the Sun flat. Whilst one might argue that language is fluid and, if understandable, despite being incorrect in the eyes of grammaticians and myself, valid, then that same view would render any regulatory authority or style guide obsolete. Do you believe so? 1P4S5e (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e Would you not, however, agree that aurora borealis and northern lights both refer to the same thing? Would you not agree that it would be more useful to the average person to equate the two? Mat0329Lo (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo Do car and cars both refer to the same thing? Also, just because two words refer to the same thing, that does not mean that they equated to each other. 1P4S5e (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e

...Also commonly known as the northern lights (aurora borealis) or southern lights (aurora australis),(The aurorae seen in northern latitudes, around the Arctic, can be referred to as the northern lights or aurora borealis, while those seen in southern latitudes, around the Antarctic, are known as the southern lights or aurora australis. Polar lights and aurora polaris are the more general equivalents of these terms.)

Do you not agree that, in this quotation, they refer to the same thing as much as math and maths? Mat0329Lo (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo Math and maths both are abbreviated forms of mathematics, are they not? 1P4S5e (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e Aurora borealis and northern lights both are names for an aurora that occurs near the north pole, are they not? Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Math and maths are both the abbreviated form of a plural noun, whilst the Aurora Borealis and Northern Lights are singular and plural respectively. Thus the former terms may be equated, whilst the latter terms may not. 1P4S5e (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e However, are they nevertheless names for the same phenomenon? Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If Volkswagen and Volkswagens are names for cars of the same line, then yes. Yet how does that relate? Simply because the two are both names for the same phenomenon, that does not mean they should be equated, as is done in the above quotation you so graciously provided. 1P4S5e (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e I would like to point out to the Most Honorable Gentleman from Somewhere that the term aurora borealis seems to be uncountable in English. I apologize to My Honorable Friend that I could not find a source that My Friend may find more acceptable, knowing him, as little sources even mention aurorae borealis (note: not aurorae by itself, but rather the entire phrase). Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Aurora borealis is not English, my friend. Invoke whatever god you may for this debate, yet you can not, nor will ever be able to equate a singular term to a plural term. Enjoy your evening. 1P4S5e (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e Neither are the terms maître d'hôtel or naïve, but I should think that the Honorable Gentleman (who should please have the courtesy to mention me) should review a small term called loanwords. Mat0329Lo (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo The want-to-be- yet-not-so-Honourable Gentleman from Old Sarum at most should at least consider how maître d'hôtel or naïve relate to his argument. 1P4S5e (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@1P4S5e The Gentleman should at least consider that it may be possible for a language to adopt words from other languages in this fashion. Mat0329Lo (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As to the Gentleman's assertion that it should be impossible to equate a plural with a singular, I should consult the word zucchini, which is commonly used in the singular in English, but comes from the Italian plural zucchini. Mat0329Lo (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo Key word: commonly. 1P4S5e (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Given how great the margins are on my use of the word commonly, compared to something like the use of CPC vs CCP, I'd think that since Wikipedia generally has turned to popular usage for something with far smaller margins, the Honorable Gentleman should agree with me that the word commonly in this case should be a good support for my argument.

Even disregarding my commonality argument, I deign to propose to the Honorable Gentleman that my proposition that it is uncountable in English should be as good as an argument. Mat0329Lo (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I should deign to remove the phrase northern light from consideration in my Ngram viewer since it could commonly be used in a sense other than that which we are speaking currently (as in the northern light shined in my face, meaning the light from the north shined in my face), and I hope that the Gentleman should be satisfied with these margins of common usage. Mat0329Lo (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo I would like to hear the Honourable Gentleman's opinion on whether scientific terms are English or Latin. 1P4S5e (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I should dare to assume, given that it is embedded in an English article, that it should be interpreted as English in this case. Mat0329Lo (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mat0329Lo Non-English terms exist in English Wikipedia articles. Also, I am asking whether or not scientific terms are English or Latin, embedded within Wikipedia or otherwise. 1P4S5e (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I would dare to point out to the Honourable Gentleman that Wikipedia normally uses a language tag when embedding foreign tongues for accessibility and other purposes, as in Latin: Latine, but in this case, it has been left bare.

So, in this case, I would use it as in English, or according to the customs that the scientific community has adopted, in this case, aurora borealis. Mat0329Lo (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

comment

I suggest to add the transitions responsible for the two oxygen lines.

I have wondered why the green line is not produced at top height, since the shorter lifetime [oh, I would like to see word lifetime after 0.7 and 107 s] should make it always stronger. I feel that the collisions with N2 may supply more energy to O than the mechanisms active above, so may populate the 2nd excited level (1S) and not only the first (1D). If I am correct, the red transition is NOT suppressed as says the article, is simply masked by the green one.

Also adding the spectroscopic name of the N2 transition is welcomed.

Excuse my poor english - I have no more access to the university library (I am aged) and I cannot find the needed references in the books that I knew.

pietro151.29.78.113 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Virginian Lights??"

There is a new section of the Aurora page called The Virginian Lights that has no sources, and I'm skeptical that it is entirely AI or a hoax. It has a lot of language that is irrelevant and unscientific for an article of this nature, and all of the images are from June 2024. Online searches yielded no results on the topic-- not even the Wikipedia page itself showed up when using quotations. It's very odd to me, but I could be mistaken.

I really don't know enough about this topic at all to confirm. Is anyone able to take a look? MayaIn3D (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

N Deleted No citations & no results in a Google search means WP:DONTHOAX applies. Peaceray (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)