Talk:Naming of comets
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | Material from Comet was split to Naming of comets on 7 September 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Comet. |
Naming Comets[edit]
It appears that there are two different systems in play for comet nomenclature. There's the system of formal designation, which the article already explains pretty well. Then there's the system of naming comets, in which a team's name or the surname of the discoverer is appended to the formal designation. This is mentioned as well, but the apparent distinction between the two processes seems to be muddled. Basically all comets receive formal designations, not all comets are necessarily "named", and the assignation of a name depends on the circumstances of the discovery. The current rules for naming comets are here, and ought to be worked into the article, not exhaustively of course. http://www.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/csbn/cnames.shtml Geogene (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Revert[edit]
@Modest Genius: as per your revert, I'll wait and see what you might find a better solution that seems less illogical to you. Maybe the well-known terms "Historic desigantions" and "Modern designations" would please you more? By the way the article never consisted of one section only, I'm sure you'll agree. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk
- The entire content of the article was contained in section 1, which defeats the point in having sections. The only things outside were the lead and references.
- Renaming them 'historic' and 'modern' wouldn't work because many of the systems have been used simultaneously. Most people would consider the early 1990s to be 'modern' anyway, but that system is now historical...
- Anyway, the only layout issue I can see is a bit of excess white space at the end of the 'by year' section, which isn't really worth worrying about. Modest Genius talk 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Should this one get a mention in those named after investigators?©Geni (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)