Talk:Historical comet observations in China

Classical Chinese comet synonyms

I've removed the following line from the article:

Other words for comet include saoxing (掃星, "sweeping star"), tianchan (天攙, "heavenly intermingler"), fengxing (篷星, "sailing star"), changxing (長星, "long star"), and zhuxing (燭星, "candle-flame star").

This seems trivial, and is incomplete in any case. I did recently update the sentence so it is not a direct quote of Needham (and complies with MOS:CHINA), and can add comet synonyms ff anyone feels like it needs to go back in. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor: Modern astronomers are using the term recorded for the comet to try and determine whether or not the comet was in opposition. I think the purpose of showing that there are many names for comets stems from this. Those other names may or may not be capable of transmitting the same information. We don't necessarily need to list the names, we could just say that there were other names. SpinningSpark 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Historic

I see no need to have "historic" on the front of this article. It's unwieldy, and also tricky to parse. What is a "historic comet" anyway? The original title of this article was Comets Appeared in China, and I agree that using "observations" is a better word to use than "appeared", but historic is not needed, and I think a requested move should be used if you want to add that. The present title accurately describes the title per WP:CONCISE. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

PS - if you really want to give a sense that the article does not refer to modern observations, how about something like Comet observations in ancient China? At least the adjective is applied to the correct noun then, and is much more precise than the vague word "historic" which could refer to anything from the Big Bang through to five minutes ago...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Historic" is necessary because that is the scope of the article, and it was also something that came out of the AFD so there has already been a discussion that resulted in that as a consensus. The title you suggest is unsuitable because "ancient" implies prior to the middle ages and that is clearly not the case here. The title you have moved the article to is unsuitable because it instantly makes the article incomplete. There are modern Chinese astronomers studying comets, but it would be out of place to include their work here. I doubt anybody would muisunderstand which noun the adjective was meant to apply to, but that can easily be solved with Historic observations of comets in China. SpinningSpark 15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well if you're happy with that title then I guess I am too. It scans a lot better than the previous version. Although unless there is an engvar issue here, shouldn't it be "historical" rather than "historic"? [1] As for the discussion, AfD is not the place to discuss a title change, the venue for that is WP:RM. That's the mirror image of the situation where people express a desire to delete an.article during a move request, and an AfD is subsequently started. It was fine for you to move based on preferences expressed there, but once I reverted that move as contested, the proper route is an RM request. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• My view is that the title of the page is not especially important. When considering what it might be, we should look to see what sources say. Their titles include:

1. The Observations of Halley's Comet in Chinese History
2. Observations of Comets from BC 611 to AD 1640
3. A Study of Ancient Chinese Cometary Records
4. East-Asian Archaeoastronomy: Historical Records of Astronomical Observations of China, Japan and Korea
5. Ancient-1799: A Catalog of Comets
6. Ancient Chinese Observations and Modern Cometary Models
7. Daytime observations of sungrazing comets in Chinese annals
8. A Search for Encke’s Comet in Ancient Chinese Records

There seems to be considerable variation with no perfect or standard solution. It is therefore reasonable to push the title around a bit to generate a variety of redirects. Andrew D. (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

David, it is important because the title should properly reflect the scope. With the current title the article can be criticised for not including modern Chinese astronomers. That would make it fail GA criterion 3a (broad coverage) and the page is currently nominated for GA. The current title just has to be reverted, if not now, the GA reviewer will probably insist on it later. Yes, there is a great variety of titles to the sources, but they all clearly make a distinction between historic observations and modern observations, that is the essential point. SpinningSpark 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• This probably won't be a very popular suggestion, but merging the content into Chinese astronomy would place it in its proper context without the need for a clunky title. Otherwise, I agree that the new title is quite a bit worse than the original Historic comet observations in China in that it inadvertently changes its scope. The "original" title may not have been the most eloquent, but I think most folks were able to figure out what it meant fairly quickly, if there was any confusion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  Fine, but in any case per my question above, should be "historical"? Historic means it was very significant and groundbreaking, rather than in the past. Well I suppose it was in some ways historic and groundbreaking, since it was the first observations of comets, but was that really the intention of this title? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  Grammar guides do suggest that "historical" would be the more appropriate choice here. It would also be more consistent with article titles like Historical time zones of China and Historical Chinese phonology. Spinningspark, any objections? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't appreciate that there was a significant difference, so no, that wouldn't bother me. SpinningSpark 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was asked for an opinion, and the current title, "Historical comet observations in China" seems just about right. It was obviously the conclusion of the AfD that this was the proper scope of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

Has Spinningspark or anyone else located any Chinese historical images of comet sightings? These are pretty common in European art (c:Category:Comets in art). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I found one and added it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Historical comet observations in China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

This is obviously a carefully-researched and well-written article, and I have few comments to make, and just one or two questions.

• The 'Further reading' item by Ho Peng Yoke could be used as a ref. for the Halley's Comet section.

I've added something from the source on comet Ikeya-Seki. However, most of the rest is off-topic on supernovvae or other aspects of Chinese astronomy. These are interesting subjects, but don't belong in this article. The source actually doesn't say much usable about Halley other than its association with the Aquarids. It does not say anything I feel could be used in this article. If the Chinese sources associated meteor showers with comets, or modern astronomers were using ancient meteor showers to identify ancient "lost" comets then we could add something. I suspect that it is likely the latter is actually happening, but this source does not explicitly say either of those things. SpinningSpark 10:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• The numerical integration statement cited to Yeomans and Kiang at a first reading makes it sound as if that work were by Yeomans and Kiang themselves, but it actually refers to earlier work which they are supplanting (page 642). Perhaps it would be worth noting some of the key earlier workers, and also attributing the to-1404 BC integration to Y & K.

I'm not in a position to do that, I only have access to the abstract of the Y&K paper. I took the information in the article from a secondary source (Xu et al), whereas Y&K are the primary. However, the Y&K abstract seems to unequivocally make the claim that they ran a numerical integration from 1759-1607 AD all the way back to 1404 BC. Previous work by Kiang is mentioned but I'm not sure what that adds to our article. I've added the work of Biot and Russell from the Xu reference. SpinningSpark 11:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article would be enlivened with another image or two if relevant ones can be found. Meanwhile, the existing image could be enlarged and moved to the lead to make it a little more prominent.

I'm reluctant to use that image in the lead. There is no indication that comets are even mentioned in the document. As I am not a Chinese speaker, I cannot tell myself, and for the same reason can't easily find more images. However, I have found a 240 BC report of Halley to use in the lead. SpinningSpark 10:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• (1.1.2) " its associated portent, usually military". It would be interesting to have one example of such a portent.

Done. I also noticed the same source verifies that the Han silk is describing comets, so I have now put that in the lead as requested. SpinningSpark 11:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the lead, with "a feat not possible from modern data due to a close approach of the comet to Earth in the ninth century." isn't entirely clear and should be reworded.

I've changed that to "not possible solely from modern data", but I'm undure what you thought was unclear. SpinningSpark 11:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the connection between the modern data and an event in the 9th century. I guess saying something about the fact that a close approach to a large body causes the orbit to change would make it clearer.

Done SpinningSpark 14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps the lead should mention the key dates discussed in the text.

Done, but I think we are now at the limit for the size of lead compared to article size.

Minor tweaks

(1.) "Ancient Chinese records of comet observations are the most extensive historical records in existence." presumably means "the most extensive w.r.t. comets": needs rephrasing.

Not really seeing the problem here. "Ancient Chinese records of comet observations are the most extensive historical records of comet abservations in existence" would just be mindless repetition. The subject of the sentence is "records of comet observations" so "most extensive...records" must mean "comet observation records". SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(1.) "broomstick here being a metaphor" should read "broomstick here is a metaphor".

Done SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(1.) "a bit more problematic" should read "a little more problematic".

Done SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(1.1.2) "Williams list contains " should read "Williams' ... " (or "Williams's ...").

Done SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(2.) "The Chinese records have modern importance to science" could be better phrased.

Done SpinningSpark 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

The Mawangdui image is marked PD-old on Commons. I think it should be PD-Art|PD-old-100 to make clear that its use relies on the 2-dimensional works clause.

Done SpinningSpark 14:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary

I'm now happy to pass this as a good article, well up to the required standard. There are suggestions below, including my response to your question, which may improve the article further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Thanks for reviewing, I'm looking through your comments. And thanks for the kind words, but this was not so much "carefully researched and well-written" as a desperate and panicky attempt to save a very bad page from deletion. It's more incidental that it turned out reasonably well. Can I ask for your opinion as the review on the discussion at Talk:Historical comet observations in China § Classical Chinese comet synonyms. Thanks. SpinningSpark 19:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was indeed in a sad state on 15 Nov 2016. On the list of names, I'd have thought we could easily include them (the list isn't long), at least as a footnote. I certainly agree that the names were useful to the researchers, and it's curious to see what they were, if only for the feeling they give for the way that Chinese observers described the comets. In fact, since they bring the reader closer to "Historical comet observations in China", I think they should definitely form part of the main text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've put them back in. The editor who took it out did so on the grounds that there are other synonyms for comet in Chinese (someone on the language reference desk said something similar about there being many synonyms). However, these are the ones that Needham and my other sources think are significant in terms of ancient documents and astronomical study of comets. It's not meant to be a thesaurus entry. SpinningSpark 15:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, I recently came across this article which provides some useful info concerning ancient Chinese observations of Kreutz sungrazers as small, bright objects next to the sun in the daytime. More here. I'm not sure the omission of this info is enough to hold up the GA nomination, but it's probably worth including at the nominator's leisure. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've put something in, and in fact that fits nicely with the piece on Ikeya-Seki which is also a member of the same group. SpinningSpark 15:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope everybody's pleased. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)