Talk:Comet ISON

Visibility on Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere?

I wonder if it is possible to predict on which hemisphere this comet will be visible? I have no idea whether this possible (and how soon). 217.237.29.58 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Astronomy Magazine, "Its position will allow observers all over Earth to see it, but those in the Northern Hemisphere will get the better views as Christmas approaches. In fact, on January 8, 2014, the comet will lie only 2° from Polaris — the North Star." We could try to make this a little more clear in the article. Thanks for the comment. Braincricket (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Brightness / "According To"

Kind of a followup/response to the question raised in the edit summary of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2F2012_S1&diff=530515763&oldid=530283961 ('"According to"? Does this mean it is not believable?')... I wouldn't have read any implied lack of believability into the statement. Given the next sentence regarding general difficulty in predicting comet brightness, especially if it's passing close to the sun, it seems "according to Astronomy Now" is appropriate, and helpful in that it provides a wikilink to a relevant astronomy-related wiki page. Though if there are multiple independent sources which all predict it may get brighter than the full moon, adding those would be useful. Gmporr (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is better without. There is a good chance the comet will not get much brighter than Venus and all this speculating about how bright it might or might not get is somewhat pointless sensationalism. -- Kheider (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The current text suggests a lot of uncertainty about its brightness. Even the press keeps suggesting you need a 16" telescope to see it at the current time. There is too much hype both here and in the press to be believable. Tell me when I can see it with a naked eye or get a photo with a phone-cam with some certainty, or stop speculating. --71.10.146.139 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are lucky you might see it with the naked eye in mid November. It is currently visible in a 4" to 6" telescope if you are an experienced amateur. -- Kheider (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

First naked eye reports are now coming as of 14 Nov. But keep in mind that these reports are coming from very experienced observers at very dark locations. -- Kheider (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible meteor shower?

I heard back from NASA's meteor shower expert and he says "probably not...". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That is generally the case. Comet 46P/Wirtanen failed to create an obvious new shower in Pisces in December. -- Kheider (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sungrazer" status

I note that the comet is given "sungrazer" status. The reason is similarity with 1680 comet, referencing an old post on a discussion mailing-list. However 1680 had a perihelion of 0.00622AU (930,000km) whereas ISON's is much further at 0.01244AU (1,861,000km). The justification for classifying this as a sungrazer does not appear clear to me. (The Sungrazing Comet article does not provide a definition) Carl-PG74 (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you do a search, there several sources calling it a Sungrazer, including a conference paper ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/1576.pdf) and the Navy's Sungrazer project sit ( http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/index.php?p=ison ). For what it's worth, it's usually safe to consider a comet a sungrazer if it's perihelion falls within the Sun's corona, aka, is within a couple million km of the Sun. But that's irrelevant in this case, as we have sources to rely upon which call it as such. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Good sources. Now satisfied! Carl-PG74 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be working them into the article a bit later...rather busy at the moment, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Size of nucleus

Are there no estimates of the size of the nucleus? If not, what's the holdup? Abductive (reasoning) 03:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine that exact measurements of the nucleus just aren't available yet due to it's distance and the obfuscation of the coma. According to NASA.gov, it is about 3 miles (5 km) in diameter, and Yahoo! News suggests an upper limit of 4 miles (6.5 km). This conference paper suggests a January 2013 coma diameter of 30,000 miles (50,000 km). — Huntster (t @ c) 03:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How about a range of estimates for the mass of the nucleus of the comet? e.g. (a) if the comet ISON is 3 miles in diameter, and it were made of ice, then its mass would be between 2 - 4 mile diameter sphere of ice.... (b) e.g. "One gigatonne is one billion metric tonnes ( 1 Gt = 1 x 109 tonnes)

One metric tonne is 1000 kilograms (1 tonne = 1000 kg)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter10003 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC) The word"metric" is redundant withe that spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.61.195 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

While simple computations are generally okay, it would still be an assumption to say this was simply solid ice of a certain size. Original research isn't allowed. Patience! As it gets closer, better information about its size will be available...the newest observations by Spitzer may provide some solid figures. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you could just simply count the mass using "ice" density. Usually when we think "ice" we mean Ice Ih - widespread on earth, hexagonal solid state of water. However, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice "space ice" is the amorphous form of ice, and I don't think we could assume it has similiar density to highly organised Ice Ih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloo777 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Downsizing

Early calculations in April 2013 showed that ISON was no larger than 5km. Then estimates were closer to 2km. The newest calculations show that is much closer to only 1km. This is part of the reason that as of early November 2013, ISON is underperforming expectations. The comet is believed to have been discovered during a small outburst of CO activity. -- Kheider (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Article title should be Comet ISON, not C/2012 S1

I understand that many experts in many areas disagree with WP:COMMONNAME, and would prefer to use technical names in their own areas anytime common names are (or could someday be) ambiguous, but if there's a strong argument why, under *existing* Wikipedia policy, this article should be called C/2012 S1, please post it here. As far as I know, "Comet ISON" is not even an ambiguous or confusing common name. (As an aside, I personally think it unlikely that there will be another well-known comet with a "common name" of Comet ISON in the near future, and we can rename the article again if and when it happens.) Surely we can all agree that "Comet ISON" is less ambiguous than, say, "Will Smith". The article title affects the rank and the link text in search engine results. For me, it's only a minor annoyance to have to take an extra second to scroll down my search results and realize that "C/2012 S1" means Comet ISON. But for young children, the elderly, ESL users, blind people using screen-readers, or the mentally challenged, a bad title may be a significant barrier to usability. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comet ISON gets about 1.5 million hits with Google, while C/2012 S1 gets 3 million. Based on that crude test, it would seem that "C/2012 S1" is most prevalent in English-language sources, i.e. the WP:COMMONNAME. The article Comet ISON is a redirect, so we're still catching likely search terms, and if we put "ISON" in bold in the lead sentence then I don't think readers will be too confused. Braincricket (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The results are skewed if you're not excluding non-English hits. (As an aside, web-crawler tokenizers sometimes do counter-intuitive things to non-alphanumeric characters and produce false positives). That said, it's not my intention to suck up everyone's time on this; I'll just be happy that (what I believe to be) the common name appears in the first sentence now. Rolf H Nelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Point is well taken. Braincricket (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I'm no astronomer. I had heard of this Comet, but the name "Comet ISON" does not ring any bell at all. The name I would use is "C/2012 S1". Mlewan (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The specific reason I reverted the name change is because "Comet ISON" itself is fairly ambiguous, as many comets--past, present and future--could potentially be referred to as such. The only reason that "Comet ISON" has caught on with this particular one is due to the media having no clue what they are reporting on. That said, if there should ever come a consensus to change the article name, I'd have no problem with that, but I think it should be something very carefully considered. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The format used by the Minor Planet Center is C/2012 S1 (ISON) - perhaps the title could be this so the name ISON is reflected. I would discourage the use of "Comet ISON" as the International Scientific Optical Network (ISON) could discover a new comet tomorrow and it would also be given the ISON name. Also, most other comets in Wikipedia are referred to by their official designation. It is their "name". Carl-PG74 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see that the article for the (arguably) last Great Comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught) currently has the title C/2006 P1. This was commonly called "Comet McNaught". The reason that page is not titled Comet McNaught is because there is already a page with that name listing most of the 81 comets discovered by Robert McNaught. Why shouldn't we consider ISON may be as successful? Carl-PG74 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, right now the search "comet ISON" brings up this page in the first few results, so maybe it's not a critical issue anyway. I like the suggestion "C/2012 S1 (ISON)" personally. Squish7 (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Figure on gas release rate

Would somebody work this material into the article? http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/comet-ison-gas-spitzer-space-telescope-nasa-130724.htm Abductive (reasoning) 16:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Other recent news:

1. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter achieves imaging of comet ISON from Mars Posted by Emily Lakdawalla, 2013/10/02
2. THE IMPENDING DEMISE OF COMET ISON, by Ignacio Ferrin
3. Comet ISON and Mars imaged together during close approach, by Nancy Atkinson
4. Comet ISON Goes Green by BOB KING on SEPTEMBER 28, 2013

--Smkolins (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Video

Hey, here is a video-animation. Maybe this is interesting for this article. https://vimeo.com/79485549 --212.18.11.23 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Viewing guides

Most articles saying that you can see the comet at dawn before sun rise in the east, is this true to all locations of earth?! How/where would this be visible in asian locations and at what time might be visible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.6.186 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't evaporate/disintegrate, and it turns out to be bright enough, it'll be visible from any location from where the Sun is visible too. Information in the article is clear enough. 79.156.88.83 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Name controversy

I take issue with the claim that "the media" botched this by assigning it the name "ISON". In fact, this is the name recognized by the International Astronomical Union, the ultimate authority in assigning names to astronomical objects. These are the same people that had the power to demote Pluto from planet status by fiat. Further, the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams issued the discovery notification (in Electronic Telegram No. 3238) as comet C/2012 S1 (ISON). Therefore, this comet is named ISON (and Pluto is not a planet). There is no "controversy" here. Link to discovery release: http://www.csc.eps.harvard.edu/2012S1/cbet003238.txt Geogene (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that in that report you mention, ISON stands for the telescope they used (International Scientific Optical Network). BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I gather that ISON is the name of a network of telescopes or a team of users of those telescopes, rather than the name of the specific telescope that was used, although that 'scope is an ISON asset. What I've found is that the modern rules for naming comets are surprisingly complicated and can result in a comet being named after human discoverers or being named after specific telescopes, observing teams, or spacecraft used in the discovery; there are rules in place that specify which will be used depending on the circumstances of discovery. I've made changes to the article that remove the remarks that the comet was named by the media, and the remark that not naming it after the discoverers was a breach of protocol. My edit of the article included the following reference: http://www.csc.eps.harvard.edu/2012S1/index.html . Also, I found the official rules on comet nomenclature...it appears that ISON's name came about from CBAT's interpretation of guideline 4.3. http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/cometnameg.html Geogene (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically the pre-edit article didn't come out and explicitly state the media screwed up, but I agree it could be read as inferring it. The point that ISON may be ambiguous with future comets named ISON can be kept in if there's a cite to back it up, or if there's consensus that it's common knowledge (which it probably is.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume that our readership will know that, but I'm not sure whether it's important. I agree that there will probably be other comets named ISON, but this is true of all comet names. In fact there are a lot of SOHO and LINEAR comets out there already. I have some concerns that such a disclaimer in the article might fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL, that it's a potential problem inherent in all comet articles, and that this is not actually a WP problem so much as it is an IAU problem. If a future Comet ISON should achieve WP:NOTABILITY, there are ways we can disambiguate them in the future. Geogene (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Death Zone

"We observe consistent, rapid fading of the molecular emission lines between Nov. 21 and Nov. 25 by at least a factor of 20 (likely more). This may indicate that the nucleus is now at best marginally active or that... it no longer exists." via Michal Drahus of Caltech (IRAM and JCMT) -- Kheider (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Could that source be any more primary? Abductive (reasoning) 20:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There's further ongoing discussion around evidence suggesting ISON's likely disintegration as at 26th November here: [1] Parkywiki (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We should know for sure pretty soon in any case. Does the article deserve a "current event" tag? Geogene (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we don't need a tag. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is someone proposing a change? If so please provide a WP:RS, if not please keep in mind that the Talk page is to propose or discuss changes to the article, not for discussion of the comet itself. FWIW one current WP:RS says "But now, more recent images from STEREO-A show ISON perking up and looking more back on track." [2] The current text of "Additionally, it will be within the Roche limit, meaning it might disintegrate due to the Sun's gravity." is fine with me until and unless something dramatic happens. Overall the page looks great, keep up the good work everyone! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nature of the orbit

As of 22 Nov 2013, the JPL parameter table began to include the Jupiter Tisserand invariant (T_jup), a three-body parameter. Also on the same date, the JPL solution was no longer listed as automatic, but lists a human "producer", and furthermore the solution now results in an elliptical orbit. This would suggest that the current JPL solution is three-body, not two-body as indicated the present article, and thus the validity of the elliptical result is at least comparable to that of the barycentric solution, if not superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanulos (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

JPL solution #53 is a heliocentric (2 body solution) as stated in the upper left "Reference: JPL 53 (heliocentric ecliptic J2000)". Orbital elements at a given epoch are always a two body solution as the elements will change as a result of perturbations by N-bodies. As a result of ongoing perturbations you need to integrate the orbit beyond the planetary region to determine if the orbit is hyperbolic or not. -- Kheider (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If I cherry-pick an epoch of 2012-Jan-05, I can claim comet ISON orbits the Sun at a distance of 140 ly (9,000,000 AU) in 9.6 billion years. -- Kheider (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RIP

Looks like it didn't survive the encounter with the Sun. The article needs to be updated and sources found. Tractor Tyres (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait! [3] shows a comet! --Stone (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

But a dust tail does not mean there is a nucleus. -- Kheider (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be too early to say ISON "was" a comet, even though there is evidence. It may take a day of analysis to determine if any of the nucleus is left.107.221.154.129 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is in fact gone, does anybody think this would be worthy of inclusion of the main page's "In the news" section? I've never edited that section and I'm not sure on how to. Tractor Tyres (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You make suggestions at WP:ITN/C and yes.©Geni (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's gone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatRusskiiGuy (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No. There could be a remnant around 50 meters in diameter or so. It is premature to completely write off the comet. See: ISON Update for 22:00 UTC -- Kheider (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation that the comet has vanished. ThatRusskiiGuy (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will agree that since ISON has not yet been recovered it seems like a lost cause at this point. All that has been recovered seems to be a trail of dusty debris. But I would like the article to use more reputable sources for the final word. The ghost of ISON is trying to fight for life, but I think we are looking down the tail. -- Kheider (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. http://soho.esac.esa.int/data/realtime/c3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatRusskiiGuy (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But apparently Zombies might be real. -- Kheider (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can watch the whole last few hrs of story here from NASA feeds: NASA telescopes feeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.1.140 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

NASA Update: ... While the fate of the comet is not yet established, it is likely that it did not survive the trip. The comet grew faint while within both the view of NASA's STEREO, and the joint ESA & NASA's SOHO. The comet was not visible at all in NASA's SDO ... - Ninney (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

NASA Update Continuing a history of surprising behavior, material from Comet ISON appeared on the other side of the sun on the evening on Nov. 28, 2013, despite not having been seen in observations during its closest approach to the sun. The question remains whether it is merely debris from the comet, or if some portion of the comet's nucleus survived, but late-night analysis from scientists with NASA's Comet ISON Observing Campaign suggest that there is at least a small nucleus intact. - Ninney (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I bought 7x50 binoculars to look at this thing.  :-( Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

At magnitude 5 in LASCO, I think the general public can give up on ISON. ISON will fail to become naked eye unless the final (sub 250 meter?) fragment outbursts after Dec 6th or so. And that assumes a final fragment still exists. -- Kheider (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Narrative style

This article reads largely as a series of dated events. That would be appropriate for a "History" section, but the rest of the article might benefit from more of an encyclopedic style, with summaries and explanations, rather than a chronological listing of events. --Doradus (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "current event"

I have restored the "current event" tag. Although the guidelines are not specific, the information and status regarding the comet has still changed over the past day or two and is not yet clear.

It appears that ThatRusskiiGuy (who didn't remove it the second time round, but had removed it previously) appears to have a very clear opinion that the comet/event is over and has an apparent desire to rush the issue to bed as being settled, with almost unseemly haste ("(Kheider, the comet is gone. that is that." yesterday)

He's entitled to his personal opinion, but the news reports aren't as unambiguous as his assertion above, and (e.g.) contradicted it today with news that parts of the comet still (possibly) remained.

Personally, I'd rather wait until the news regarding it is relatively settled and unambiguous. I don't expect the article to be perfect during this intermediate stage, but that *is* what the tag is for!

Ubcule (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, comrade. I didn't know the whole story. ThatRusskiiGuy (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• The template {{current}} was created for, and continues to be used for those exceedingly rare occasions in which so many editors are updating an article in the same hour, that they are interfering with each other's edits, and is an advisory to editors, not readers. Such rapid edits by many dozens of editors within the same hour is clearly not occurring with this article at this time. It is futher the natural state of affairs that a Wikipedia article is updated as a consequence of activity occurring presently or recently. The {{current}} template has nothing to do with occasions where some topic is "in the news", nor occasions in which the topic is "presently occurring", as there are always thousands of such topics noted in Wikipedia in which both qualities are true, and an indication of such attributes via a template such as this fails to add anything of substance to the article. The appropriate method to indicate that an event is presently occuring is to state the times and dates of such activity, in a sentence in the lede of the article for the benefit of the present and future reader of the article.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comet re-appears?

Following NYT NEWS seems to suggest Comet ISON survived its trip around the sun? => < ref name="NYT-20131129">Chang, Kenneth (29 November 2013). "Comet ISON, Presumed Dead, Shows New Life". New York Times. Retrieved 29 November 2013.</ref> - ALSO - NASA VIDEO (00:06) => [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdnAfrMFQkc Video (00:06) - Comet Re-appears From Around The Sun (29 November 2013)] - AND - NASA VIDEO (00:06) => File:NASA-Comet-ISON-MayHaveSurvived-20131129.ogv - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This process of perihelial heat, grabity(sic;), & solar atmospheric impact to erode and destabilize the fragile ice & rock structure of sun grazing comets is typical. In this case, c/2012 S1 stumbled in the heliosphere, and fell apart as it reached the arc of greatest deceleration. As we watch future comets do likewise, or almost so, we will continue to learn more about the process of comet agglutination/accretion and the huge role water has in the solar system. [ISON simulator] has a special model for this comet, which almost allows you to fly along in the tail of the comet as it caromed to its death. You can also use this tool to anticipate the mid-January S1 star shower & Venusian alignment.
Wikidity (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ISON more-or-less disintegrated on 28 November 2013 hours before perihelion passage. There will be no notable meteor shower from comet ISON. -- Kheider (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Overuse of Formal Designation vs. Name

Is it really necessary that every reference to the comet be by its formal designation rather than by its name? Most sources seem to prefer to call it "Comet ISON". It seems that comet articles refer mostly to the comet's name rather than by formal designation as well. Geogene (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hale%E2%80%93Bopp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempel_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyakutake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1

Geogene (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that while it is unlikely that there will be more than one Comet Hale–Bopp the odds are somewhat better that ISON will find more than one comet.©Geni (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A quote from the article as presently worded to show my point:

"On 1 October 2013, C/2012 S1 passed within 0.07 AU (10,000,000 km; 6,500,000 mi) of Mars. Between 29 September and 2 October, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) detected C/2012 S1. The twin STEREO spacecraft began detecting C/2012 S1 in the second week of October.October 2013 images of C/2012 S1 displayed a greenish tint, probably attributable to the release of cyanogen and diatomic carbon. On 31 October 2013, C/2012 S1 was detected with 10×50 binoculars"

It's a fair bet that there will be other ISON comets, as both discoverers have already got comets named after them as individuals. It's a lot less likely that another comet ISON will achieve notability, but within the realm of possibility. But there is no reason to avoid using the comet's name in the article, and if there is ever a disambiguation issue, we can deal with that by using a disambiguation page. If there were some reason we need to only refer to the comet by its designation, we could do so in a single edit by applying a find/replace function. That would take less than five minutes, assuming that is ever actually needed. So really, no need to make the prose so awkward now to anticipate something that might happen 10 years from now, and which could be fixed with trivial effort anyway. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Other comets will likely also be named ISON, so what? At that time this comet will be referred to as "ISON 1" and the others also with the appropriate numeral. The article and its title will be changed accordingly if and when it would be necessary. Where is the problem?? --JorisvS (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The bigger problem is the systematic conversion of almost every non-proper-noun mention to "C/2012 S1", such as "the comet" or even "it". It's certainly appropriate to do so when there is ambiguity in the sentence, but even phrases specifically and unambiguously referring to ISON have been changed, which leads to extremely ponderous wording and a very poor reading experience. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Huntster has identified the real issue here. Overusing the numerical designation makes for awkward prose. I thought it a good idea to draw attention to the issue, and to ask if there's a reason for it. Geogene (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Referring to it by "the comet" is bad practice, because it is "a comet", just like Mars is "a planet", not "the planet". We could simply call it by its name. After all, it has one! Likewise, we do not refer to Eris by saying "2003 UB₃₁₃", nor to Comet Hale–Bopp by saying "C/1995 O1". --JorisvS (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also the comet being referred to by the article. It isn't inappropriate when used judiciously, to add variety to the wording in the article. This all or nothing approach is unwarranted. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Adding variety" is actually something that hinders readers' comprehension. The best thing is to be precise and consistent. --JorisvS (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. But I do think variety reads smoother, ie: C/2012 S1, comet ISON, the comet, it... -- Kheider (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

SOHO Imagery is Copyrighted

Another point I'd like to throw out there...this article uses imagery from SOHO ostensibly on the grounds that it is a "sole NASA product" and therefore public domain. This is incorrect. SOHO is a joint effort by NASA and the European Space Agency, which means that imagery from the spacecraft is copyrighted.

The image here is an example of one that has been mislabeled. I removed the "public domain" tag because the image is not in public domain, as it is not a sole NASA product. I don't know if the image use is acceptable under other terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comet_ISON_-_SOHO_LASCO_C3_trajectory.gif Geogene (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is something I've been thinking about for a while. I spoke with a NASA PR agent who I think didn't understand the situation, as he just said anything produced by NASA was public domain, and wouldn't respond further. I'm really not quite sure who to contact to get the final word on this, as copyright status can vary from instrument to instrument, depending on which organization is operating it. However, I have a feeling it will turn out that all imagery from SOHO will be considered joint ESA/NASA, and thus copyrighted (there's no agreement regarding SOHO products as there is with Hubble). — Huntster (t @ c) 00:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a "Copyright Notice" on the SOHO webpage, so they aren't public domain--so I got rid of those NASA-PD license templates in the SOHO media linked from here. That's not to say we can't use the imagery, but we need a license, probably something like those Hubble license tags. There are about a dozen other SOHO images that still carry the NASA-PD templates which I did not mess with--beyond my personal editing scope--but they aren't on the SOHO article...which itself seems to have a long history of images being deleted from it on similar grounds (the top of their talk page is a copy of the SOHO Copyright notice.) This matter is important but over my head in my limited editing experience. http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html Geogene (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please don't simply remove the license from an image's description page...if you feel confident about the license being wrong, then nominate it for deletion. Also, remember that simply having a copyright notice on a web page does not automatically mean we can't use it...in this situation it's the fact that 1) ESA is involved, and 2) the notice specifically prohibits non-commercial use. ESA Hubble data, for instance, is copyrighted but specifically licensed under a Creative Commons license we can use. In any case, I'm going to explore this some more, and nominate the entire SOHO images category for deletion if necessary. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I have modified those image pages at Wikimedia by copy/pasting the SOHO Copyright Notice (linked to above) and link under the "License" header. This is where the NASA-PD license tag was formerly. That should explain the situation to all editors involved until a decision is made. I also added the required "ESA and NASA" credit to the image captions in the article. Thank you for looking into it. Geogene (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, consensus and long-standing practice on en.wiki is that credit lines are not appropriate in articles because all images are linked to their description pages, where such information is held. Image copyright and use is rather complex, so don't feel like I'm fussing at you! — Huntster (t @ c) 19:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I also doubt we need to directly credit ESA/NASA below the images in the article as long as the File info gives the proper details/credits. Because of the wiki grey rules regarding SOHO images, I do not bother to upload them as I have long expected such images will get deleted. -- Kheider (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looks like the consensus is that we won't credit in captions, which is fine with me. I noticed that there is a non-free tag specifically for ESA images available. I'd think we could justify non-free SOHO imagery if (1) there's no free alternative(?) (2) they're the only documentation of ISON's demise(?) and certainly (3) they do feature the subject of the article...but I recognize that this is a complicated issue, non-free imagery is a last resort, and it's best to be conservative in what we use. I didn't think this was the first time this has come up and take particular notice of Kheider's point that SOHO imagery apparently is frequently deleted due to this gray area. I noticed there is a dearth of such imagery on WP. Geogene (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In general, using an image under fair-use rules only applies if there is absolutely zero freely licensed material. Since there are free images in the article (even if they don't show exactly the same thing), then fair-use ceases to be an option. I'm hoping some NASA material for perihelion or post-perihelion shows up (I've not had time to look here recently). — Huntster (t @ c) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

STEREO images are acceptable even on commons as they fall under the PD-USGov-NASA template. -- Kheider (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

major summary article published needs integrating

Zdenek Sekanina; Rainer Kracht (7 May 2014). "Disintegration of Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON) Shortly Before Perihelion: Evidence from Independent Data Sets". Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (1404). arxiv: 5968. Retrieved May 10,2014. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

- the table of conclusions consists of 30 points ranging from a derived ejection of material about 100AU from the sun to the influence of sodium sublimation affecting the comet's trajectory below 1AU to multiple signs of catastrophic failure of the comet hrs before perihelion in two stages. Because of the dramatic list of results integrating the paper is a lot of work people very familiar with the article may be more equipped for. It was interesting reading the paper! I'm not sure I've got the above citation exactly right but it should be good enough to start with. --Smkolins (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comet ISON. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228014918/http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu:80/brightest.html to http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/brightest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comet ISON. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/brightest.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928015657/http://cometography.com/lcomets/2012s1.html to http://www.cometography.com/lcomets/2012s1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520192645/http://www.astronomie.be/erik.bryssinck/c2012s1_20120924.html to http://www.astronomie.be/erik.bryssinck/c2012s1_20120924.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Oort Cloud

"Comet ISON, formally known as C/2012 S1, was a sungrazing comet from the Oort cloud"

The existence of the Oort Cloud is still hypothetical, so we don't know that the comet was from there. Grassynoel (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)