Talk:12P/Pons–Brooks

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
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 Mid-importance).

Picture(?)

I have an original picture of what i believe is the pons-brooks comet from 1954 ... How can i verify this
thanks -- 9 February 2005‎ 68.238.149.3

I know this is over a decade late. But if it is a family-taken photograph, it would be "original research" and unfit for inclusion here... in its raw form.

Which isn't to say it's not of interest. I for one would love to see it. You might want to publish this elsewhere and then have the publisher grant permission to wikipedia to reproduce it. You would be able to verify if your comet is 12P by showing your comet's position amongst the starfield, and then finding out where 12P's position was, as of 1954. --Zimriel (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an own work or an unpublished family photo is no way original research and of course is acceptable (see WP:IUPC), but the uncertainity around correct indentification could be an issue for its usage. C messier (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identified with comets C/1385 U1 and C/1457 A1 - not with comets of 1313 or 1668

Maik Mayer has positively identified this comet with the historic comets of 1385 and 1457. The new orbit was published in CBET 4727 (here (paywall), also see here). The identification with comets from 1313 and 1668, mentioned in the Wikipedia article, is wrong: The 1313 comet does not fit, and the 1668 event was not even a comet.[1] Renerpho (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1668 comet said to have been seen by Europeans is another unrelated object, C/1668 E1.[2] Renerpho (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last perihelion c. March 10, 1668, and the corresponding note 1, is also about this different object. Most of the article's "Discovery" section is completely wrong and better be rewritten from scratch.Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the claim in the article, as it was published in a peer reviewed journal, but added also the remarks of Maik Mayer concerning those comets. --C messier (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonilla's comet speculation

Although this study had its findings published in the news, it was never published in a peer reviewed journal but only in arXiv, which mentions that Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv. Preprints aren't reliable sources. Given the extraordinary of the claim, I suggest removing it completely from the article as based on unreliable sources. C messier (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perihelion

The perihelion maximum has passed, and now has to be updated to the next one. RuduskaMuduska (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Devil comet" moniker

This name was used frequently in the media, referring to images which made it look like it had a pair of horns. Is this worth including in the article? Brainandforce (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a high quality source that explains how it got the name it could. --C messier (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]