Talk:Comet Hale–Bopp

older entries

4200 years or 2300 years before it comes back? --rmhermen

Just to note this is now answered in the article - its period was 4200 years but is now 2380 due to gravitational interaction with Jupiter. Worldtraveller 16:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assume from reading the article and the above comment that this means its return will be 2380 years from 1997? Article altered accordingly to remove time-sensitive reference. --RobertG ♬ talk 6 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Yep, your assumption is correct, although we could probably just say it will return around 4380AD, as I would guess the figure of 2380 years could be considered accurate to ±10 years. Worldtraveller 6 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Here's a pic to get hold of - showing the antitail. Kwantus 04:27, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

How do you pronounce it?

Phonetically, following the usual rules of English. Thus, "Hale" is a homophone with the English word "hail" and "Bopp" rhymes with "pop" or "mop" or "stop". Runa27 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate?

Why no mention of or reference to Heaven's Gate? It's a popular factoid related to Hale-Bop... Jake b 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate is mentioned, in fact. See the last sentence of the intro, and the section titled 'paranoia and superstition'. Worldtraveller 07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Heaven's Gate Cult has its own article thanks to its noteriety. ;) Runa27 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieder and Stuff

Since I've been reverted twice by an anonymous editor, I thought I would explain myself. Nancy Lieder, although she is batshit insane, is a public person of some note, appearing on talk radio, running a website and small organization that is itself the subject of a wikipedia page (ZetaTalk). I am interested in including her hprimarily because she has (and to an extent still does) denied the reality of Hale-Bopp, and this seems noteworthy.

Again, I think it is fairly clear that "Paranoia and Superstition" is not a neutral title for a section of an encyclopedia article. I agree that we are citing examples that I, and 62.249.214.195 and almost everybody else would consider to be both superstitious and paranoid. But the people who hold those beliefs obviously would not agree, so I think it is needlessly POV. Ethan Mitchell 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shot-cocktail

"Hale-Bopp is the name of a Shot-Cocktail, popular in Europe."

This doesn't seem to be very related to the rest of the information in the "legacy" section, or, really, the article as a whole. Thoughts? 70.22.236.70 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does seem to have been named after the comet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.11.233 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on 14 October 2007

On 14 October 2007, two edits were made from IP 80.72.34.252 in which a portion of the page was deleted. The edit was immediately before additional vandalism in which the whole page was blanked, and a bot was unable to figure out which was the correct edit to use as its restoration. I have restored the page content that had been deleted by the 80.72.34.252 edits. If you believe that this was in error, please discuss it here. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting data

Hmmm, strange. I'm certainly no comet master, but I've discovered some conflicting data here. This page says "Semi-major axis: 186 AU" and "Orbital period: 2537 a".

This NASA data page says "Semi-major axis: 250. AU" and "Orbital period: 4000. yrs." (the other data is correlating).

Am I totally off here, or is this page wrong, or the NASA data wrong? Anybody got a clue? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, just read Talk:Comet_Hale-Bopp#older_entries; Jupiter seems to have changed the data... I guess it's up to NASA to change theirs? --Dna-Dennis (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest and most precise data from NASA: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=C/1995+O1 a = 185.9 a. u., P = 2534 years. — Chesnok (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Scientists were still cautiously optimistic that it would become very bright. What scientific purpose does the brightness of the comet have? Why did they hope it would get brighter? 04:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained

Why does the section in question called "Unexplained" when the very section provides an explanation for the alleged companion to the comet - namely a star that Chuck Shramek hadn't realised was one due to wrong settings on his planetarium software? Autarch (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it was changed ten months ago by a believer in the nonsense spouted by Shramek [1], and no-one changed it back. It seems this article is not very well maintained at all: not only has a vandal's heading change been allowed to remain, but the section "Early Progress" was removed 18 months ago and has yet to reappear [2] (which I suppose at least means it's free of vandalism...), and "The comet recedes" also spent four months out of the article before its removal was reverted [3]. Sad. Very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.122.53 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Influence on animals

Had the comet some influence on animals, such as whales? Or any animals at all? With influence I mean, did the comet distract some animals? I am especially interested in marine animals regarding my question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.197.123 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Comets are not my speciality, but I would assume it didn't have any definitive effect — after all it was a bit fainter than Sirius, the brightest star on the sky. Of course it was an extended object unlike stars. Moon does have effect on animals, but full moon is about 10,000 times brighter than Hale-Bopp. Random astronomer (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

References: open issues

I still have a couple concerns. Firstly, I have not been able to find the reference for it spanning half the sky "with its two tails, although the longest reaches of the tails were too faint to be visible to the naked eye." My second concern is the whole Legacy section: was it the furthest comet discovered or the furthest comet discovered by amateurs? The largest comet: strictly speaking the reference only lists comets with well-determined sizes. I would assume Comet Sarabat is the largest comet we have some guess estimates, and even that is probably still dwarfed by 95P/Chiron, though whether Chiron is a comet or not is another question. Random astronomer (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'spanning half the sky' comment doesn't sound, well, very encyclopaedic (esepcially as it then goes on to say that the full extent of the tials wouldn't actually be visible to the naked eye). The whole passage could probably be reduced just to the comment that if it had been as close as Hyukatake, it would have been exceptionally bright, although even that isn't absolutely necessary to the article.

Sarabat, which in many respects was a very odd object indeed, was almost certainly larger (and probably substantially larger) than Hale-Bopp according to most sources that actually mention it; I think there's just a little uncertainty as to the accuracy of the original observations.Svejk74 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-perihelic orbit

The article states, under Orbital Changes, "Its greatest distance from the sun (aphelion) will be about 370 AU, reduced from about 525 AU.[23]"

Since this comet had never been observed prior to its arrival in the solar system, how can you guess its previous aphelic distance to have been 525 AU? Stefansquintet (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a second reference for the pre-perturbation orbit.[4] Orbits can be computed backwards just as they can be computed forwards and the trajectory of Hale-Bopp was followed very closely after it was discovered. But you are right, the exact aphelion distance of the previous orbit has some uncertainties.-- Kheider (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Lieder

Should Nancy Lieder's claims be added to the UFO section? I wouldn't normally suggest this but the Nibiru thing seems to be having a far more lasting impact than anything those Heaven's Gate people did. Serendi^podous 13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from Perihelion section

I removed a paragraph about how bright the comet could have been. This seems to me less encyclopaedic information than sensationalism, like in a newspaper story designed to engage readers rather than simply inform. By contrast, a paragraph about how dull and weak the comet could have been had it passed much farther away (like some other referenced comet) would also be unimportant information. This is drive-by editing. I'm probably not going to be back. --Atkinson (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

good work. No worries... `Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

This article is about the Hale-Bopp comet, not the mass suicide by the comet's passing. Why is the heaven's gate mass suicide mentioned twice, with an emphasis about it found in the first paragraph? I believe the emphasis should be on the comet only and the Heaven's Gate portion kept within the "UFO Claims" or some sort of impact section. Thoughts? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As there were no objections for more than a month, I have moved this sentence to the legacy section of the article. I believe it improves the flow of the article and removes unnecessary weight on the Heaven's Gate aspect of Hale-Bopp. At this point in the comet's history that factoid seems much more appropriate under legacy than it does in the introduction. I suspect if he still exists when Hale-Bopp returns, man will not be thinking about the Heaven's Gate cult. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarise what is in the article; the Heaven's Gate suicide was a very notable result of the comet's apparition. Serendi^podous 21:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It belongs in legacy. The article is about the comet, not the people that killed themselves because of it. That is much more appropriate in the place I put it and this was up for discussion for more than a month without comment. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So? We're discussing it now. Heaven's Gate is mentioned already under "UFO claims" and there's no point in mentioning the same fact twice in two adjacent paragraphs- ergo that is NOT a good place to put it. It is a notable and historic fact about the apparaition, so it belongs in the lead, since the lead is meant to summarise the facts listed in the article. Serendi^podous 14:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You had ample time to object and said nothing. Now it appears you are going to just keep reverting it to your way. I urge you to reconsider violating 3RR. The content remains the same and the only issue at debate is its placement. I suggest we include some of the other editors that have contributed to this article and ask them before this escalates. Fair enough? In the mean time, I ask that you leave it as I have edited it. Again, you had nearly two months to object and discuss this issue. If you would like to discuss it now, that's fine--but the article should remain as I have it until we have reached consensus. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, when it was put in the lead, I thought, yes, that seems appropriate. Rothorpe (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Move? (October 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was withdrawn by nominator. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Comet Hale–Bopp → Comet Hale-Bopp –

• According to a check of google books, which shows 10 of the first 10 results use a hyphen. Also per MOS:HYPHEN (proper nouns use a hyphen). Apteva (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously, since this example is cited in MOS:DASH, changing it would be controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  - and the correction to the MOS has been noted. But no it is not obvious that this is controversial, it is actually obvious that it is non-controversial and that the the MOS needs to be corrected. Hopefully since this is an FA it will be on someone's watchlist. Apteva (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Many books and papers use the same style as that suggested by WP:MOS, and use the en dash; there is no doubt that it is a style choice, and not an unusual one (I only had to go as far as the seonc book hit in Google Book Search to find this one; and further down the first page (with previews) this one; so Apteva lies, or is blind, or refuses to recognize the existence of en dashes; see also articles, such as [5], [6]). I finally see where Apteva has hallucinated the idea that "proper nouns use a hyphen", in the clause that says "in proper names such as Trois-Rivières and Wilkes-Barre." This certainly was never intended to say that all proper names, or connections of proper names, should be punctuated with hyphen. This is explained better at MOS:DASH, where hyphenated and dashed conjuctions are compared, e.g. where it says "An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name: Lennard-Jones potential with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-Jones. An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in a compound: the Seifert–van Kampen theorem". Hale–Bopp Comet, named for Hale and Bopp, is like the latter; there is no Mr. Hale-Bopp involved here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  That example is wrong for two reasons. Comet Hale-Bopp is the correct name, not Hale-Bopp Comet, but Hale-Bopp comet is correct. A helpfully provided URL to the first 20 google scholar results shows that 15/20 use an endash.[7] What others use is not important. What is important is figuring out which is correct. Apteva (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't normally get involved in RMs these days, but this is getting ridiculous. Apteva is disruptively starting up RMs around the place – even one for the long-settled article Mexican–American War, which he or she has now taken to move review. That is a useful link. The refutation of Apteva's push there is informative, if anyone is interested in the history of the 2011 reforms of WP:ENDASH under ArbCom supervision.
  Rather than deal with the matter at the appropriate central forum, which is WT:MOS, Apteva opens several discussions at several locations. This RM discussion is plainly part of that larger picture. There is zero reason to take the editor's bizarre reading of WP:MOS guidelines seriously. In the present case "Hale~Bopp" and "Comet Hale~Bopp" are certainly proper names applied to a comet; but that has almost nothing to so with the choice between hyphen and en dash. Under the relevant style guideline (heavily endorsed by the community in 2011), both take an en dash. The guideline includes these very examples: "Comet Hale–Bopp", and "Hale–Bopp". In accord, by the way, with New Hart's Rules and its associated Oxford publications on style. The guideline is endorsed by ArbCom as appying to all articles; and that must include article titles, if consistency within an article is to be possible.
  I move that this RM discussion be speedily closed. It is a stark example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.
  Noetica^Tea? 08:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  That vote, though, and the one above by Dicklyon is a good example of what a WP:POINT is. It is possibly not clear that Comet Hale-Bopp has "achieved proper name status" and if not, then comet is not capitalized and an endash gets used, and Hale–Bopp comet might be a more logical title. But a check of the literature should reveal the answer. We do not choose titles solely by logic but more by what others actually use. In the first 20 results from google scholar, 5 use an endash, and of those 5, only 3 capitalize comet, as did some of those that used a hyphen - "An image of comet Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1)". Noetica it should be pointed out was I suspect the champion of the concept that Wikipedia should set new and higher linguistic standards and break the rule of using a hyphen in a proper name even though that is original research and rarely done. The conversation, which I thankfully missed entirely was raised in 2009 and came to the bizarre conclusion that even though no one else did it, "Mexican-American War" should be spelled with an endash, leading to the great endash folly of 2011 where many articles, this one included were in my opinion erroneously miss-titled. Talk about disrupting WP to make a point! Fortunately the collateral is minimal, and out of maybe 10,000 articles with a hyphen only a number in the low hundreds seem to have been "vandalized" in this well meant but misplaced manner. So what is necessary is an assessment not of the MOS, which clearly says that proper nouns use hyphens, but an assessment of the literature to verify that the correct title was chosen when the article was created in 2001[8] and where it remained happily until 2011, during which time it became an FA, and also 3 years later passed an FA review. If you go to the link "this one" above, you will see that Hale–Bopp is used with an endash both on the cover and in the text, on page 61, for example, where comet is not capitalized, and thus the comet is not granted proper noun status, and an endash in that case is the correct punctuation. Apteva (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  You could not be more wrong if you tried. We do not choose punctuation based on how other sources punctuate. We pick a style and stick with it, using it consistently throughout the site. As Dicklyon indicated, the dash is used by some publications, which proves that it's grammatical to do so, which means we can and should if our MOS requests it. Which it does. Powers ^T 01:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  Style does not apply to proper names which all use a hyphen, and not because our style guide says they do, which it does, but because that is what sources use. It is never our job to make things up - but only follow reliable sources - and when those sources differ, pick the most common. It is a misinterpretation of the MOS to think that punctuation is changed to a style that no one uses (because it is incorrect). Lower case comet Hale–Bopp (with an endash) and capitalized Comet Hale-Bopp are correct depending on whether the comet has "achieved proper name status", which it apparently already had by 2001 when this article was created. That some sources do not give it proper name status and therefore use an endash is not important, unless a majority did. Apteva (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support for common name and useability. --Nouniquenames 17:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Please explain what you mean by "useability". Appropriate redirects are in place. Powers ^T 01:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  One example of "useability" is that with the current title if you are writing a paper, you will be spelling the name of the comet wrong if you use the currently titled article. Apteva (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  WTF? Where is spelling at issue here? If you copy WP style when you're supposed to use some other style, that could be a problem, but not a WP usability issue. If I used a hyphen for this, my editor would give me a red mark and demand it be fixed to en dash. Just depends on the style of the target that you're writing for. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; utilized as an example in the Manual of Style specifically indicating that a dash is used in this exact situation. Powers ^T 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  Cited erroneously as an example. The correct spelling is Comet Hale-Bopp, as far as I have been able to tell. Since when is Wikipedia a reliable source? People make mistakes. Fix them. Apteva (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  In this case I have for now corrected the MOS - according to page 48 of the New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors, published in 2009, comet Hale–Bopp has not achieved proper name status, and thus is spelled with an endash, and comet is not capitalized. That, however is questionable, but I will leave that to another day. Apteva (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  The point, which you are missing entirely, is that "Hale–Bopp" is in there specifically because we came to a consensus to include it there. When you say it's there "erroneously", you are implying that the consensus of editors is that it should be "Hale-Bopp". That is demonstrably not true because a consensus of editors explicitly used a dash. Powers ^T 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS. The Wikipedia house style for comets is here: WP:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Comets. Several editors have attempted to explain the concept of style guide to user Apteva–Delphi234, but the user continues to post these all over, requiring the time of multiple editors to correct these errors; the user has done something similar at Talk:Uganda–Tanzania War. --Neotarf (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The latest paper, published 2012 Oct 10, calls it Hale--Bopp. (I generally state out of semantics.) -- Kheider (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just a typography bug. The double hyphen -- is the source code for the en dash in TeX and LaTeX, and it probably just got copied without typesetting. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The PDF uses en dash. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apteva removed the {{requested move}} from this section, but discussion continued. The removal was intended to be a withdrawal of the request, as clarified on Apteva's talk page. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Are comets Comets?

Except that I did it that way because I wanted discussion to continue. According to the dictionary comets do not have proper noun status just because they have a name. The question is not should this comet have an endash or a hyphen, but should this comet be spelled Comet? We spell it comet, and that is consistent with using an endash, as both indicate that it is not a proper noun. Should we switch and use Comet, then the article should also be moved to Comet Hale-Bopp, with a hyphen. Proper names use hyphens. And not just because our MOS says so, which it does, but because that is what most style guides and most books use. There are certainly some books that conflict with that, but I do not know about style guides. Perhaps all of the books that break that also are breaking the style guide that was used. In the case of comets we are conflicting with the dictionary, which to me is not warranted. In the "most recent paper" cited above, one need go no further than the first sentence of the abstract to see that comet is not capitalized, and thus an endash is correct. "Here we report that the activity of comet Hale–Bopp ceased between late 2007 and March, 2009". If comet was being used separately from the name of the comet, the article the would have been inserted - the comet Hale–Bopp, but that would not be expected, as Hale–Bopp is sort of an abbreviation of the name. Apteva (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I already lost that argument when I tried to downcase Halley's Comet, which has lowercase comet in a majority of sources, but uppercase in a majority of recent specialist astronomy sources. The astronomers vigorously defended their right to capitalize their stuff, taking a cue from the birders and the dog breeders I guess. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent? As in specialist astronomy sources are using Wikipedia to decide capitalization? This article currently uses lower case comet. Why not Halley's comet? Usage is always a moving target, and we tend not to move article names back and forth just because of recentism. But if we are spelling it comet Hale–Bopp in this article, and we are, we should spell it the same way in the MOS, or not use it as an example. If we want to capitalize Comet Hale-Bopp, then we need to also use a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No; recent as in since the IAU naming conventions recommended capitalization: http://www.iau.org/public/naming/. WP astronomers are letting the IAU set style here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And no, there is no credible source or guide, nor our MOS, that suggests anything like your odd and novel idiosyncratic hallucination that if we capitalize we have to change to hyphen. Just let go of that nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am only going by what reliable sources tell me. Find an example of an endash in a proper noun (where a majority of books published use that punctuation). All the style guides I have read say that proper nouns use a hyphen, and that seems to be what most editors have been doing. Are there any exceptions? If so we can point out that exception. But if there are none, why are we introducing ones? Apteva (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your inference from your view of sources provides you an idiosyncratic interpretation that does not appear in any source. We have jointly, as a community, surveyed everything that American, British, Canadian, and Australian style guides had to say about dashes and hyphens, and nothing of that sort ever came up. The fact that many styles forgo the distinction between hyphens and en dashes is not something you should interpret as support for your odd interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And why then, looking at those exact same style guides, does almost everyone else in the world interpret them the same way that I do, instead of the way those who think an endash should be used? These are the exact same style guides, and two completely different interpretations. The proof is on the pages of all the millions of books that are published. When it says use hyphens in names, it does not say except for those situations in which Dick Lyon wants to use an endash. It says use a hyphen all the time in a name. It does not say except for where an endash is used. It says use a hyphen, Apteva (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"It" what? What is "It"? You have yet to identify ANY reliable style guide that says "use a hyphen all of the time in a name". NONE. No where. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Powers ^T 18:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be pretty foolish to put into a style guide. There are normally always exceptions. I can certainly find books that use an endash for Comet Hale-Bopp, as well as for many other names. English is an evolving language. As far as I can tell style guides that I have looked at say something about hyphens in names, and as far as I can tell most book editors have interpreted that to mean in all names. And some, maybe 2%, may interpret using an endash in a proper name to be correct - but nothing remotely close to a majority, as far as I have been able to tell. Some of them almost randomly seem to mix up hyphens and endashes. Apteva (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

These results are prelimary, and will be updated as more become available:

• Comet Hale-Bopp (hyphen) - 25
• Comet Hale–Bopp (endash) - 2
• comet Hale-Bopp (hyphen) - 5
• comet Hale–Bopp (endash) - 2

So based on the above, I recommend capitalizing Comet and moving the article to Comet Hale-Bopp per the above requested move. Right now a move request would be opposed in principle by some of the above same editors, and is pointless in bringing up, no matter how correct the move is. But that is the most obvious article title. Also all of the endashes in the article need to be changed to Hale-Bopp with a hyphen when referring to the comet, with or without the word Comet, which should be capitalized if it is a part of the name of the comet, such as Comet Hale-Bopp, and the comet, Hale-Bopp. Apteva (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy close, disruptive, found no consensus in the "per discussion" claimed in the proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Comet Hale–Bopp → Comet Hale-Bopp – Correct name, per discussion. Apteva (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support common form and official form -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Nothing has changed since Apteva's last abortive RM here (see comments above). I have warned him here that one more like this and I'll ask at WP:AN/I for a block. See his recent disruptive failed and failing RMs in his anti-en-dash–anti-MOS campaign: currently open Talk:Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport#Requested move, Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport#Requested move 2, and Talk:Aspen–Pitkin County Airport#Requested move, as well as closed Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport#Requested move, Talk:Manchester–Boston Regional Airport#Requested move, Talk:Dillant–Hopkins Airport#Requested move, and Talk:Ephraim–Gibraltar Airport#Requested move.
• Oppose and speedy close. The last request was already called a POINT violaton, this one most definitely is. --213.196.194.37 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think there is any requirement that the MOS reflect the most common usage. We choose rules for consistency and making ad-hoc exceptions to individual items based on common use is antithetical to that.AgnosticAphid talk 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per MOS and oppose comments in the withdrawn move request. If your issue is that MOS "is wrong", the discussion should be there, not all these forumshopping move requests. PaleAqua (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. My main reason is that a consistent application of the proposed change would affect other comet articles (and might go further) and therefore requires a broad consensus, preferably involving at least the denizens of WP:AT and WP:AST. Per WP:AT#Special characters I’m not strongly opposed in principle, although my inclination regarding article text, at least, is generally toward ‘proper’ punctuation, and the existence of redirects with the hyphen obviates any accessibility concerns IMO.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This has probably been discussed long enough to put it to bed. The IAU, which has naming authority over comets and planets, prohibits anything other than a space or a hyphen in the name (once it is given a proper name - slashes are used in preliminary names). While it can also be demonstrated that Halley's comet is spelled with a lower case c in comet, common use there may over ride that, but clearly Hale-Bopp and every other comet is only spelled with spaces and hyphens, and common use also supports this, as can easily be demonstrated. Apteva (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

care to explain what has changed in your view since the last RM and MR?AgnosticAphid talk 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

New information. See section #Are comets Comets? above. I know about as much about comets as the average person knows about this. I could see from common use that hyphens are used more commonly, but due to the excellent information provided by others, I now know that there is a naming authority, the IAU, and that they only allow hyphens and spaces. If someone has a hyphenated name the hyphen is changed to a space to avoid confusing Hale-Smith-Bopp - it is either Hale-Smith Bopp, meaning it was discovered by Hale and Smith-Bopp, or Hale Smith-Bopp, meaning it was discovered by Hale-Smith and Bopp. I would strongly encourage editors to consider facts instead of simply adding pile on votes based on previous views. Comets, out of the at least four categories that in my opinion incorrectly use endashes now (comets, wars, bridges, airports), is the most blatant violation, with airports the second, bridges the third, and wars the fourth (wars that have not achieved proper name status are actually spelled with an endash, which changes to a hyphen when war becomes capitalized). Apteva (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Has the IAU said anything specifically about printed styles? I imagine the general policy Apteva cites above is intended for the benefit of databases and whatnot, to keep names simple, more or less pronounceable, and usable with the most limited of character sets. I don't think we need be bound by conventions established for a ‘lowest common denominator’, any more than we keep such typewriter-manuscript conventions as using double hyphens for en-dashes or omitting diacritics from capital letters. OTOH if the IAU has deprecated the substitution of en-dashes in typeset text, it would behoove us to at least examine their reasoning. I note that there are many more comet articles currently using the en-dash, so the proposed change implies setting a precedent with wider consequences.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please. A name is a name is a name. If I name my cat Foo-Foo, with a hyphen, that is the name. If I name a bridge Foo-Foo Bridge, that is the name. In the case of my cat, no one is ever going to create an article about Foo-Foo, unless I will it a million dollars or it somehow else becomes notable, but in the case of the bridge, the public may have completely different ideas of the name, calling it, the xyz Bridge, for example, or x-y Bridge, with a hyphen. It can be shown that no proper noun that I have checked uses an endash more commonly than a hyphen, so the idea of a comet, which has a naming authority that uses a hyphen, and in common usage uses a hyphen, should use anything else, is highly questionable, to say the least. Here is another example. For years many people thought that e.e. cummings was spelled lower case, and that all of cummings' poems were all lower case, but that turned out to be false, and our article is titled E. E. Cummings. Live and learn. The main rule though, is that Wikipedia does not make things up, and using an endash where most people use a hyphen is clearly a case of making this up. We have a preference for using official names, but use common names where they are overwhelmingly more common, like Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton. (See the current discussion about Hillary at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move) Apteva (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misnamed

Despite the above two RM's, this article is still inappropriately named, and still needs to be renamed as comet Hale-Bopp. Apteva (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus suggests otherwise. You've made some compelling points—analyzing sources/IAU/etc, but the vast majority of others have disagreed with you about how to weigh them against other considerations. At some point it is a good idea to move on. Happens at some point to pretty much everyone here with an opinion about something. —ErikHaugen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:3003:B6B5:2FFF:FEB8:147E (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not the case. It is trivial to show that a hyphen is correct, and is used far more often than an endash. There is absolutely no consensus to use an endash. The final authority on naming of comets is the IAU, and they clearly state that spaces and hyphens are used. Apteva (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, you've made this case, passionately, many times, in every conceivable venue. I'm not trying to argue the merits here with you—please understand this if you feel compelled to answer me here, this is a "meta" discussion, if you will. I'm only trying to point out that this idea is not getting any traction. There is absolutely no consensus to use an endash.—no, consensus is overwhelming here and in the other venues where you've brought this up that we'll continue to use endashes in these cases. If you can't see this, please take my word for it. It is time to move on to avoid being disruptive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: In the Move Review, Apteva said: "The choice of punctuation is definitely not a stylistic choice, and wikipedia will never nor should ever attempt, to maintain a uniform, consistent style." Views as to the wisdom of having a manual of style don't belong here. Until there's a consensus that we should throw the MoS out the window, I think it's best to direct your productivity to other pages. AgnosticAphid talk 08:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• When the MOS gives bad advice, like using this comet as an example of using an endash, it needs to be corrected. It is that simple - this comet, Hale-Bopp, is spelled with a hyphen, and our article on it needs to spell it with a hyphen. Many other comets are also spelled with a hyphen, and they need to be spelled with a hyphen in Wikipedia. It is never correct or better to use an endash in a comet name. It reflects on having a certain lack of knowledge that is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. All of this is released using a license that allows anyone to print their own encyclopedia, using any punctuation they think is pretty, and that is perfectly acceptable, but here only a hyphen should be used. Does it require changing the MOS to change this article? No. All it takes is correcting the article. But the purpose of the MOS is to provide a guideline to help us write articles, and as such the MOS should be providing good and accurate advice, and as such, it should recognize that hyphens are valid substitutes for minus signs and endashes in date ranges, such as 1919-1949. But the MOS should not be telling us to use endashes where endashes should not be used, such as in comets or airport names, or where they are not commonly used, such as in bridge names and names of wars. So fix the MOS and we can all get on with things that are far more important, like bringing more articles up to FA status, like this one is. I would recommend making it a guideline not to fix endashes in articles that are not FA or FACs, because there are far more important things to fix in GA's than to fix 1910-20 to say 1910–20. As with all guidelines, there are obvious exceptions, like if there are 20 endashes on the page and one hyphen, or vice versa - change one to the other so that they are consistent. If someone wants to change 19, go ahead, but it is a whole lot easier to change one, and still leaves the consistency within the article, which is far more important than consistency between articles. Apteva (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)