Talk:Halley's Comet
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halley's Comet 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Halley's Comet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2010. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 25, 2014, May 25, 2016, December 25, 2018, and December 25, 2023. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Material from Comet appearances in china was split to Halley's Comet on 15 November 2016 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Comet appearances in china. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Considering nomination for FAR
[edit]I am considering nominating this article for Featured Article Review. Looking at the article talk page, it is apparent that nobody is taking care of the maintenance of this level-4 vital article. There has been a case of blatant vandalism that was introduced two months after the article was promoted to FA status, in March 2010, which broke the page syntax. The issue was raised on the talk page three months ago, with no replies. I just corrected it now, after it stood in the article for 14 years.[1]
This was just after I had tagged a claim about a historical observation of the comet as dubious (what to do about it remains to be discussed, see Talk:Halley's Comet#684 CE depiction?). That particular claim was popular since the 1960s, but was disproven in 1989. It stands in the article twice -- first with a source from 1985, and then a second time without a source. It was first introduced in January 2009,[2] and has remained completely unreferenced for a long time (only to be eventually referenced with an outdated source, rather than be removed). While not as outrageous as the vandalism, it suggests to me that this article has not been thoroughly reviewed in December 2009, or when it became a FA in 2010.
I didn't look very hard... What else is there that to be found that could disqualify this article from FA status? Renerpho (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to take this to FAR, I expect you to be here for the long haul. Your FAR of Sedna was a farce. You disappeared after 4 days and left me to carry the load for a clueless review team for eight solid months. And the article wasn't ultimately changed much at all. I fully expect this FAR to go exactly the same way. I hope you're willing to prove me wrong. Serendipodous 13:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: Following that last FAR, I said I'd probably not nominate anything for FAR again. I've been discussing this question off-wiki today, and I decided I won't nominate Halley's Comet, because that's an experience I don't want to repeat (for myself, and others).
- That doesn't mean that there aren't problems with the references for this article, beyond what I said before: Renerpho (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Resolved issues
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
Fixed problems in lede section[edit]
Fixed problems in Computation of orbit section[edit]
Fixed problems in Orbit and origin section[edit]
Fixed problems in Structure and composition section[edit]
General comments (fixed)[edit](None yet) Before 1066 (fixed)[edit]
1066 (fixed)[edit]
1145–1378 (fixed)[edit]
1835 (fixed)[edit]
1910 (fixed)[edit]
1986 (fixed)[edit]
After 1986 (fixed)[edit](None yet) 2061 (fixed)[edit]
Fixed problems in Apparitions section[edit]
Images[edit]
Shortened footnote template[edit]The article is citing sources in the bibliography, but is doing so inconsistently. I'd like to convert those to use the {{sfn}} template. Does anybody object? Praemonitus (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
|
To be done
[edit]I am moving the remaining issues down here, to keep the growing list a bit more manageable. Renerpho (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haved checked the following sections for problems: Renerpho (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lede: Done
- Computation of orbit: Done
- Orbit and origin: Done
- Structure and composition: Done
- History: Not done
- Apparitions: Not done
- Pending Our references "kronk", "Kronk2009", and cometography.com can all be combined into one if we just keep "Kronk2009" (with appropriate page numbers), which then could be put into the bibliography. Renerpho (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the knowledge of wiki markup to pull that off, so it would be simpler if you just did that. Serendipodous 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Problems in lede section
[edit]- Pending Do we need the other citation, for
is consistently visible to the naked eye from Earth
? The only reason I can think of why this may be challenged is a misinterpretation of the word consistently, and if that's the issue then maybe we should rephrase it. Renerpho (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- Thinking about it, the source may not actually support what we're saying. The difference is subtle; to quote our source:[45]
Among those comets that can be seen easily with the naked eye, Comet Halley, with an average period of 76 years, is the only one that returns in a single lifetime.
Our version isn't quite the same. For example, comet 12P/Pons-Brooks reached +3 mag in 1884, +6 mag in 1954,[46] and was visible to the naked eye again this year, at +4 mag.[47] There is a difference between "easy" and "consistent". What the article is saying right now is better than the version that was featured on the Main Page in 2010 ("the only naked-eye comet that might appear twice in a human lifetime"), which may just be wrong, but I think it's still not great... Renerpho (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, the source may not actually support what we're saying. The difference is subtle; to quote our source:[45]
Problems in Computation of orbit section
[edit]- Pending Quote:
a period that has since been found to vary between 74 and 79 years
-- The problems with that statement are already discussed elsewhere, compare "Problems in lede section" and "Problems in Orbit and origin section" (the period often gets larger than 79 years). Renerpho (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- I have changed this to say
between 72 and 80 years
, so that it agrees with what we say in the lede. We use slightly different numbers (74 to 80 years) in the introduction to the Orbit and origin section, but that comes with the qualifiers "has varied" (past tense; the number 72 is due to the 2134 apparition) and "since 240 BC". Our sources, including [48], generally go back further in time than that, so we may have to further qualify the time frame whenever we give a range of orbital periods. Compare [49], who calculate periods around 68 years for the late 2nd millennium BC. Renerpho (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed this to say
- Pending Walker (1985), currently ref. 64, goes into a bit of detail about the description in the Chinese chronicle from 240 BC. Apparently, that discovery was first announced in a French journal in 1846, and Walker notes that the 1984 (re)discovery of the Babylonian tablets "represents the first significant addition to our knowledge of the past history of the comet since the French publication of Chinese observations in 1846". The problem is that the Wikipedia article Records of the Grand Historian doesn't mention that 1846 paper, or what Walker's reference is about. The Chinese work was known before 1846, so what is it that was discovered that year? I cannot find the source. Stephenson doesn't provide any details either. Something important was published about Halley's comet in 1846 (likely important enough that we have to mention it), but I have no idea what it is. Renerpho (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about observational history
|
---|
|
Problems in Orbit and origin section
[edit]- Pending Quote from the article:
Another point of origin for the Halley-type comets was proposed in 2008, when a trans-Neptunian object with a retrograde orbit similar to Halley's was discovered, 2008 KV42, whose orbit takes it from just outside that of Uranus to twice the distance of Pluto. It may be a member of a new population of small Solar System bodies that serves as the source of Halley-type comets.
The source for this is currently Gladman (2009). However, Petit et al. (2017)[58] says that "these objects may point to a new source that feeds large-i TNOs into the planetary system (Gladman et al. 2009). This may simultaneously be the source of the Halley-type comets (see Levison et al. 2006)", so it seems they credit the idea to [59]. Whether that's justified or not, Levison's work is currently not referenced by our article, and I think it should be.
It's worth looking for dynamical studies that were published more recently, perhaps based on other objects. 2008 KV42 is no longer the only object of this kind (the Minor Planet Center lists 15 objects with similar orbits[60], most of them discovered in the last ten years). Renerpho (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) - Pending Quote:
Observations conducted around the time of Halley's appearance in 1986 suggested that the comet could additionally perturb the Eta Aquariids, although it might not be the parent of that shower.
That's blatant nonsense. The comet wouldn't be able to perturb a meteor shower (what mechanism would be at play for such a perturbation? gravity??), and it is very much the parent body of that shower. Why did the author expect an increase in Eta Aquariid activity during 1983-1986, when the shower is associated with outbursts that occurred during the 1st millennium AD? Why do we give WP:UNDUE weight to a single sentence written by an author who, as far as I can tell, has never published anything about astronomy before or since, and whose credentials are a secondary school? Is that article even peer-reviewed? Why not instead cite the seminal paper on the issue, Egal (2020)?[4] Renerpho (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- The offending section has been replaced. There may be ways to improve this (noted below), and I think it's worth doing so, but for now this looks alright. Renerpho (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a schematic in one of our sources, Hughes (1987), The History of Halley's Comet, page 104, figure 1. It shows how the Earth gets close to Halley's orbit twice a year, close enough to pass through the region that's filled with cometary dust particles. The caption says:
An annulus of dust surrounds the orbit of P/Halley and has been produced by the decay of the comet at previous apparitions. Earth intersects the annulus in October, when Halley dust is 'seen' as the agent responsible for the Orionid meteor shower and in April and early May as the Eta Aquarid shower. [...] In May the Earth passes within 0.065 AU of the comet orbit and in October within 0.154 AU.
Maybe we can create something similar to this figure, to accompany this section? Just an idea...Renerpho (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- In a short lecture about her 2020 paper that is available on YouTube,[61] Egal talks about that toroidal model described by Hughes. She shows that it doesn't explain the meteor showers associated with Halley's Comet, so I guess that figure in Hughes (1987) is outdated. Renerpho (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- A side-by-side comparison of sources:
- Quote from the American Meteor Society website:[62]
The meteors we currently see as members of the Eta Aquariid shower separated from Halley’s Comet hundreds of years ago. The current orbit of Halley’s Comet does not pass close enough to the Earth to be a source of meteoric activity.
- Quote from our (dubious) source:[63]
No increase was found in the frequency of fall of meteors in 1986, the year of Halley's comet. This showed that this meteor shower has not been formed from the debris left out by Halley's comet.
Yes, that's true, the debris released from Halley's Comet in 1986 wasn't responsible for the Eta Aquariids. Nobody expected them to be, that's not how meteor showers work. According to Auriane Egal, the particles we observe today were mostly released about 1500 to 5000 years ago (which is younger than the Orionids, but still far removed from any present-day activity). Her paper is linked above. Renerpho (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Problems in Structure and composition section
[edit]I've made a first pass of the first two paragraphs of this section (I'll look at the remaining two paragraphs later). A number of issues could be fixed immediately, see the list of "fixed" issues, and the recent revisions to the article, but many could not: Renerpho (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pending Quote:
Gas molecules in the coma absorb solar light and then re-radiate it at different wavelengths, a phenomenon known as fluorescence
-- There is no reference for this. I'd suggest to change the link to resonance fluorescence, and then select one of the papers from [64] as a citation. However, I'm not entirely sure if this isn't approaching WP:SYNTH territory. Note that neither of Comet, Comet tail or Coma (comet) mention the word "fluorescence", and doing so here could be undue. A search for articles that explicitly link the glow of comets to fluorescence brings up very few convincing results. Renerpho (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) - Pending Quote:
As a fraction of the gas molecules in the coma are ionized by the solar ultraviolet radiation
-- Our reference [65] mentions neither ionization nor UV radiation. Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC) - Pending Quote:
Ground-based observations of coma brightness suggested that Halley's rotation period was about 7.4 days. Images taken by the various spacecraft, along with observations of the jets and shell, suggested a period of 52 hours.
-- Here's what our source says about this (Keller et al., §2.2.5, p.216):[66] "Shortly after the encounters with Comet Halley, the rotation period of the nucleus was derived by comparing the various images during the three flybys. In a first-order approach, a stable rotation around the axis of maximum inertia (perpendicular to the long axis) was assumed (Wilhelm, 1987; Sagdeev et al., 1989). Fits were found for a period slightly above 50 h (2.2 d). Groundbased observations of the coma brightness variations yielded a period of about 7 d, but dynamical features (jets, shells) were in agreement with the 2.2-d periodicity. It is now widely assumed that the spin state of Comet Halley is excited, i.e., that the rotation is not in its energetic minimum and includes nutation (Sagdeev et al., 1989; Samarasinha and A’Hearn, 1991; Belton et al., 1991). There is no common understanding of the details (Keller and Jorda, 2002). Three flybys and a long series of groundbased observations were not sufficient to pin down the rotational parameters."
I think we should sight the papers mentioned there, and update our article accordingly. Right now, we neither discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy between groundbased and in-situ observations, nor the rest of what's known about Halley's rotation (including the ongoing debate about the details). And by the way, where did we get the figures of 7.4 days and 52 hours? Clearly not from the source we're citing... Renerpho (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the section (most issues with this could be fixed immediately): Renerpho (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pending Quote:
More recent work suggests that Halley will evaporate, or split in two, within the next few tens of thousands of years, or will be ejected from the Solar System within a few hundred thousand years.
-- The issue is the word "evaporate". I am conflicted on this one. I have changed most instances throughout the article from "evaporate" to "sublime", but this here seems to be a different sense of the word "evaporate", which could be acceptable. Opinions? Renerpho (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- From what I recall evaporate is the accepted term for the death of comets (its used for Kreutz sungrazers for example). Problem is its based on the dirty snowball model rater than the snowey dirtball one.©Geni (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this can be handled with a note that explains the meaning of the word, and what model it stems from? Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- From what I recall evaporate is the accepted term for the death of comets (its used for Kreutz sungrazers for example). Problem is its based on the dirty snowball model rater than the snowey dirtball one.©Geni (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
General comments
[edit]- Pending In his book The History of Halley's Comet (currently ref.31), David Hughes writes that "It's[sic] brightness near perihelion is such that, in any random selection of historic comets, P/Halley appears at the frequency of about 1 in 8." Ignoring the typo, I find that statement interesting, and suggest that we include it. We currently provide no context for the various collections of historical observations we use, and this would work nicely. Renerpho (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pending Ref.59 (a 2010 BBC News story) is based on an article in Journal of Cosmology,[67] which is not peer-reviewed, and is generally regarded as WP:FRINGE. BBC News may generally be reliable, but it's not useful for science news. Renerpho (talk)
- I've moved this back from the "fixed" section. This has made it into a lot of sources that we would generally regard as reliable. Phys.org talked about it, taking it at face value. NewScientist treats it as fact as well. Neither of them question the obvious problems with a source that isn't peer-reviewed, or with the fact that the lead author is a philosopher (not a historian or astronomer). Just ignoring this may not be feasible, and I think we have to mention it in some form. Taking it as truth isn't an option either. Renerpho (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion about the "Computation of orbit" section, particularly about the various studies by Cowell&Crommelin (1907-1910) and Pontécoulant (1829-1835), may inform how to deal with this. Renerpho (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- No mention of this that I can find doesn't cite the source. Serendipodous 19:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a trail of evidence that ultimately leads back to the fringe paper in every case I've looked at. If you find a source that doesn't depend on it, please let me know. Ideally something more than a pop-sci news article; something that's itself a peer-reviewed article. With the number of "reliable" sources (phys.org, bbc, newscientist etc) this has received enough coverage that someone could reasonably add it to the article, without noticing the problem at the root of all of this. My question is: Can we deal with this proactively, by mentioning the paper and the problems with it? Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No mention of this that I can find doesn't cite the source. Serendipodous 19:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion about the "Computation of orbit" section, particularly about the various studies by Cowell&Crommelin (1907-1910) and Pontécoulant (1829-1835), may inform how to deal with this. Renerpho (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've moved this back from the "fixed" section. This has made it into a lot of sources that we would generally regard as reliable. Phys.org talked about it, taking it at face value. NewScientist treats it as fact as well. Neither of them question the obvious problems with a source that isn't peer-reviewed, or with the fact that the lead author is a philosopher (not a historian or astronomer). Just ignoring this may not be feasible, and I think we have to mention it in some form. Taking it as truth isn't an option either. Renerpho (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not going to systematically check the sections about 1835 and earlier, until we have rewritten the Halley's Comet#Computation of orbit history, currently being discussed above (otherwise I risk wasting my time). For the years 1910 and later, here's what I have so far: Renerpho (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Before 1066
[edit](Currently none)
1835
[edit]- Pending Quote:
The time to Halley's return in 1910 would be only 74.42 years, one of the shortest known periods of its return, which is calculated to be as long as 79 years owing to the effects of the planets.
-- This relates to the issue of whether the orbital period ranges from 75-79 years, 72-80 years, or something else. Our source [68] for this sentence says:The period varies from appearance to appearance because of the gravitational effects of the planets. Measured from one perihelion passage to the next, Halley's period has been as short as 74.42 years (1835-1910) and as long as 79.25 years (451-530).
I propose that we rephrase the entire sentence, to get rid of the clumsy "is calculated to be" and the unspecified "effects of the planets", and give both times to 0.01 year precision. Renerpho (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
1910
[edit]- Pending Quote:
The 1910 visitation is also recorded as being the travelling companion of Hedley Churchward, the first known English Muslim to make the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca. However, his explanation of its scientific predictability did not meet with favour in the Holy City.
-- Our reference for this (Rosenthal, 1931) needs a page number. Right now, I cannot verify if anything like this is supported by the source. I'm not even sure what we're trying to say here, so I guess this will have to be expanded by at least another sentence or two. The only mention of the comet in our article about Hedley Churchward is this:Having arrived in Jeddah, Hedley encountered no problem with the officials and set off the following evening with two donkeys and a pilgrim guide with Halley's Comet a brilliant spectacle in the heavens.
It doesn't come with a reference; in fact, the entire story about Churchward's haj in that article is completely unreferenced. Renerpho (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rosenthal (1931) is here in a poor but mostly legible scan. AstroLynx (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Using the archive's search function, which works reasonably well despite the poor scan, here are two quotes from Rosenthal (1931) that could be relevant:
- Page 81:
Learned Mahomedans told me it was a very fortunate omen seeing that it occurred during my Pilgrimage. Every Arab I found studying the spectacle showed impressive reverence for the work of the Almighty. Throughout the journey, I beheld that wonderful belt of flame over the Northern sky and I think Halley’s Comet added a good deal to my prestige.
- Page 144:
Our talk drifted, and presently we looked at the comet. "These people," said the Matof
[pilgrim guide, ed.]pointing at his companions, "think yon are a lucky man to have come with such a stat."
- I find nothing about the reception of him trying to explain it scientifically, but maybe it's hidden somewhere (reading the whole book would take too long). Renerpho (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would have liked to ask the user who added this, but unfortunately it is from an IP who only made a single edit (08:53, 12 June 2016). Renerpho (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rosenthal (1931) is here in a poor but mostly legible scan. AstroLynx (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pending Quote:
Twain died on 21 April 1910, the day following the comet's subsequent perihelion.[126]
-- Our current ref.126 doesn't mention the comet. If the source is meant to be for the day of death the (which I don't think needs a source, but okay) then it should be put after the day of death. We'd still need a source that connects the time of the perihelion passage with Twain's passing, to avoid WP:SYNTH issues. Renerpho (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- All that sentence is doing is stating two facts. Any numenistic inferences are made solely in the mind of the reader. Serendipodous 19:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you serious? The entire story is based on such inferences. It is mere trivia without them, and if you're right then this should be removed entirely. Renerpho (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- All that sentence is doing is stating two facts. Any numenistic inferences are made solely in the mind of the reader. Serendipodous 19:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
1986
[edit]- Pending Quote:
Scheduled for March 1986, STS-61-E was a Columbia mission carrying the ASTRO-1 platform to study the comet
-- I would like to add a wiki-link for ASTRO-1, but I'm not sure what to use. The related article STS-35 does something strange, writing "ASTRO-1, a Spacelab observatory consisting of four telescopes", where the wiki-link for ASTRO-1 is a manual redirect to Astronomy. I find that a rather odd thing to do. Renerpho (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- ASTRO-1 consisted of four separate telescopes, and we have articles for two of them: Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope and Wisconsin Ultraviolet Photo-Polarimeter Experiment. The latter doesn't mention that it was part of the ASTRO-1 mission, while the former has a manual redirect from Astro-1 mission (sic) to STS-35. Neither mentions Halley's Comet, or that the mission had been delayed after the Challenger disaster. Renerpho (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
After 1986
[edit](Currently none)
2061
[edit](Currently none)
2134
[edit](Currently none)
Problems in Apparitions section
[edit]- Pending Our table is using Kinoshita and Yeomans as references. Yeomans is the general source for the Earth approach, and Kinoshita is used for some of the perihelion dates (also in the lede). Right now, Yeomans is our source for the Earth approach in 2061; it says nothing at all about that apparition. Kinoshita gives a distance (0.5543 au), but it is different from ours (0.477 au). Renerpho (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Yeomans, D. K.; Kiang, T (1981). "The long-term motion of comet Halley". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 197 (3). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 633–646.
- ^ Olson, Roberta J. M. (May 1979). "Giotto's portrait of Halley's Comet". Scientific American. 240 (5): 160–171.
- ^ a b c Chang, Y. C. (1979). "Halley's comet: Tendencies in its orbital evolution and its ancient history". Chinese Astronomy. 3 (1): 120–131. doi:10.1016/0146-6364(79)90084-7.
- ^ Egal, A.; Brown, P. G.; Rendtel, J.; Campbell-Brown, M.; Wiegert, P. (2020). "Activity of the Eta-Aquariid and Orionid meteor showers". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 640 (A58). arXiv:2006.08576. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038115.
Renerpho
[edit]Just to say dude, many of your issues are essentially nitpicks, and can be solved by you just, ya know, editing the article instead of flooding the talk page with novel-length verbiage. Serendipodous 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: You know how to tag someone, and that you could bring things to my user talk page instead if you wanted to talk to me. By creating a section with my name as the title, I assume you want to talk about me here? Let's discuss my edits, and how I should move forward. I'll try to keep this at below novel-length...
- There wouldn't be so much text if there weren't so many issues with this article. Are some of them nitpicks? Absolutely! I'm picking the article apart, and I believe that what I've brought up were valid problems. Sometimes it needs some digging to even find out if something is a problem or not. The article deserves that attention, even if it gets annoying (and I did get annoyed a few times[69]).
- I edit the article immediately if I see an obvious solution. I often got to solve things listed here myself, after some thought. Because of this article's Featured and Vital Article status, I tend to be extra thorough with documenting issues (and progress), and maybe more nitpicky with them. I am aware of that. I have done what I could to keep the talk page section as tidy as possible. You may notice, for instance, that I've kept track of fixed problems (for each of the issues you've fixed I say thank you). I had considered at several points to copy the article and this talk page into my sandbox, and work on it there. If the consensus is that that's a good idea, I'll consider it again. It is my own belief that it would result in progress to cease entirely, and in all the problems to be buried again. I very much appreciate the discussions I've had here with, for example, AstroLynx. There has been good progress, and I believe that neither of us could have resolved some of those issues on our own.
- I have put a lot of work into this article over the past two weeks. Most of that isn't documented on-wiki, but where it relates to a specific issue with the article, it will be brought up here. I can afford doing that work right now, because I'm interested in the subject and because it's my free time, but of course I won't keep doing it at this pace. There will be breaks, and things will naturally slow down. I intend to continue "nitpicking", if that's what you want to call it (I am in this for the long haul, if needed). But I don't have to, if what I'm doing is nonproductive. Is that the case?
- I don't expect as much as a "thank you", but I hope that the work I've done here so far is appreciated. I've enjoyed it, and it would be a shame if an article with so much potential was kept in its current, unfinished state. Renerpho (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I would find it a lot easier to answer your issues if I could read the text without getting overwhelmed. Serendipodous 12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Understandable. Would merely slowing down help already? Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That would be great. Serendipodous 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That can be arranged (in fact, it was unavoidable). Renerpho (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you collapse the fixed section so I don't have to scroll through it? Serendipodous 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Renerpho (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you collapse the fixed section so I don't have to scroll through it? Serendipodous 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That can be arranged (in fact, it was unavoidable). Renerpho (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That would be great. Serendipodous 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Renerpho: I've addressed most of your issues. It would help if you could trim the finished material. Serendipodous 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: Thank you! Hopefully I can work on that tomorrow. Renerpho (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Renerpho:: Have you had a chance yet? Serendipodous 16:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'd have been the first to see it. I haven't forgotten. Please be a bit more patient. Renerpho (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: I am starting to look through the changes. Sections "computation of orbit" and "orbit and origin" done, no problems found so far... Sorry for the wait. Renerpho (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'm done - thanks for the changes, both addressing some of the problems here, and for the many smaller fixes. Let me know if I've missed anything, especially if I've missed changes that are related to problems raised above. Renerpho (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: I'd appreciate it if you replied to my replies. Serendipodous 10:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: Done. I've moved some to the "fixed" section, and commented on the rest. Renerpho (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)\
- @Renerpho: I'd appreciate it if you replied to my replies. Serendipodous 10:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'm done - thanks for the changes, both addressing some of the problems here, and for the many smaller fixes. Let me know if I've missed anything, especially if I've missed changes that are related to problems raised above. Renerpho (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Serendipodous: I am starting to look through the changes. Sections "computation of orbit" and "orbit and origin" done, no problems found so far... Sorry for the wait. Renerpho (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
External links
[edit]- Some things just grow by incremental edits and get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
- The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
- ELpoints #3) states:
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of e external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
- LINKFARM states:
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
- ELMIN:
Minimize the number of links
. -- - ELCITE:
Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
- Please note:
- WP:ELBURDEN:
Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them
.
- Links should be added in an external links section
that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
(2nd paragraph of lead) - The This page in a nutshell:
External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
- Move excessive links here (from article) for possible discussion.
- cometography.com
- 1P/Halley at CometBase database
- A brief history of Halley's Comet (Ian Ridpath) -- Otr500 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Otr500. I think everything except the seds.org link and the collection of 1910 photos can go. Seds includes a large number of useful links, including (but not limited to) images. The two images we are currently linking in the EL section are the ones that are not in seds, which I believe is the reason they are their own separate EL's. The name for the 1910 photographs page can be shortened, but I find that link useful. That said, I think the first of the two links to the Giotto image (currently in the EL's) can be removed as well. The two links are to different versions of the same photograph, and the second one is a lot more useful than the other.
- Cometography is already in the bibliography, and is also cited in the references. We don't also need it as an EL. The CometBase link does nothing but promote hotels in New Mexico. And the "brief history" is just one of the sub-pages from Ridpath's website. Other sub-pages are cited multiple times in the references. If his "history" was particularly useful then surely we'd have cited that, too. Renerpho (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The EL to Halley's 1706 article led to a random page in that book for no apparent reason. I've just changed it so it actually leads to the first page of the relevant article. Renerpho (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the link to JPL's ephemeris page may be worth keeping, too. I can see myself using that one. The orbital simulation is useless though. Renerpho (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Greeting Renerpho. So there is no confusion please add links you have determined acceptable in the subsection below. I have been performing maintenance to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. The same links have been used hundreds, but probably more than likely multiple hundreds of times, inundating Wikipedia.
- I have now paused at 2016 Heinemann.-- Otr500 (talk)
- @Otr500: Done. I think many asteroid articles were created by the same user, based on a template they used. The lists of minor planets have many issues (I have commented on some at Talk:List of minor planets#Dubious diameters and broken links). Good luck with those pages. Renerpho (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Links determined acceptable
[edit]A discussion has determine some links are acceptable. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- seds.org
- Photographs of 1910 approach from the Lick Observatory Records Digital Archive
- Ephemeris from JPL
Every article
[edit]- Side note: An issue I have is editors (or bots if programed) putting the same links on every like article all across Wikipedia, sometimes in the multiple-thousands, like Find a Grave and IMDb. This is not needed, required, and certainly at a point not encyclopedic. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Otr500: I agree in principle. Do you have a relevant example? Findagrave and IMDb aren't exactly common on astronomy articles. Renerpho (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- First, I do not have an issue with the sites themselves. I have long maintained I like them and have used them personally, -- BUT -- there should be a reason an external link is included in an article and not just blanket used on thousands of sites. General links, non-specific to an article, should never be used as it give an unmistakable appearance of advertising or other forms of promotion. To me, and I can't be alone, people will pay to have their individual bio's on Wikipedia, then it is not a stretch to see companies paying for their website to be promoted multiple thousands of times. Many consider this type of inundation spamming. I use multiple "External links" policies and guidelines for removing spammed or excessive links.
Article inundation evidence
[edit]- The not too subtle "External links" abuse resulted in the 2010 External links/Perennial websites. While I don't think I edited the page I was involved in a fair amount of behind the scenes (Top editors section) work by "added text".
- One example: Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people/A. Please note: 1)- this list is just one example of many. 2)- the wording under the "Guidelines" section,
This list was provided to us by the Find a Grave founder
. I am not against this type of listing, or the project, as a starting point to research article creation. It became abused, especially when gung-ho editors started mass creating links on many articles of dead people, either with a)-just Find a Grave as a sole source in the "External links" section, b)- under-sourced articles where Find a Grave was shown to be violating copyright laws at worst and too close paraphrasing at best. - People who had recently passed away had articles created using the site alone, or poorly sourced, violating our BLP policy. I ran across the above list when looking for info on #23, Larry Arthur (Arthur Langston) on IMDb. and on Ancestry. Both of these show "Generally unreliable source" when the cursor is placed on them.
- Check out the references for List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, a list of a lot of living people. Just pick randomly like Ashlyn Martin. The reliability is questionable but I guess viewing the reference makes good eye candy. This becomes more evident when checking the references of List of Playboy Playmates of 1961. All are only sourced with "Playmate data". Wikipedia is not censored but link after link of basically little information and nude photographs! I do not fault the project, as some articles are far more referenced like List of Playboy Playmates of 2009. The Playmate data is replaced with "playmate listing" as with current reference #23.
- The main issue is not the intent of the various projects in general, which I am certain helped grow Wikipedia, but that once set up there is little or no internal review. Maintenance is years behind article creation so we end up with many hundreds, more than likely many thousands (of thousands), of articles with the "External links" section bloated (some to the extreme) or improperly sourcing articles especially BLP's.
- It only takes a few clicks like Moon (first click as randomly chosen), that is a "A featured article", with 20 "External links" in two sections:
- NASA images and videos about the Moon
- Albums of images and high-resolution overflight videos by Seán Doran, based on LROC data, on Flickr and YouTube
- Video (04:56) – The Moon in 4K (NASA, April 2018) on YouTube
- Video (04:47) – The Moon in 3D (NASA, July 2018) on YouTube
Cartographic resources
[edit]- Unified Geologic Map of the Moon – United States Geological Survey
- Moon Trek – An integrated map browser of datasets and maps for the Moon
- The Moon on Google Maps, a 3-D rendition of the Moon akin to Google Earth
- "Consolidated Lunar Atlas". Lunar and Planetary Institute. Retrieved February 26, 2012.
- Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature (USGS). List of feature names.
- "Clementine Lunar Image Browser". U.S. Navy. October 15, 2003. Archived from the original on April 7, 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.
- 3D zoomable globes:
- "Google Moon". 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.
- "Moon". World Wind Central. NASA. 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.
- Aeschliman, R. "Lunar Maps". Planetary Cartography and Graphics. Archived from the original on May 29, 2015. Retrieved April 12, 2007. Maps and panoramas at Apollo landing sites.
- Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Kaguya (Selene) images
- Lunar Earthside chart (4497 x 3150px). Archived October 30, 2020, at the Wayback Machine.
- Large image of the Moon's north pole area. Archived August 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.
Observation tools
[edit]- "NASA's SKYCAL – Sky Events Calendar". NASA. Archived from the original on August 20, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007.
- "Find moonrise, moonset and moonphase for a location". 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2008.
- "HMNAO's Moon Watch". 2005. Archived from the original on February 4, 2009. Retrieved May 24, 2009. See when the next new crescent moon is visible for any location.
Options
[edit]- The option I choose are from mild to extreme, usually depending on current activity and class. I will either: 1)-trash the entire list except sometimes picking the three best looking, or 2)- leave a talk page section like Talk:Moon#External links.
- This is three examples, four including the inundation of the same links on these like articles, of abuse. It is a very large problem with apparently none or limited editorial maintenance. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Otr500: I'm sorry, but I still don't see what you want us to do? I have now added back the 3 links deemed acceptable, per the above. I think there's a good reason to have all 5 links that are currently listed, so how is all of what you just wrote relevant to the Halley's Comet article? Renerpho (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reply: I apologize. The "we" in the comments stumped me for a minute. I did miss the rationale for the sites "you" added back per your comments on Friday at 8:39 pm, 6 September 2024. The confusion was the adding three "back" to the others now meaning five links. I have been working in the "External links" section for over 10 years. Sometimes I receive push-back that has even resulted in me being brought to ANI a couple of times on false pretenses. I was even told one time that there was not a snowball chance in hell that I would get an article renamed to the most commonly used name. Not only are there apparently snowballs in hell now, I have been successful in making a point, from the beginning, not to make mistakes resulting in being blocked or banned.
- I am not a strictly "toe the line" person. While some variances are I great think there does need to be some consistency. I love the idea of collaboration but so many times there have been editors, right or wrong, that seems to like battles, and this has been on stub, start, and c-class articles. This happened a lot until I start adding the above policies and guidelines before action.
- I do not have a problem with an occasional deviation from the "three, or four with consensus", to five with valid reasoning. Thank you for your involvement. I will leave the subject in your hands. Again, thanks for your taking the time to be involved with reviewing and action. You are a scholar and gentleperson. LOL (actually LMAO} - I might need to brush up on my politically correct word usage. "Gentleperson" looks like a mistype of "gentle person" which doesn't seem to confer the same meaning as "a scholar and gentleman". Anyway, have a great day, -- Otr500 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- FA-Class Solar System articles
- Top-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report