Talk:Comet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Comet is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Comet has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
June 2, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
September 23, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-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 Top-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

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Archives

1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loken97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Nuclei[edit]

the Word nuclei and the Nucleus should have a disambiguation as this will cause confusion 122.53.185.85 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"☄️" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect ☄️ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 25 § ☄️ until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitationally unbound?[edit]

I’m not smart enough to know if this is accurate or not. However, the problem is that this isn’t cited or otherwise referenced. The idea that there are any particles(non-quantum) unaffected by gravity contradicts every physics course I’ve taken. Can someone explain this better in the article? 71.235.216.2 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas + particles often exceed escape velocity when leaving a comet. A fart could escape most comets. -- Kheider (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

The gallery for this article has come into dispute, with editor @CactiStaccingCrane: commenting, "Per our policy in image galleries, we do not encourage indiscriminate galleries with no inherent value. This is the same reason why don't we have galleries of dogs or cats or asteroids on our articles. It would be much better if we can integrate these pictures into the articles somehow", and @Randy Kryn: saying, "Commons is not Wikipedia, they are not joined at the hip but Commons augments Wikipedia, please don't use the reasoning that there are images on Commons so do not show them on Wikipedia (doesn't make sense actually, one of the main purposes of Commons is to provide these images to Wikipedia". Thoughts? Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has been that large numbers of images can clutter up and disrupt an article, so I wouldn't be in favor of distributing the gallery images in that manner. Then again, a gallery should add something of value to the article, so typical comet images should be culled. Frankly, I don't see many of the gallery images that need saving. Perhaps the X-ray image and the active asteroid shots. The McNaught shot would be useful for scale. Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many readers just read the lead, and then maybe look at the pictures. Galleries educate readers who do that. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]