Talk:Comet NEOWISE

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is a narrow but well-supported consensus for the common name; contentions that another object of this time might be discovered, rendering the title ambiguous, are speculative, and in any case are scotched by the fact that the proposed title already redirects to this subject, indicating an expectation that absent unknowable future developments it will be the primary topic of the proposed title. BD2412 T 00:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) → Comet NEOWISE – This comet can be referred to by this name because this is the most notable comet that NEOWISE discovered and that title already redirects here. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Definitely the most notable https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=NEOWISE -- Kheider (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that if another good NEOWISE comet comes along then a disamb. be used (i.e. 'Comet NEOWISE (2020)'). Will check it out again tonight, but so far I think people, based on the promotion, have been expecting a great comet and this one isn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would say NEOWISE straddles the definition of a great comet, but it not up to Wikipedia to make that distinction. I will be curious what peer-reviewed papers say with the advantage of hindsight. -- 19:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Would be surprised if they great comet-ed this one, worth seeing but can't just walk out the door and see the thing (even with binocs and knowing where it approx. is it takes a few seconds to locate). And Kheider, thanks for your good work on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

NEOWISE was very impressive for about one week, but the definition of a great comet can be as fuzzy as the object itself. I guess if it was truly great there would be little debate about it. -- Kheider (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This is more or less examining the usage of the common name of a astronomical object vs its technical name. Example: Pinwheel galaxy vs (Messier 101, M101 or NGC 5457). Notability does favor the more common name. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment In terms of us common name sure. Only real concern is future proofing (comet PANSTARRS would be a major issue if we every go there). At around 3 comets per year WISE's discovery rate looks like it should be low enough not to be a problem but does anyone have a more formal estimate?©Geni (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a good idea. Comet NEOWISE could refer to any of the 20 other comets that WISE has found in its mission. It should also not be moved as the titles of pages should usually refer to the formal notation of any objects and not common names. Therefore I oppose this idea. MABDI36 (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – It would appear that none of those other comets have articles. (In fact, I don't even see a list of them anywhere on Wikipedia.) As such, there is nothing to "disambiguate from" (so, for example, there would be nothing to "hatnote to" either). IOW, what you are advocating is "preemptive disambiguation" which we don't do on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: "other comets discovered by WISE" - should such articles be created, that's what hat-notes and disambiguation pages are for. Re: "titles of pages should usually refer to the formal notation of any objects and not common names" - that varies. Wikipedia:COMETNAMES strongly suggests that Comet NEOWISE is a better name, but there is some room for argument based on other sections of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). I think the balance of arguments, in particular, WP:COMMONNAME, is far enough in favor of Comet NEOWISE and away from "50/50/arguments to change name are about as strong as arguments against changing the name" to warrant the change. However, it is close enough to "50/50" to warrant having this discussion rather than being WP:BOLD about it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Media outlets generally refer to the comet as Comet NEOWISE because it is the most prominent among all other comets that also have NEOWISE in their names. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per common usage. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a terrible idea. I notice in the astronomical community, every current comet is informally referred to by its discovery name. Then along comes another one from the same discoverer.... and another one. Please stick to the IAU naming protocol.--Ggreybeard (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment there is precedent for using the common name. See Category:Cometary object redirects (non-primary) for a partial list of comet redirects. Some of these redirect to "common/popular" names, so there is precedent for using the common name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The so-called commmon name of "Neowise" will only refer to Comet C/2020 F3 NEOWISE for a few months before the next Neowise discovery. "Neowise" is only used as an abbreviation because the full name is a bit hard to remember in everyday conversation. I think if the page is about C/2020_F3_(NEOWISE) then it should be headed C/2020_F3_(NEOWISE).Ggreybeard (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the same arguments that others have already given. A re-direct is enough (and that might be removed if a later "Comet Neowise" becomes even better known). Fomalhaut76 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There will not be a better known NEOWISE as easily visible naked eye comets are rare. -- Kheider (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The future is not predictable. Another bright NEOWISE is certainly possible. Sankura (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely. Certain things can be ruled out with high confidence as the discovery rate by NEOWISE is no where near other surveys. -- Kheider (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The discovery rate has no bearing on how bright the discovered comets might become. Sankura (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The low discovery rate of NEOWISE has a lot do with the odds of discovering an "easily visible naked eye comet". -- Kheider (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with which NEOWISE comet will be the brightest. Sankura (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for similar reasons already explained above. Just because it's the most notable NEOWISE comet at this very moment doesn't make it "the" Comet NEOWISE, and others have appeared in the media too (like C/2016 U1, which has its share). The current article name is perfectly clear as to what the article is about. Anyone searching for this comet will recognize they are on the right page if they are familiar with comet names, or after reading the first sentence if not (and if they are not familiar, they would not recognize they are on the correct page from the title alone either way). Anyone searching for another NEOWISE comet will immediately recognize they are on the wrong page. Renaming solves absolutely nothing, is *not* consistent with the naming convention of most other comets of its brightness on Wikipedia, and will only serve to add confusion. Might as well rename the page to "the comet" instead, because far more people are calling it that. ALK (Talk) 02:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't see the need. See also C/2006 P1 (McNaught), an analogous case. Sankura (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Comet NEAT is a better analogy, because there are multiple notable comets with the name McNaught. If the same were true for NEOWISE then a disambiguation page would be in order, like the one at Comet McNaught. Renerpho (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC) I mistakenly assumed that Comet NEAT was the article title, which it is not. Please ignore comment. Renerpho (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:COMMONNAME. I know this isn't a great comet, but I believe it has (had?) gained sufficient attention to be renamed. As Randy says, it could always be disambiguated in the future. The Halley's Comet style seems the ideal way for this page.  Rehman 07:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support per the above, and precedent like Comet NEAT. I prefer the IAU designation in scientific publications, but I see little reason not to use the common name for the Wikipedia article. Renerpho (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Change to Unsure - My argument about the Comet NEAT article is void since that's not the title of the article. I have no opinion about the issue at this time. Renerpho (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (Change vote) I don't think a name change is necessary or warranted. There are many other comet articles that use the full IAU name. The only reasons I can see to handle C/2020 F3 differently could all be summarized as WP:RECENTISM, as the usage of the short names in media coverage was very similar for the "historic" examples. Comet NEOWISE can remain as a redirect, just like Comet NEAT. When more articles are created about other comets NEOWISE, the disambiguation page Comet McNaught, vs. C/2006 P1 (McNaught), becomes the example to follow. Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I would likely say to change the name from C/2020 f3 (NEOWISE) to Comet NEOWISE because the changed name can be more memorized and the name isn't that long. It is also best if it is that way. We don't want names that are too complicated to memorize. StaleGuy22 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with reasons above that oppose the change, including those of User:Ggreybeard and User:Renerpho - seems the IAU name is the better choice imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - Per the reasons given above. Also, Halley's Comet and Comet Hale–Bopp both bear their common names in their Wikipedia articles, so we should follow suit here, given the notability of this comet. Comet NEOWISE is clearly the main topic, so there shouldn't be any confusion if we were to go through with the page move. This comet is also the most notable comet spotted in the Northern Hemisphere in 23 years, and given the widespread attention and media coverage this comet has received, I don't see any reason why a renaming of this article would be detrimental. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment In both of your examples, no other comets go by those names. The more relevant comparisons are C/2006 P1 (McNaught), C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy), C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS), and C/2002 V1 (NEAT), where the discoverers can have dozens of comets named after them. In fact, C/2006 P1 (McNaught) used to be titled Comet McNaught until C/2009 R1 (McNaught) appeared, which received enough media attention as "Comet McNaught" (despite being much less bright than the former) that led to enough confusion to warrant the renaming. The next "Comet NEOWISE" (and there will be many, with C/2020 P1 (NEOWISE) already the first in line) could easily do the same thing, even if nowhere near as bright. There are exactly zero articles for comets named after a major survey like NEOWISE with an article title of Comet <survey name> for good reason. ALK (Talk) 03:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia is not a specialist publication, in which one might expect to see astronomical jargon. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and should use the name used by mainstream sources, particularly where the comet itself has been widely known by the public. Note that this would also be WP:CONSISTENT with Halley's Comet, which is not named "1P/Halley" or any variant like that and Comet Hale–Bopp, Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 similarly.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• support per WP:COMMONNAME. All the oppose reasoning have been responded to with logical rationales. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment As per WP:COMMONNAME, "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The name "Comet NEOWISE" has serious problems with ambiguity due to numerous comets past, present, and likely future that all go by that name in the media. The current name is the next best alternative that avoids this major problem, and is therefore the name most consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. ALK (Talk) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support The first word being “Comet”. The current title is terrible. If the proposed is ambiguous, suggest Comet C-2020 F3 (NEOWISE), or similar, as long as Comet is the start. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.