Talk:Great comet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Great Comet)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Great comet is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Great comet at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.


For a comet to become spectacular, it also should pass close to the earth and be visible to casual observers. Halley's Comet, for example, is usually very bright when it passes through the inner solar system every 76 years, but during its 1986 apparition, its closest approach to earth was almost the most distant possible. The comet became visible to the naked eye, but was definitely unspectacular.

I'm not surprised the 1976 appearance was not spectacular; especially since it came not in 1976 but 1986! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:49, 17 January 2005‎ (UTC)


Great comet or Great Comet? The article is inconsistent on capitalisation at the moment, but I don't know enough to decide which is right. Markyour words 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught) great?[edit]

This comet is very similar with comet West. It can be included in this article. What do you think? 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pushing the definition. Yes it's bright, but viewing is impaired by close proximity to the Sun and very small size. Observing it on Mt Soledad on 12 JAN, very few people could see it even when pointed out to them. Most prople were there to watch the sunset and were not aware there was a comet visible. Rereading the main article, it may not fit the description as defined. Exaggeration could lead to future disappointment, something that has happened repeatedly with astronomical objects in the past. Robogun 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
McNaught was spectacular in the southern hemisphere. -- Elphion (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Other great comets[edit]

According to this, comet NEAT (2003) and Southern Comet (1947) were all as bright or brighter than mag. 0. Why aren't they in the article? Should they be included? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arend-Roland (1956) is the Great Comet of 1957 and Bennett (1969) is the Great Comet of 1970. I have removed them for your list since they are already included in the article. The Southern Comet (C/1947 X1)[1] does not have a wikipedia article and was first sighted on Dec 7, faded rapidly, and was lost to the naked eye by Dec. 25th. C/2002 V1 (NEAT) is ONLY the 7th brightest comet in the last 70 years (what is so great about that?), and as a modern day comet really NEEDS good pictures (plural) to back-up its greatness. The Eclipse Comet (C/1948 V1) famous for being magnitude -2 during a solar eclipse sounds more impressive. -- Kheider (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so should I create an article for the Southern Comet as I have done with articles for many other comets? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it was one of two impressive (though not really Great) December comets only a year apart, I don't see why not. -- Kheider (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to keep in mind that a comet can be very bright without being considered a "Great Comet" - it needs to be both bright AND far enough away from the sun (in terms of angular degrees) to also APPEAR bright. A comet could be at magnitude -5 (spectacularly bright)but only a few degrees away from the sun when that bright, and hence never achieve a spectacular appearance in the night sky. (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) veteran astronomer

Comet Holmes?[edit]

Has Comet Holmes been considered as a "Great Comet?" Don't want to do WP:NOR, just wondering if anyone has mentioned Holmes as a "Great Comet" or if it fits the definition, and so should be included? It did cause quite a stir when it hopped up the magnitude scale, became visible to the naked eye, developed a coma of dimensions not unlike the sun, etc. (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a Great Comet in my book, but it is an interesting one because it was the second time it experienced an outburst. Choronzon (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comet Seki-Lines (1962)[edit]

First time I see that comet mentioned in a list of Great Comets. It was a bright comet but definitely not "Great Comet" material in my view. Google comes back with roughly 120 results in images for seki-lines compared with ikeya-seki with 3210 Choronzon (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Just for brainstorming Great Comets on comets-ml. (Hale-Bopp vs Hyakutake) -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've included Lovejoy in the list of Great Comets. SOHO's website and some US Military sites called it the "Great Birthday Comet of 2011". ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Next great comet?[edit]

Would it make sense to add a short note about C/2012 S1? This has a strong possibility of being the next great comet. Ffejmopp (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really since there is currently too much hype and not enough facts about the brightening trend for the comet. Comets often behave differently when they are within 1.5AU of the Sun and comet ISON will not be 1.5AU from the Sun until October 2013. Comet Elenin could have been a great comet if it did not disintegrate when it was ~0.8AU from the Sun in August 2011. -- Kheider (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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: page moved. I note that this is reversing a previous undiscussed move. Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Great CometGreat comet – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), common names should be lowercase. Great comet is not a trademark, place or work title. Ibadibam (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: This is not a proper name, it's just a generic categorization like marine mammal or metropolitan area.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. "A Great Comet is a comet that becomes exceptionally bright," according to the opening. I am skeptical of the validity of this concept. But irregardless, we can still capitalize it correctly. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
    • It's not a hard scientific category, as far as I can tell, but it definitely is a thing culturally and so on. —innotata 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the concept of a "great comet" is separate from the event of a Great Comet. The individual events would be proper nouns, but the general class is not. -- (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as pointed out by, yes, individual "Great Comets" should have their names capitalised, but not—in this case—the generic term. —innotata 20:49, 13 September 2014 (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.