Jump to content

Talk:Halley's Comet/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Western vs Oriental

The article refers to the last year for which "oriental records were better than western" records. Shouldn't one compare oriental to occidental, or eastern to western records? This reads as grammatically confused. 216.163.246.3 (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Point taken. Serendipodous 23:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Does halley's comet exist in 2024?

If , so then you can surely edit this Wikipedia article for Halley's comet existing in 2024? 121.74.164.184 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

684 CE depiction?

The table of apparitions claims that the comet is depicted in the Nuremberg Chronicle, which for some time was thought to be the oldest depiction of a comet. This claim, which was popular since the 1960s,[1] has been disproven in 1989.[2] I don't know why it is in this Featured Article, and with a source from 1985![3] Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed both mentions of it. Renerpho (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ley, Willy (October 1967). "The Worst of All the Comets". Galaxy Science Fiction. p. 99.
  2. ^ Olson, R. J. M.; Pasachoff, J. M. (1989). "Is Comet p/ Halley of 684-A.D. Recorded in the Nuremberg Chronicle?". Journal for the History of Astronomy. 20 (3/OCT): 171–173. Bibcode:1989JHA....20..171O.
  3. ^ http://www.ianridpath.com/halley/halley6.html

ref label b?

In "Structure and composition" is "[b]" which seems to do nothing. Anyone know what this is for or how to fix it? Al Begamut (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Al Begamut: This has been the case since the article was vandalized on 8 March 2010, 14 years ago.[1] The edit was partially, but not completely, reverted 12 minutes later,[2] by what may well have been the same editor who originally vandalized it (both were made by unregistered IPs). The page syntax has been broken ever since. It should work again now.[3]
I have never seen a Featured Article that had such blatant vandalism stand for so long. Renerpho (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate very much your detailed explanation; as an editor with limited range of experience, this insight is helpful to me. Al Begamut (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Al Begamut: This is now listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Vandalism, as the longest undetected vandalism on a featured article. Thanks again for bringing it to our attention! Renerpho (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Wow, all right then. Pleased to have helped! Al Begamut (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Some things just grow by incremental edits and get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of e external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Links should be added in an external links section that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. (2nd paragraph of lead)
The This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Move excessive links here (from article) for possible discussion.
  • cometography.com
  • 1P/Halley at CometBase database
  • A brief history of Halley's Comet (Ian Ridpath) -- Otr500 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks Otr500. I think everything except the seds.org link and the collection of 1910 photos can go. Seds includes a large number of useful links, including (but not limited to) images. The two images we are currently linking in the EL section are the ones that are not in seds, which I believe is the reason they are their own separate EL's. The name for the 1910 photographs page can be shortened, but I find that link useful. That said, I think the first of the two links to the Giotto image (currently in the EL's) can be removed as well. The two links are to different versions of the same photograph, and the second one is a lot more useful than the other.
    Cometography is already in the bibliography, and is also cited in the references. We don't also need it as an EL. The CometBase link does nothing but promote hotels in New Mexico. And the "brief history" is just one of the sub-pages from Ridpath's website. Other sub-pages are cited multiple times in the references. If his "history" was particularly useful then surely we'd have cited that, too. Renerpho (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    The EL to Halley's 1706 article led to a random page in that book for no apparent reason. I've just changed it so it actually leads to the first page of the relevant article. Renerpho (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, the link to JPL's ephemeris page may be worth keeping, too. I can see myself using that one. The orbital simulation is useless though. Renerpho (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Greeting Renerpho. So there is no confusion please add links you have determined acceptable in the subsection below. I have been performing maintenance to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. The same links have been used hundreds, but probably more than likely multiple hundreds of times, inundating Wikipedia.
I have now paused at 2016 Heinemann.-- Otr500 (talk)
@Otr500: Done. I think many asteroid articles were created by the same user, based on a template they used. The lists of minor planets have many issues (I have commented on some at Talk:List of minor planets#Dubious diameters and broken links). Good luck with those pages. Renerpho (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A discussion has determine some links are acceptable. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Every article

Side note: An issue I have is editors (or bots if programed) putting the same links on every like article all across Wikipedia, sometimes in the multiple-thousands, like Find a Grave and IMDb. This is not needed, required, and certainly at a point not encyclopedic. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Otr500: I agree in principle. Do you have a relevant example? Findagrave and IMDb aren't exactly common on astronomy articles. Renerpho (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
First, I do not have an issue with the sites themselves. I have long maintained I like them and have used them personally, -- BUT -- there should be a reason an external link is included in an article and not just blanket used on thousands of sites. General links, non-specific to an article, should never be used as it give an unmistakable appearance of advertising or other forms of promotion. To me, and I can't be alone, people will pay to have their individual bio's on Wikipedia, then it is not a stretch to see companies paying for their website to be promoted multiple thousands of times. Many consider this type of inundation spamming. I use multiple "External links" policies and guidelines for removing spammed or excessive links.

Article inundation evidence

The not too subtle "External links" abuse resulted in the 2010 External links/Perennial websites. While I don't think I edited the page I was involved in a fair amount of behind the scenes (Top editors section) work by "added text".
One example: Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people/A. Please note: 1)- this list is just one example of many. 2)- the wording under the "Guidelines" section, This list was provided to us by the Find a Grave founder. I am not against this type of listing, or the project, as a starting point to research article creation. It became abused, especially when gung-ho editors started mass creating links on many articles of dead people, either with a)-just Find a Grave as a sole source in the "External links" section, b)- under-sourced articles where Find a Grave was shown to be violating copyright laws at worst and too close paraphrasing at best.
People who had recently passed away had articles created using the site alone, or poorly sourced, violating our BLP policy. I ran across the above list when looking for info on #23, Larry Arthur (Arthur Langston) on IMDb. and on Ancestry. Both of these show "Generally unreliable source" when the cursor is placed on them.
Check out the references for List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, a list of a lot of living people. Just pick randomly like Ashlyn Martin. The reliability is questionable but I guess viewing the reference makes good eye candy. This becomes more evident when checking the references of List of Playboy Playmates of 1961. All are only sourced with "Playmate data". Wikipedia is not censored but link after link of basically little information and nude photographs! I do not fault the project, as some articles are far more referenced like List of Playboy Playmates of 2009. The Playmate data is replaced with "playmate listing" as with current reference #23.
The main issue is not the intent of the various projects in general, which I am certain helped grow Wikipedia, but that once set up there is little or no internal review. Maintenance is years behind article creation so we end up with many hundreds, more than likely many thousands (of thousands), of articles with the "External links" section bloated (some to the extreme) or improperly sourcing articles especially BLP's.
It only takes a few clicks like Moon (first click as randomly chosen), that is a "A featured article", with 20 "External links" in two sections:

Cartographic resources

Observation tools

Options

The option I choose are from mild to extreme, usually depending on current activity and class. I will either: 1)-trash the entire list except sometimes picking the three best looking, or 2)- leave a talk page section like Talk:Moon#External links.
This is three examples, four including the inundation of the same links on these like articles, of abuse. It is a very large problem with apparently none or limited editorial maintenance. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Otr500: I'm sorry, but I still don't see what you want us to do? I have now added back the 3 links deemed acceptable, per the above. I think there's a good reason to have all 5 links that are currently listed, so how is all of what you just wrote relevant to the Halley's Comet article? Renerpho (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Reply: I apologize. The "we" in the comments stumped me for a minute. I did miss the rationale for the sites "you" added back per your comments on Friday at 8:39 pm, 6 September 2024. The confusion was the adding three "back" to the others now meaning five links. I have been working in the "External links" section for over 10 years. Sometimes I receive push-back that has even resulted in me being brought to ANI a couple of times on false pretenses. I was even told one time that there was not a snowball chance in hell that I would get an article renamed to the most commonly used name. Not only are there apparently snowballs in hell now, I have been successful in making a point, from the beginning, not to make mistakes resulting in being blocked or banned.
I am not a strictly "toe the line" person. While some variances are I great think there does need to be some consistency. I love the idea of collaboration but so many times there have been editors, right or wrong, that seems to like battles, and this has been on stub, start, and c-class articles. This happened a lot until I start adding the above policies and guidelines before action.
I do not have a problem with an occasional deviation from the "three, or four with consensus", to five with valid reasoning. Thank you for your involvement. I will leave the subject in your hands. Again, thanks for your taking the time to be involved with reviewing and action. You are a scholar and gentleperson. LOL (actually LMAO} - I might need to brush up on my politically correct word usage. "Gentleperson" looks like a mistype of "gentle person" which doesn't seem to confer the same meaning as "a scholar and gentleman". Anyway, have a great day, -- Otr500 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Asteroid

I have recently proposed that an asteroid should be named after Francis Williams. The name was officially announced a few days ago. See User:Renerpho#Minor planet names for why I'm not adding that myself to either Francis Williams (polymath) or Halley's Comet. If you believe that it's notable, feel free to add it to either article! Renerpho (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halley%27s_Comet/Archive_5&oldid=1300793378"