This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
I'd like the article to explain: The
comet article states that comets are less reflective than asphalt. Why does Borrelly appear to be so bright in this photo?
Tempshill 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)reply
It looks actually pretty dark to me :)... But seriously, this image was created and processed with that fact in mind, so it shows artificially large contrasts.
Awolf002 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Requested move
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 no consensus to support move.
JPG-GR (
talk) 04:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
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 naming conventions.
Oppose. There are
several comets named "Comet Borrelly" and it would be wrong if one of them will be named solely "Comet Borrelly" and others will not. The page "
Comet Borrelly" MUST BE a disambiguation page, and this is the only right solution. —
Chesnok (
talk) 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The search for "Comet Borrelly" goes to a disambiguation page, that page clearly shows that
19P/Borrelly is the most likely candidate, but also shows that Borrelly was a pretty prolific sky-gazer with several comets to his/her name. While I agree that in a few cases it is appropriate for an ambiguous term to go directly to a single article with a dab hatnote to a disambiguation page, in general I find that those decisions are made upon slim reeds and limited perception of the great variety in the intent of searchers. In absolute terms, I believe that
Masursky is correct that searches using either the term "Comet Borrelly" or "Borrelly's Comet" are, in the majority of cases, looking for "19P/Borrelly", but I don't believe that mere preponderance is a good standard primarily because we have little or no data on the intent of searchers and it comes down to a matter of guesswork. --
Bejnar (
talk) 18:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Any additional comments:
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.
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!