Talk:Comet Hyakutake

Image

The images we've got here at the moment are not that great. If anyone can find any appropriately licensed colour images showing the comet at its best, that would be great. Worldtraveller 16:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have tried Google images, I take it? This nice one is claimed to be from HST [1]. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Had tried googling, but hadn't found anything appropriately licensed. The one you've found looks good, I've added it to the article. Worldtraveller 15:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image placement

I moved the images from all on the right back to alternating left and right. I really feel this looks a lot better in terms of article presentation. If the general consensus is that all on the right would be better of course I'll defer to that. Worldtraveller 18:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quality of the article

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the quality of this article. I haven't seen the version that was nominated back in March, but after I eagerly started reading the interesting article, I stumbled upon multiple grammatical mistakes and a few sentences that didn't make much sense. I'm in the process of fixing the mistakes and changing the references to {{ref}} and {{note}}. Any objections? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well as one of the main authors of the page I can only apologise :) Of course, fix it up in any way you think improves it. Happy to answer any questions if anything needs clarifying. Worldtraveller 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an excellent read, and the time between March and now is nearly a year. Thanks for your work! Anyways, I've (hopefully) fixed it up, and changed all the references to {{note}} and {{ref}} format. Please check those to make sure I didn't accidentally attribute something to the wrong source, and feel free to check my edits to see that I didn't accidentally misinterpret any sentences. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fix ups! So nice to see a flood of edits on an FA that aren't all adding the word 'arse' in amusing places :) All the refs are fine except for one stray link which I removed, and I just made a few small wording changes where I thought a particular sense was important. Worldtraveller 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! A slight problem, though: when adding the {{ref}}s, I tried to match up the number that appeared with the number that showed on the bottom. Besides the fact that one of the references at the bottom was out of order, some of the refs were cited more than once; I had to use {{ref num}} ({{ref num|NAME|#}}) to force the numbers to match. By removing that one ref, the numbers all were automatically lowered; thus, I'm not sure that every ref is matched up to the right number. Because I'm not familiar with which links should go with what sources, would you mind reviewing this? Many thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the numbers, should all be correct now. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. The "click-back" links in the Reference section for numbers 6 and up do not work Vir 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. I can't figure it out, although Template talk:Ref says that they should backlink, but gives a caveat that I can't understand. Perhaps we should use {{ref label}}? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, you will find the <ref>...</ref> format much easier to use (particularly if you want to change the order of refs). See Nobel Prize and Deus Caritas Est for places where I have used it recently. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Since when did Japanese have pharyngeals? I believe the pronunciation should probably be [çakɯ̥take]. --Ptcamn 08:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain about the devoiced vowel - it sounds like some sort of ejective in between the [k] and the [t]. I have no idea what's going on with the transcription in the article though - yours is definitely far superior.--Printf("Sam") 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Worldtraveller added it just under 11 months ago - diff - based on comments from Revth in the FAC discussion. I suspect the article may give the western attempts to get at the Japanese pronunciation, rather than what the Japanese actually say, but perhaps we should ask them? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation Revth first posted in the FAC discussion (/hjakutake/) was much closer than either /ħʝakutake/ or /ħʃakutake/ as far as phonemic transcription is concerned (Ptcamn's transcription is a detailed phonetic transcription, /hjakutake/ is a phonemic one). For the sake of the majority, who doesn’t necessarily understand the IPA, I wonder if it might not be best to just lay out the syllables (hya-ku-ta-ke) as this is all that is really required for an English speaker to grasp proper pronunciation (I think), as we have the same allophony on [h], and the devoicing is not a central feature. Then again, a phonetic transcription can't hurt. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, but my phonetic knowlege of the language is pretty good.--Printf("Sam") 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. I'd already edited the article, adding the pronunciation (and kanji), before Printf's comment.

I don't think hya-ku-ta-ke would be helpful, though -- most English speakers would be tempted to pronounce "hy" as "hai" before any vowel other than u. --Ptcamn 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is woefully short on sources. The only section that's sourced is the one containing all the abstruse scientific data, but nothing prior to that section is attributed.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to pronunciation (sort of)

If I do a literal reading of the opening:

Comet Hyakutake (Japanese: 百武彗星 Hyakutake suisei pronounced [çjakɯtake sɯiseː]

I'd have to understand it to mean that "Comet Hyakutake" is an English translation of the Japanese "百武彗星". But we all know the truth is not so. It is a comet, named after the discoverer, Mr. Hyakutake, whose name is written 百武 in Japanese. It's an interesting bit of trivia to footnote that comet is suisei in Japanese and written 彗星, but it's not the right way to put it in the article. Also, is there a way to include an anglicized version of [çjakɯtake]? I don't think [çja] is a sound that occurs in my west coast American version of English, although [hja] isn't either, so it may not be much better. Or is [çja] or [hja] easy enough for an English speaker to learn so that an anglicized rendering would be only more confusing? Hmm, more linguistics than deserves to be on an astronomy page.--75.17.113.9 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:060227comet.jpg nominated for deletion

FYI, I have nominated the above Commons image file used in this article for deletion. 84user (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Perihelion constellation

Does anyone know what constellation Hyakutake appeared in during its closest approach to Earth? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

During perihelion (1996-May-01) it was in the constellation of Ari. -- Kheider (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

X-rays?

I took radiography and one of the first things taught is that X-rays are an artificial version of gamma rays. Gamma rays are naturally made, but X-rays are made by machine (in a nutshell). I bring this up because "X-ray" is used in many instances on this page. Could it at least be considered to change this to avoid any inaccuracies? 68.0.69.146 (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Addressing DVdm's revert on my revision which omitted two instances of the word 'unexpected'.

From MOS:NOTED; Do not tell readers that something is ironic, surprising, unexpected, amusing, coincidental, etc. Simply state the sourced facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. --Turkeybutt (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC) DANGIT I FORGOT TO SIGN! again

As I said in the edit symmary of the revert, the cited source says: "We were greatly surprised to find cometary material so far away from the nucleus." In my opinion that supports the usage of the word "unexpected". - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I was also going to add something else;

DVdm's edit summary says that a cited source says that cometary scientists were surprised. He didn't specify where the source was so I couldn't find it. I think POV statements, doubts, instructions and editorializations should be quoted and attributed to cited sources.

DVdm, you should've told me where/what the source was so I can verify for sure that it's okay to use the word unexpected. I just think that all POV statements, potential bias-starters, editorial opinions and subjective terms should either be in quotes and attributed to cited sources or not written down in the articles at all. What may seem unexpected to some people may not be unexpected to other people and vice versa. --Turkeybutt (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

PS. I don't think there is anything else in Wikipedia guidelines that offer exceptions to the don't tell readers that something is irony / surprise / funny / coincidence clause. I think the only exception is if it is quoted and attributed to a cited reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeybutt JC (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.

As you could have seen in the diff and the edit summary of my revert, the source is in the article, immediately following the second sentence that mentions the word "unexpected". Before removing something, it's always a good idea to first verify whether the removed content doesn't happen to be properly sourced, in which case the content probably should not be removed to begin with. That was clearly the case here. - DVdm (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"should've told me where" The source is inlined right at the end of the sentence. How did you overlook it?

"don't tell readers that" WP:NOTED is referring to editor's opinions. If it is the source's opinion, we do tell them about it.

Kudos for arguing from policy. It helps to be aware of all of it, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comet Hyakutake. 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/20090203101107/http://www.eso.org:80/public/events/astro-evt/hyakutake/eph/comet-hyakutake-eph-may23-bm.txt to http://www.eso.org/public/events/astro-evt/hyakutake/eph/comet-hyakutake-eph-may23-bm.txt
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/Hyakutake-70kyr.txt

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) 14:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comet Hyakutake. 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.eso.org/public/events/astro-evt/hyakutake/eph/comet-hyakutake-eph-may23-bm.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906174837/http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/data/ELEMENTS.COMET to http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/data/ELEMENTS.COMET

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) 02:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comet Hyakutake. 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://www.webcitation.org/6149CAeaZ?url=http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso9613/ to http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-1996/pr-06-96.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208073005/http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1996/pr-06-96.html to http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1996/pr-06-96.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) 22:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sky Chart is incorrect

The image labeled "The path of Comet Hyakutake across the sky" is incorrect (resolved, see below). The nucleus of the comet passed near Arcturus March 23 and a few days later quite close to Polaris. The chart does not display this at all. Wrong comet maybe? EllenM4014 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. It was close to Arcturus on March 22-23, 1996. A correct chart of its path is here - http://zebu.uoregon.edu/cometh/

2601:246:5500:FA80:21E:C2FF:FEC2:E8ED (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the chart (25 Dec 2019). It is now correct.EllenM4014 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

References

FAR needed

This featured articles has had citation needed tags since January 2019. Is anyone watching this article and can anyone supply the citations and do any other checking, so that the article can avoid a featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, a very high amount of this article by percentage of text in the body lacks inline citations. Since this comment has been active for well over a year, I'm upgrading this to a notice overall, @SandyGeorgia:. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)