Talk:Halley's Comet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Old talk

If it's "more generally known as Halley's Comet", why isn't the article called that? -- Zoe

Because "Comet Foo" is the 'official' way comets are referred to, so all the other comets in Wikipedia have articles named that way, and Comet Halley just wants to fit in? :) Bryan
Isn't Wikipedia's dictum that we should call things what people expect them to be called? -- Zoe
As long as Halley's Comet is a redirect to this article, then, IMO, that should work fine. --Andrew

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. Duja► 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comet Halley → Halley's Comet — Use most common name per WP:NC. I've never heard anyone call this Comet Halley anywhere ever. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support Votes

  • Strong support - Halley's Comet is what I've seen it as my whole life, and a google search confirms that "Halley's Comet" is the most common usage. —Mets501 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Like above, I've only known it as Halley's Comet. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- google shows 2:1 usage of "Halley's", it's clear that the "modern" form is growing in usage but it isn't most common yet. Arguments for putting it at a formal name point to "1P/Halley", not "Comet Halley". --Dhartung | Talk 11:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Serge 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per previous arguments. —  AjaxSmack  01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - "Halley's Comet" is the more common name. Even professional astronomers use the term (as a search with the ADS Abstract Sevice reveals). Using the naming convention followed by other Wikipedia comet articles will simply confuse people (including professional astronomers). GeorgeJBendo 07:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — I've always seen it conventionally written as "Halley's Comet", rather than "Comet Halley". So I'm swinging to the former as the well-known version. — RJH (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Both Comet Halley and Halley's Comet are used generally, and we should use the most popular one (per WP:NC). Awolf002 16:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Halley's Comet is what most people will be searching for. --Fournax 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Votes

  • Oppose — This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest controlled by Google hits. Comet Hyakutake is not called "Hyakutake's Comet" because the International Astronomical Union determines official names. It is the only "X's Comet" because it was the first identified periodic comet ... all others are called "Comet X" after their discoverer. "Popular name" notwithstanding, this is the scientific name used in astronomical magazines and textbooks, and the name people should be using in the 21st Century. (Just because I was called "colored" when I was in elementary school in the 1950s does not mean that it is still the appropriate way to refer to me.) The current redirect is sufficient. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    But there is a Manual of Style, which states article names should use the most common name. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Comet Halley" is widely used, and also the article naming conventions for astronomical objects says this article should be 1P/Halley. 132.205.44.134 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    But it wasn't till 1994 that the system was implemented. Haley's Comet was found long before that, and was originally named Haley's Comet, and is also what most people know it by. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment-Although started in 1994, it's been applied retrospectively. All comets have a new-style designation. In this case, however, Halley's Comet is perhaps the most common. Richard B 11:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント mentions the Manual of Style, which states that the article name should reflect what "the average user of the Wikipedia (would) put into the search engine". However, I do not believe that the intention of that rule is to "dumb down" article names - articles that refer to specific objects should reflect the true, scientific, accepted name of the object, and have redirects from the commonly-used name(s). On that note, I would be in favour of renaming the article "1P/Halley" - I notice that the other periodic comets are so named. Chrisobyrne 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The use of common names to identify astronomical objects is common practice, even among professional astronomers. It does not "dumb down" anything. To the contrary, the practice allows both professional astronomers and the general public to more quickly identify the objects in question. For example see my paper on the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594). GeorgeJBendo 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Frankly, this is an archetypical tempest in a teapot. The name is Halley's Comet and Comet Halley and 1P/Halley (my preference). They're all correct. ("Haley's Comet" would be wrong, for example). Long live redirects! Urhixidur 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Response to 141.156.240.102 (talk · contribs): Actually, if you read WP:NC, naming of articles is a popularity contest. I'll take a wild guess and say 95% of people looking for this article will type "Halley's Comet" in the search and expect the article title to be "Halley's Comet". That's what I did the other day and I was shocked to see the name reversed. That shock to 95% of the population (yes, wild guess again) is what we're trying to avoid here. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What shocked you? That the scientific community calls it "Comet Halley"? Should the fact be hidden because it is not what you are expecting? One of the jobs of an encyclopedia is to correct misinformation, and that this object is called "Halley's Comet" is misinformation. Maybe the article needs a section on the history of the name of this object, and why it has had its name changed? Chrisobyrne 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
From the support comment by George J. Bendo (talk · contribs) above, it sounds like your assertion here is questionable at best. Even it were correct, does that mean we should move Heartburn to Pyrosis and LSD to Lysergic acid diethylamide and HIV to Human immunodeficiency virus? Very few of us here are scientists. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the page on Heartburn, there is a suggestion that it be merged with the article Gastroesophageal reflux disease. If the merge goes ahead, should the merged article "gastroesophageal reflux disease" be renamed "heartburn"? As for LSD - yes, I like knowing that LSD is actually "lysergic acid diethylamide", and I don't see any problem with a link to "lysergic acid diethylamide" being included on the (necessary) disambiguation page on LSD. If you look up a dead-tree encyclopedia, is the entry for the drug under "LSD" or is it under "Lysergic acid diethylamide"? HIV - ditto - though a redirect is all that is needed. Finally, of course very few of us are scientists - I didn't know that heartburn had an official scientific name until a few minutes ago - but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should support our misconceptions, and neither does it make it necessary for an encyclopedia to support those misconceptions. I would have found the page on pyrosis if I had entered "heartburn", and you found the page on the comet even though you entered "Halley's Comet", and that is the way I think it should be. Chrisobyrne 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am a scientist (look up "Bendo" on the ADS Abstract Service), and I still use the phrase "Halley's Comet" to refer to Halley's Comet / Comet Halley. GeorgeJBendo 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm also a trained scientist (though not a professional) and it is my understanding that "Halley's Comet" is incorrect. It is your choice to use this terminology, but I don't think an encyclopedia should support an incorrect terminology. Chrisobyrne 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (facetious) - Did anyone else notice that when you type "Lou Gehrig’s Disease", there is a redirect to Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? I was Really Shocked when I was redirected ... maybe one of the luddites would like to propose that it's title be changed as well. ;-) —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Big difference - I've heard it referred to as ALS. I've never ever heard of this comet referred to as Comet Halley. The research here showing its usage still seems to come from scientific magazines and astronomy sources, not from "luddite" sources. I didn't write WP:D and WP:NC, I'm just interpreting it - and when I do, it says to use the most commonly used name as the name of the article. No reference to luddite or level of correctness or what technical terms you'll discover. The point is that whatever will cause a redirect to be used less often is what should be used for the article name. Simple as that. If lysergic acid diethylamide were used as an article name, the resulting redirect from LSD would be used 98% of the time. That's bad according to WP:D and WP:NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just after doing a Google Search. "Comet Halley" has 184,000 hits or so, whereas "Halley's Comet" has 398,000 or so. Interestingly, the first four hits for "Halley's Comet" are all entitled "Comet Halley" (the fourth is Wikipedia), and the seventh hit is entitled "1P/Halley". In all, 6 of the first 10 hits for "Halley's Comet" are "Comet Halley" in some form or other. So it would appear that at least some of the 398,000 hits are generated by the fantastic algorithms at Google (which manage to realise that "Halley's Comet" is actually "Comet Halley"), and by people putting the phrase "Halley's Comet" into a web page that they entitled "Comet Halley". The reverse also applies, but to a much smaller degree - only one of the first 10 hits for "Comet Halley" is "Halley's Comet". So "Halley's Comet" is probably the more popular by a ratio of something like 3:2. Still, I would rather think that Wikipedia would prefer correctness over popularity, especially when the popularity isn't that overwhelming. Chrisobyrne 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try adding -wikipedia to the search. Some nontrivial percentage of what you're finding are mirrors of this article. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. There are about 9,000 wikipedia mirrors (!) - the hits for "Comet Halley" went from 184,000 to 175,000. The hits for "Halley's Comet" were unaffected. So I think 3:2 is still probably fairly reasonable. Chrisobyrne 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more like 2:1, no? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The move

I'm trying to understand the arguments about the move of this article to "Halley's Comet". As I understand it, the difference between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia is that accuracy is more important than avoiding redirects for the latter, whereas (presumably for technical reasons) Wikipedia would rather sacrifice accuracy in order to avoid redirects. If that is the case, should Los Angeles not be renamed L.A. or even LA? Of course, the answer depends on how many times the redirects from LA and L.A. to Los Angeles are used. Which leads me to an observation - surely all of these "move" requests could be answered by looking at the log files for Wikipedia and asking the question "how many times are the redirects used"? Is there a way of finding out how many times the redirect from "Halley's Comet" to "Comet Halley" was used? (Or, now that the move has happened, how many times the redirect in the other direction is happening)? Chrisobyrne 10:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing :). The articles' URL is now ..../Halley's_Comet, which I can (now) understand, as it (presumably) prevents redirects. However, the title of the article is "Halley's Comet", which is simply wrong. Is there a way of correcting the article's title without changing the URL? Chrisobyrne 11:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The redirects issue was stated conceptually. If a redirect is used more often than the article name, that would be an indicator that it is the most often used search term - and therefore it should be the actual article name. Looking at server logs would probably be very misleading since "Comet Halley" has been the Wikipedia link in all of the search engines for however long as well as the links within Wikipedia.
The title of the article was the point of the move request so I don't understand what you're saying about it being "simply wrong".
I highly doubt that more people would use L.A. or LA to try to find Los Angeles. But, people would be more likely to use NASA than National Aeronautics and Space Administration to find NASA, which is why a move request for NASA → National Aeronautics and Space Administration failed recently. It was pretty much a duplicate of the discussion here with people disregarding WP:D and WP:NC and insisting that Deoxyribonucleic acid would be a better article title than just DNA. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You said that "the title of the article was the point of the move request". I thought the point of the move request was the reduction of redirects. Are the two inextricably linked? Because there shouldn't be any need for them to be! You also said that you "don't understand what I'm saying about it being simply wrong". The officially recognised body for naming astronomical objects is the International Astronomical Union, and they call it "Comet Halley", and designate it "1P/Halley". "Halley's Comet" doesn't figure in their naming scheme, and is therefore wrong. Popular, but wrong. Chrisobyrne 14:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The two are linked - in my interpretation of the guidelines anyway. If a redirect is always being followed to an article, the article is in the wrong place. As far as an officially recognized body, the International Astronomical Union was formed in 1919 whereas Edmond Halley died in 1742 and predicted the return of the comet in 1758 so I'd question how official "Comet Halley" really is!  :) The bottom line is that we're trying to make the encyclopedia accessible to everyone, not just astronomers. Try to consider a school kid doing a report on Halley's Comet and trying to explain why Wikipedia shows it as "Comet Halley" when no one in the room, including the teacher, has ever heard that term. The idea of calling a bear, Ursidae, or the Andromeda Galaxy, Messier 31, is unnecessary in the best cases and pompous in the worst. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There are two different issues here - one is the URL / search engine location of the article (ie whether a redirect is necessary), and the other is the title of the article (ie what is displayed at the top of the page). You seem to be saying that it's not possible for Wikipedia to have an article where the two are different - frankly, I would consider that to be a shortcoming of Wikipedia. I don't see any technical or other reason why an article cannot be accessed with "Halley's Comet" and yet be entitled "Comet Halley". You also question the authority of the International Astronomical Union - I'm afriad that they are the official body. You may recall that they also recently decided that Pluto is no longer a planet, and Wikipedia (quite rightly) has been updated to reflect the change, in spite of the fact that the decision has been described in some circles in terms similar to "pompous" . I don't see why the name of this comet should be an exception to Wikipedia following the decisions of the union. Finally, regarding your hypothetical school kid, isn't it the point of an encyclopedia to teach you new things? Just because the teacher didn't ever hear about "Comet Halley" doesn't make it any less valid. Couldn't the reasoning behind the name change become a subject of research for the kid's article? Just because I never heard the term pyrosis (until I read it in the debate about this name change) doesn't mean that it is an inaccurate or invalid term for heartburn. Far from being pompous, I consider it to be one of the duties of an encyclopedia to correct me on my misinformation, and to give my perceptions the occasional jolt. Do you prefer your encyclopediae to support your misinformation? Chrisobyrne 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In the case of heartburn, I don't consider that misinformation - just a more commonly used phrase. And you're supporting my argument with Pluto ---- the article is named Pluto. I'm not saying the mention of Pluto's revocation of planet status should be hidden, I'm saying that it should not be grounds for a change to the name of the article until an alternate name becomes more commonly used. I say "Pluto", you say "Pluto", everyone says "Pluto" so the name of the article should be "Pluto", not (134340). Same goes with "Halley's Comet".
BTW, as far as URL's, those are trivial. Those will not change with the redirect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrosis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartburn bring up almost identical screens (minus the little redirect notice near the top-left of the screen). Yes, the only thing at issue here is the title in a big font at the top. Searches for either Pyrosis or Heartburn will bring you to the same place. Sorry if my redirect example/criteria has added to the confusion. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
OK - making progress :). I know now that Wikipedia does indeed has the "feature" that I called a "shortcoming" above. I can see other advantages to disconnecting the URL from the page title - the technical restrictions on names that plague some pages would be removed. I'm still disappointed, however, that you still don't seem to accept that "Halley's Comet" is misinformation. Frankly, I consider it pompous of you to believe that you are a more authoritative source of the names of celestial objects that the IAU. I guess your response is going to be something along the lines that you are in the majority (amongst non-astronomers) and hence I'm the pompous one, even though all I am is an astronomer following the rules of my hobby's governing body. So governing bodies should be ignored? Anyway, that's possibly getting away from the true issues at hand.
I'm disturbed by your story about the kid writing the article. I can only imagine the trouble that the kid will get into when he researches an article on the zodiac, and then reads some of my contribution on Ophiuchus, which explains why, technically, it is the 13th constellation of the zodiac. Shock! Horror! 13 constellations in the zodiac??? Whoever heard of such a thing?!?!? Certainly not your hypothetical student! Nor his teacher, for that matter, nor anyone else in the class! Should I remove what I wrote? Just because it isn't common knowledge doesn't mean that it is incorrect. Indeed, I would go further - just because it goes against common knowledge doesn't mean that it is incorrect. Chrisobyrne 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
First, I'm not calling you pompous. Second, as far as governing bodies, would you like North Korea to be moved to Democratic People's Republic of Korea? That's an actual government naming itself and the world basically ignoring the self-naming and calling it North Korea anyway. Wikipedia does (or tries to do) the same thing with its article names - the most popular name is the article title. Third, of course I'm not saying that more detailed info doesn't belong in the article - I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the article title. Article title should be layperson-accessible. I wouldn't expect to see an article titled 13 constellations of the zodiac. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
First, apologies for the lack of assumption of good faith regarding the "pompous" thing. So it would appear that the bottom line is that given the choice between the name that the general population gives something, and the name that the internationally-recognised governing body gives it, Wikipedia will only pay lip service (at best) to the latter? Frankly, I prefer my encyclopediae to always use the most authoritative sources possible for every aspect of the article (including - nay, especially - the title). That means that I would prefer to see "Pyrosis" to "Heartburn", "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" to "North Korea", "Comet Halley" to "Halley's Comet" etc etc etc - so long as the correct names are accessible from the popular names (via redirects, disambiguation pages, titles that are disconnected from URLS, or whatever). I guess this is the point at which we need to agree to disagree???
There is, of course, a very good reason why the name "Halley's Comet" is totally unacceptable to the IAU (and to most astronomers). The IAU wants to prevent the commercialisation of the names of celestial objects, and "Halley's Comet" has far more commercial potential than "Comet Halley" for any organisation that has "Halley" in its name. It disappoints me that Wikipedia is now on the "other side" of that battle. Chrisobyrne 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above, I presume the changes I've made to the article (removing references to "Halley's Comet" everywhere except in the title, and in quotations about the comet, and adding a bit at the very top about why the name "Halley's Comet" isn't officially acceptable) are all OK? It's still going to freak out your student and his teacher, but, frankly, if they don't want to know the facts they shouldn't come to Wikipedia :). Chrisobyrne 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing - you said "I wouldn't expect to see an article titled 13 constellations of the zodiac". If I wanted to write an article about the 13 constellations of the zodiac, what should I title it? Am I barred from writing such an article??? Chrisobyrne 11:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, it all sounds a little overboard. "Halley's Comet" has far more commercial potential than "Comet Halley" for any organisation that has "Halley" in its name. Hence the only official name for this object is Comet Halley is unsourced and sounds speculative. The only reference in the opening is a broken link (at least now anyway). I wasn't expecting this little dialogue to overwhelm the opening paragraph and hit parts of the entire rest of the article. All it really needed was a small mention somewhere - maybe even in parentheses. In the LSD article, you don't see the phrase "lysergic acid diethylamide" throughout; same with "pyrosis" in Heartburn. But honestly, I've grown weary of this. I'll leave the content up to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I've gone ahead and reverted. Add a well-sourced mention about the supposedly "official name" but dominating the entire article with it is unwarranted. "Halley's Comet" is the more well-recognized form of the name and that's all there is to it. That's what the move request was about in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on the reference (the one that's there at the moment I found through Google, and I had to use Google's cache to see what it said - other the references I found just don't address the question directly, and I would have to write an article that pulls those references together in order to make something that works). In the mean time, I promise I won't write any articles about the 13 constellations of the zodiac, or any other similarly anti-concensus factoid. Indeed, maybe I should take my interest in factual accuracy elsewhere and leave Wikipedia to consign facts to "small mentions somewhere - maybe even in parentheses". As for the length of the opening paragraph - I don't know how to say that the name (probably one of the most important aspects of any article) is unofficial (and why) in fewer words - my apologies. Chrisobyrne 14:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OK - THAT'S IT. I'M NOT CONTRIBUTING TO WIKIPEDIA ANYMORE. Indeed, I think I should go through my contributions and remove every unsourced statement I've ever made, starting with this article (I contributed the dates of perihelion). Chrisobyrne 14:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Bye. — RJH (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New move discussion

It is clear that most academics who study comets use the term Comet Halley to describe the comet. While Wikipedia may have an anti-elitist tendency, is it really correct that important to title the article in contravention of expert consensus? WP:NC is a bit contradictory, as was pointed out in a discussion on Wikipedia: WikiProject Physics. We need to reopen this discussion with a keen eye towards whether Wikipedia should marginalize the expert designation or marginalize the popular designation and why. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear how it's so clear that most academics use "Comet Halley". There is a scientist, George J. Bendo (talk · contribs), above that begs to differ. Even according to Wikipedia's own Astronomical naming conventions, "Comet Halley" would be incorrect and that refers to the International Astronomical Union website. That website BTW is under construction or something because I can't find any reference to any name there. It sounds like there are a few different candidates for the name of this article and "Comet Halley" would be a distant third or fourth on that list. It's neither popular nor official. (If an "official" survey is ever set up, count me as a Strong Oppose). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you refer to "pop-culture misconceptions" in WP:RM. According to the Edmond Halley article, it has been referred to as "Halley's Comet" since its return in 1758 which Halley predicted. Are we calling 1758 "pop-culture" now? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, would you please do a search on "Comet Halley" and "Halley's Comet" at the ADS Abtract Service? Both terms are used by professional astronomers, although "Comet Halley" seems to be used more often in recent scientific papers, and "Halley's Comet" seems to be used more frequently in recent historical papers. GeorgeJBendo 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I am well-aware that Halley's comet and Comet Halley are both used, but according to IAU syntax, Comet Halley is the preferred term for the object itself these days. Since Comet Halley is more than its historical context, it may be more appropriate to name it as such. --ScienceApologist 22:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
While "Comet Halley" may be the "official" IAU designation, the fact is that most amateur and professional astronomers still recognize the object being discussed when it is called "Halley's Comet". Moreover, some journals apparently accept articles that name the object "Halley's Comet", although other journals may have specific naming conventions for objects. Unfortunately, I am unaware of a website like the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database or the SIMBAD Astronomical Database that gives information on the accepted names of comets. Nonetheless, I would guess that "Halley's Comet" would be an acceptable synonym for "Comet Halley" just like "Sunflower Galaxy" is an acceptable synonym for "NGC 5055".
I would also like to note that many other articles on astronomical objects in Wikipedia have been given common names which, while not necessarily frequently used in professional astronomy, are frequently used by amateur astronomers and the general public. As an extragalactic astronomer, I have no problems with the names for the articles on NGC 224, NGC 4038, NGC 4594, NGC 4826, or NGC 5194. Using the "preferred" catalog numbers (the NGC numbers above or the Messier numbers) would render the articles less accessible to the general public, even if redirects are provided. The same has apparently been said about "Halley's Comet". Most people on Wikipedia find "Halley's Comet" to be an acceptable name, and I am sure that most professional astronomers would find the name acceptable. (As a professional astronomer, I at least find the name acceptable.) Now, this should not be construed as to say that every object in the sky should be called by an obscure common name (see Talk:Messier 81, for example), but it should be done for the objects that are better known by their common names. —Dr. GeorgeJBendo
I'm sorry to be such an astronomy newbie, but can someone please point me to a reference that says "Comet Halley" is an official name for anything? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the "official" designation for Halley's comet is "1P/1682 Q1".[1] The nomenclature for Halley seems to allow several different forms, including "1P (Halley)", for example.[2] (Here's the official IAU cometary designation system as of 1995.)
But at this point I almost feel like, with this issue, we're flogging a dead horse. Both "Halley's comet" and "Comet Halley" show up in scholarly publications, so as long as they're cross-linked I'm not seeing a major concern about the name. (Although I prefer the more traditional "Halley's comet". :-) Anyway I hope this was of some help. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I prefer "Halley's Comet" as the most-understood name. This has nothing to do with avoiding redirects for technical reasons (the cost of following a redirect is trivial) and it certainly has nothing to do with anti-elitism (I'm if anything pro-elitist). But I don't think we should slavishly follow the vote of some international body. Usage, including scientific usage, is not properly decided by votes; it evolves. (I admit to a bit of a grudge against the IAU in particular, for having the arrogance to try to tell us how we should use the word "planet".) --Trovatore 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As the person who as re-opened this debate, I should probably chime in :). I have an email from an official at the International Astronomical Union which is quite clear on the issue - "the IAU does not use possessive forms (Halley's, Encke's etc.)". The supporting reference given was this. As I said on the wikiproject page, I think the term "possessive" is interesting - I suspect the reason behind the rule is so as to not support "ownership" of anything in the sky by anyone (ie it's not my comet, it's not your comet, it isn't even Halley's comet - it is the comet Halley). That is something that I think most people could wholeheartedly support.

But there is another question - the reason why I reopened the debate is because I was prevented from altering the article itself to primarily use the term "Comet Halley". I was even prevented from stating that the term "Comet Halley" is the only one used by the IAU. Whatever about the title of the article, I see no reason why the article itself should support the term "Halley's Comet" as an official term for the comet. There will always be plenty of references to "Halley's Comet" in this article (eg in the quotation from Homer Simpson :) ).

So here is what I think. As for the naming of the article, if there are technical reasons (eg reducing the number of redirects) for using the most popular term (and I am far from convinced of that), then "Halley's Comet" it is. But the article itself should be quite clear IMO that this is officially an unused term. Having said that, when the article is quoting someone who actually used the term "Halley's Comet", then their quotation should obviously not be altered so as to use the official term.

As for the broader issue of official yet unpopular versus popular yet unofficial terms, I would re-state the question in terms of what Wikipedia would like to achieve. Wikipedia's standard isn't truth, it is verifiability, yet the question can still be asked - given a choice between a verifiable popular fact, and a verifiable true fact, which should Wikipedia choose? My vote is for the latter. Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia means that the former will probably win out most of the time. Chrisobyrne 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than dragging this discussion onward, I suggest doing the following:
  • Make a note in a section of the article about the comet name with an extended discussion on comet naming conventions and the current use of "Halley's Comet" versus "Comet Halley". This can even be used to explain how the comet came to be known as "Halley's Comet" in the first place. Note that this should be written in a neutral tone per Wikipedia's neutrality policy and should use reliable references.
  • For consistency and readability, use the name given for the title of the article ("Halley's Comet") throughout the rest of the article.
This would allow Mr. O'Byrne to state the various conventions used to identify the comets while not leading to editorial conflicts in the article itself.
A question on Mr. O'Byrne's communication with the IAU: Could you please name the individual that you spoke to and also provide the dates of the communication? It may also be appropriate to transcribe the entire email message here. Currently, most editors are cautious about using email as a reference for a Wikipedia article (especially on an apparently inflammatory topic such as the proper name of a comet). I would not want to use a personal communication in this situation to justify the use of "Comet Halley" as the object's "official" name. Also, the link to the MPC website provides inadequate information on the IAU naming convention. We should attempt to find a better reference.
Finally, I would suggest that, rather than complaining about the name of the article, we instead focus on expanding the article using referenced information from the literature. In particular, I suggest expanding the scientific information in the article, with a discussion of how the comet has been used to better understand the solar system in general. — Dr. GeorgeJBendo 16:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As for your proposal, I'm all for it. I'm especially interested in the origin of "Comet Halley" since the only link so far is a letter saying the IAU doesn't like words in possessive form. It still appears that their real preference is 1P/Halley or something along those lines, not this "Comet Halley". And yes, let's close out this debate and do some real editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to Dr. Bendo, I would rather not quote the email here, for the very reasons you gave. You have obviously found my personal website, on which is quoted my email address - I invite you to use that email address to contact me privately. And I agree that better references are needed - unfortunately, I can't find them! As for changing the article, since this is an emotive issue and is likely to be reverted unless it has rock-solid backing, I'm going to continue to try and find better references first. Unless, of course, Wknight94 would like to alter the article - I don't think I have ever come across a more fervent critic of the IAU's naming than you - if you can write something on the page that you are happy with, then I reckon your contribution will survive pretty much any trigger-happy editor that comes across it! :) Chrisobyrne 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
(I'm not even sure what that last part meant.) As far as criticizing the IAU, I am not doing that - I am questioning the idea that they consider "Comet Halley" to be the official name at all. I want proof - point blank. A chain of evidence leading to your assertion. Even assuming your e-mail is genuine, there's still a big broken link in that chain between "they don't like possessive forms of words" and "Comet Halley is the official name". The first only implies that any form that did not include a possessive word is a candidate to be the official name - including 1P/Halley. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
So far, the only proof I could possibly offer is an email from an IAU official that contradicts your pet name for this object. That email clearly states that "Comet Halley" is the official name for the object. If I ever find rock-solid proof that even you could accept, I'll publish it on this article. Chrisobyrne 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am criticizing the IAU. Not for their choices per se, but for their apparent belief that their choices should have some effect. An important input to our naming decisions -- often the decisive one -- should be the consensus usage among experts. But consensus of experts is not determined by the decision of an official body; it's something you observe by seeing how the experts talk. The fact that a naming choice is "official" should have no weight in our decisions. --Trovatore 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Surely the rulings of the discipline's world governing body deserve at least a mention?! Chrisobyrne 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's where you and I agree. "A mention" is fine but you wanted to change every mention in the entire article! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that when you reverted my last contribution, you also reverted the mention. Chrisobyrne 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's right there at the top: see this 2-edit diff. Like I've been saying, you took over the opening paragraph with an unsourced assertion and then changed every mention in the article. Now you're trying to say you only wanted a single mention. Even if your assertion is true, it's very far from the most important fact about the comet, so why would it be appropriate to take over the entire opening paragraph? If I were reading that for the first time, I'd be thinking, "Why am I reading so much detail about some naming conflict and an 'internationally-recognised body'? I just wanted to read about the comet!" —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned. But "a discipline's governing body"??? That's nonsense; you can't "govern" an academic discipline, and you shouldn't try. --Trovatore 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you accept "the official international authority responsible for naming stars, planets, asteroids, and other celestial bodies and phenomena, and the official body of astronomy"? (Quotation taken from the International Astronomical Union article). Chrisobyrne 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, I do not recognize to them any such authority. I'm guessing they're kind of self-appointed in this role. I do recognize the choices of astronomers, but I think it's extremely unfortunate if their choices include following an "official body". No discipline should have an official body. Thank God mathematics has none. --Trovatore 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just after noticing that this issue is also relevant, for instance, for the article Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms. The most common name for the entity is "COBRA", which stands for "Cabinet Office Briefing Room A". Time for a rename request on that article? I mean, the issue is exactly the same - COBR is the official name, but "everyone" (including the Prime Minister, it would appear) uses COBRA, even though COBRA is actually incorrect. Chrisobyrne 09:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If COBRA is used more often, bring it to WP:RM. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just noticed that the second move request here was removed soon after it was added at WP:RM. I've removed the {{move}} tag. I'd recommend confirming with Mets501 (talk · contribs) before opening another one. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhelion date

Next Perhelion date off. I've only seen other sources say that Halley is due back in early 2062 not July 2061. My own calculations say Febuary 18th 2062.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.226.202 (talk • contribs)

What calculations did you use (how did you calculate it?)?--Gephart 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction to my note above, the date calculated is March 17th or 18th (depending on the method you use for adding up leap years, I personaly believe the 17th is more accurate). These are the calculations:

a = 17.9564 AU AU = 1.495979*10^11 m e = 0.967298 last perihelion Feb 9th 1986 mu = 6.67259*10^-11 * Msun Msun = 1.988435*10^30 kg


T= 2*pi*(a^3/mu)^0.5

T = 2.40156*10^9 seconds

from here you can show that 2.4...E9 is 19.0252 multiples of 4 years, (365*3+366 days per 4 years) and it is .0252 * 4 years into the next set of 4 years (as long as the decimal is less than 0.5 for this particular calculation there will not be an additional leap year). This method finds there to be 36.81 days after febuary 9th 1962 to be the day of perihelion.

You can also use 365.2422 days per year and find the date to be 37 days after febuary 9th 1962 (slight error oscillates from + 0.5 to - 0.5 days depending on the x/4 remainder for this method, sometimes this 0.5 is enough to change the date.)

You can also use MSD (probably the better method of all 3 but I had already finished the first method, which find the same answer it just takes a bit more work) and Julian Date.

Those calculations are too simplistic - they do not take into account the perturbations of the planets, which have a significant effect on the motion of this comet, given its long orbit. I put the original perihelion dates into the article, and they are based in part on calculations I did (using rigorous methods) and in part on researching the on-line scientific papers I could find about the motion of this comet (and I don't remember any of those scientific papers giving a perihelion date in March 2062 - any of them that gave a date in 2061 agreed on the date 28 July). I'm going to re-instate the correct date for the perihelion date in 2061. BTW did you run your calculations backwards? Do your results agree with the ancient sightings of the comet? I doubt that they could, as the motion of this comet is far from simple. Chrisobyrne 11:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Revert completed. If you are interested in the actual orbit elements and how they evolve over time, I can direct you to a web page I wrote about this -- Chrisobyrne 11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't change it, but I would like to say that my Aerospace Engineering Professor that teaches astrodynamics at Iowa State University is conviced that it is March 2062.

Okay, here is what we need: Bring a citation of the orbital elements with a fixed epoch, like the one we have now. Then either cite the stated next estimated perihelion date in that source, or use the very simple logic of addition to come to a result. Because of WP:NOR we can not have numbers in here that are not referenced, but "just calculated" somehow. Awolf002 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
How's about this for a source - the JPL SSD Horizons web-based ephemeris generator. Asking it to generate heliocentric osculating orbital elements for 2061 Jul 28 generates a perihelion date of 2061 Jul 28.72. I could cite other sources, but this one has the advantage of working well for more than just Comet Halley. I've inserted a reference into the table. Chrisobyrne 10:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates of perihelion

I have a confession to make. The table of the dates of perihelion came primarily from my own web site[3], and therefore arguably constitutes original research, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Therefore my table probably cannot be used on Wikipedia. I've removed it - it should not be re-instated. Chrisobyrne 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added sourced perihelion dates, from the Catalogue of Cometary Orbits 1996 via this website. Richard B 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have (at least three) sources that contradict yours - for example, this one. The perihelion dates, especially in the distant past, cannot be relied upon - the comets motion is simply not known to that degree of accuracy, and the ancient observations are not accurate enough to pin down a perihelion date with anything like the degree of accuracy that you present. So I'm afraid your table is misleading. But, as we've already learned, Wikipedia has no problem whatsoever with misleading information in its articles. Chrisobyrne 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're using your own article (which you removed) to back up your claim here? I note that the ones I've added, from the "Catalogue of Comerary Orbits 1996", are not too far away from the ones in this peer-reviewed journal. Also, remember that the Catalogue of Cometary Orbits is published by the Minor Planet Center which is a branch of the IAU - and can therefore be assumed to be the most accurate dates that we have available. They take into account perturbations from all planets. Note also that this site says "Brian Marsden's Catalogue of Cometary Orbits has been the standard source for comet orbits since 1972". I'd say, therefore, that this data is likely to be the most reliable currently available. Richard B 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm able to use (if memory serves me correct) four articles from peer-reviewed journals to back up my claim, plus someone else's website. And, after what happened the last time I tried to gather sources for this page on the comet, I'm not going to waste my time listing those articles. Hey, I've only been studying the motion of this comet on and off for twenty years or so - what the hell would I know? Thank God we have Wikipedia to put me (and the scientific community) right. Chrisobyrne 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have better sources, then cite them, and change the dates. In the mean time, I've added a "disclaimer" to the text. Richard B 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also add, that it is wikipedia policy that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that is wikipedia policy. Richard B 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Richard - thank you for being a fantastic sounding board for me - I've learned a lot through our back-and-forth, and it has helped ease a couple of traumatic wikipedia days for me. There is a lot about the Wikipedia policy that I do not like, but verifiability is actually a policy I most certainly do like. However, I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that Wikipedia articles should never be edited by experts, and I'm an expert. I'm going to develop that idea over the coming days - if it pans out, I might write an "experts" page about this comet somewhere - we'll see - and I hope to write something about why I believe Wikipedia articles should not be edited by experts. Again, thank you, and apologies for any distress caused by my earlier "attitude". Chrisobyrne 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Designation

The "Designation" table mentions the designation for the comet at its previous returns. For instance, the 240BC return is listed as "1P/-239 K1". I have a funny feeling that the designations have not actually been applied retrospectively and, even if they had, that the uncertainties in the comets motion mean that another calculation could end up designating it "1P/-239 J1" or something. Also, I cannot find the string "1P/-239 K1" anywhere on Google, so it musn't be true :). Does anyone have a reliable citation for the information in that table? If not, then I think it should be removed. Chrisobyrne 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the table - the contributor of that table has now been given more time to come up with citations than I was given over the name issue. Given that there is an error of maybe a month or two in our knowledge of the comets first apparitions, assigning a designation isn't reliable. Chrisobyrne 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The IAU has assigned the designation, search for "1P" on this site Richard B 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need this list? It says nothing interesting about the comet. GeorgeJBendo 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanation needed

It would be useful to have an explanation of the details given at each perihelion (e.g. (1P/1982 U1, 1986 III, 1982i). Is there a reference for this? Duncan.france 23:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

See Comet#Comet nomenclature - they are all different names for the same apparition of Halley's Comet. In your example,
  • Halley's Comet was the first period comet known (designated 1P) and this apparition was the first seen in "half-month" U (the first half of November) in 1982 (giving 1P/1982 U1)
  • the third comet past perihelion in 1986 (1986 III)
  • the 9th spotted in 1982 (provisional designation 1982i)
E&OE. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halley%27s_Comet/Archive_1&oldid=1091622486"