Talk:C/2023 P1 (Nishimura)

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Not Oort cloud or Interstellar[edit]

I like having a table in this article that makes it clear that this comet is periodic (extended definition) as way too many websites promoted this as coming directly from the Oort cloud or even calling it interstellar. (Comets coming from the outer Oort cloud will take millions of years to get to the inner Solar System.) It did have a short arc, but I suspect some of them ran with it as clickbait. -- Kheider (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earth approach[edit]

When I first started editing this page the uncertainty in the Earth close approach distance was about ± 1 million km (3-sigma), now it is only ± 400 km. -- Kheider (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add redirect from 'Comet Nishimura' to this page?[edit]

Since this is making the news a lot now, would it be a good idea to set up a redirect of 'Comet Nishimura' to this page? So when people search Wikipedia it gets a hit? I know it finds it by searching for topics that mention Comet Nishimura though, just thought it may help the SEO stuff. Just a thought. Still very new at this. johnnycat (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Jmschilling: (and others) - yes - *entirely* agree - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - thanks for the suggestion - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naked eye[edit]

I do not use COBS too often. Was this modest comet detected with the naked eye against the glare of the overpowering/rising Sun? Cameras see much better than humans. I am not sure if COBS is saying that it was seen with the naked eye when COBS lists "V" as with CCD? Do we have a secondary source? -- Kheider (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kheider: Yes, it was bright enough and far enough from the Sun to be in sufficiently dark skies so as to be detected by naked eye a couple of days ago. It was also quite compact, as its coma is estimated to be just 5 arcminutes across. In the table it isn't easy with a first sight to understand which one is the naked eye, but if you look at the app (appareture size of the observing organ), there are two with a size of 0.0, which is the naked eye. A more straightforward mention is in the recent observations list (web.archived, as it changes constantly). --C messier (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I contacted Piotr Guzik and he did detect the comet with averted vision. I suspect only very experienced observers with great eyesight that first locate the comet with binoculars will locate the comet with the naked eye. Now that we have mentioned that someone has detected the comet naked eye, some members of the public will be convinced that common contrails near the horizon are the comet. I noticed this problem with comets such as C/2011 L4 (PanSTARRS). -- Kheider (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better avoid publishing info based on private communications, as it is considered original research. C messier (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that info is in the link (other than the averted vision) and more importantly it is correct. A mag 4.7 comet (and that is the brightness of the nucleus+coma) near the rising Sun is not easy to see. This star-like comet is not (currently) something that people are going to see while drinking their morning coffee. What a tripod-mounted 135mm F2.8 telephoto shows in 30 seconds is not what your eye will see. It is important to mention the averted vision that amateur astronomers use all the time. It is also important not to mislead the readers as websites often use sensationalism to draw in more readers. -- Kheider (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kheider: If it is correct or not is irrelevant. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. I 'll leave only the info that are available in the link. C messier (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that harms the article, but whatever you require. -- Kheider (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official policy of Wikipedia, not a quirk of mine. C messier (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also somewhat misleading to casual readers, and you know that. -- Kheider (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the apparent magnitude is mentioned. It is also quite obvious from the next sentences that it is a very challenging target for naked eye observations. C messier (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casual readers do not really know mag 2 from mag 5. And the comment about the length of the tail with a CCD detector does not make it obvious that it is a challenging target. Sometimes Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is worth it when it makes improvements to an article that is sensationalized even by reputable websites that care more about mouse-clicks than accuracy. -- Kheider (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to ignore the ignore all rules, as the casual reader can understand that "it may be difficult to locate against the glare of the Sun". And there is no indication in the article that it is easy to observe with naked eye. C messier (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]