Talk:Comet nucleus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical Objects | (Rated Start-Class) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
[edit] Merge proposal
This just duplicates or overlaps the information at Comet. I don't see any point in keeping this as a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.242.119 (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- A lot of the information on this page does not appear to be covered by the Comet page. -- Kheider (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- A comet's nucleus is the real object (an icy asteroid). A traditional comet has many other aspects to it (myths and history) that really have nothing to do with the core object (nucleus). Centaurs are basically the same thing as a comet nucleus and many will become active comets in the future. Centaurs help fill the gap between a comet nucleus and a dwarf planet. Due to the cultural history of comets I think the articles should remain separate. Some day we will prove that a past or future comet will have (had) a nucleus in the 250 km range. -- Kheider (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't get your point I'm afraid. A "comet nucleus" is by definition the nucleus of a thing called a "comet" (however "comet" is defined -- and maybe that definition is subject to discussion and evolution, but that's a separate question). The "comet nucleus" article should not be a place to discuss any other type of object. All the content here should be about the nucleus of an object called a "comet", and therefore should IMO sit in the "comet" article -- unless that section becomes too long (which currently I don't think it is), in which case all the nucleus detail from "Comet" should be merged here. In my opinion. Matt (original proposer; sorry, forgot to sign) 03:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.27.87 (talk)
-
-
Centaurs are comet nucleus that are currently dormant, but are on unstable orbits that will bring many of them closer to the sun where they will become active comets. Centaurs become comets, and comets become centaurs. The comet article should deal with traditional comets with bright tails, their history as omens of death and other myths. The comet nucleus article should eventually have more to do with what these objects are made of and overlap with a lot of centaur and TNO concepts. Coma (cometary) has its own article, should it be merged into the comet article? -- Kheider (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose merge - There is a lot of new information on the cometary nucleus from spacecraft which have made close approaches. This has generated a large number of scientific references [1] [2] that could be used to expand this article beyond what would be reasonable to include in the main comet page. I'd suggest the the main w:comet article include a summary, and a Template:main pointing to this page. --mikeu talk 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I also oppose the merge, basically on the same ground as User:Kheider, i.e. that since comets and minor planets (dwarf planets are only very large minor planets) have so much in common once the comets are stripped from their coma, or that the minor planets start melting because they get closer to the Sun following orbit perturbation. CielProfond (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose on the basis of Wikipedia:LENGTH. This material should be summarized on the comet article.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see why a breakout article can't exist. Broadway is part of NYC, but there are two articles. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand the arguments made in opposition, but at the moment the Comet article contains at least as much -- probably more -- information about comet nuclei than this supposed "detail" article, and none of the information in this "detail" article covers any ground that is not within the compass of the Comet article. Therefore, given the present state of the articles, the present organisation does not, in my opinion, make any sense. If it's thought that Comet may potentially become too long and unfocused if "non-traditional-comet" comet nuclei info is added there, then perhaps we should migrate much of the nuclei detail from Comet to this article now? Matt 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
I also agree that this should be combined with comets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.155.164 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason for it to be seperate and anyone looking for information on comets won't think to search for comet (nucleus) so it's a waste of the resorce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.85.180 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
