A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 12, 2013, January 12, 2016, January 12, 2017, January 12, 2019, January 12, 2021, and January 12, 2024. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I know that space.com is calling it a great comet, but I don't think it fits the definition, at least not as defined in that article. Not only is there almost nothing about it in the mainstream media, very few people have seen it with their own eyes. The definition of a great comet is one that is so obvious it cannot escape notice even to the casual observer. This one, while very bright, is very small and too close to the Sun to gain casual notice, and is fading already. Many great comets in the past (typically Kreutz sungrazers) were easily visible in daylight and stretched across the sky, including this one on the list would seem to dilute it. Robogun 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to hazard a guess: Robogun comes from the Northern Hemisphere? From a Southern Hemisphere perspective, this comet is great. GetDownAdam 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Its currently very conspicuous. I just spotted it by accident whilst driving home towards the sunset, about 20 minutes after the sun went down. I live nearish to London if that helps anyone. -- LiamE 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we should point out in the article that as it is only visible in partly dark skies that it may not be as spectacular as its brightness rating suggests? -- LiamE 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This comet can be seen also by day from virtually everywhere in the world!
Just place yourself so that Sun is covered by a building, then look 5-6 degrees to the east and there it is!
Kanarkusmaximus 13.43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth from southern Nashville, Tennessee, the 20th of January 2007 at approximately 5:30 PM last evening, we were able to see the comet in the western sky, from our automobile, unaided, and quite visible with its long glowing tail. I would guess it was about 10 degrees above the horizon following the setting sun. Not since Hale-Bopp have I seen a bright comet and this one was quite a sight. --
Greenbomb101
14:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From this, it looks like the comet's coma is larger than volume than the sun! Even Comet NEAT's coma wasn't that big. It certainly does look like the largest, brightest, and most spectacular comet SOHO has ever seen. AstroHurricane001( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we add a picture from SOHO to the gallery? I'm new to wikipedia and not sure of how that work. Justin stocks 21:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroHurricane001 ( talk • contribs)
This magnitude figure is obviously incorrect as -3.9 is the level at which celestial objects become visible to the naked eye during the day:
"In Australia, the comet was expected[citation needed] to peak in brightness at ~mag. -0.1 on Monday, 15 January, 2007, following sunset, where it would have been visible for some 39 minutes."
...so the magnitude in this statement must be a figure of less than -3.9 (as the apparent magnitude increases in the direction of decreasing figures on the scale e.g. The Sun is magnitude -26.73).-- Elizabeth Jane 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a reference to the date of expected brightest in Australia, which Siding Spring Observatory at ANU says is theoretically 14th January 2007 ("It is close to sunset on the 14th that the comet will reach its theoretical brightest.") - i.e. not the 15th as stated here - (no magnitude reference there as yet though!).-- Elizabeth Jane 02:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
After passing the sun, Comet McNaught became visible in the Southern Hemisphere, on Sunday, 14 January. It was sighted in Broken Hill, NSW, Australia, at 2015-hours Australian Central Daylight Time. citation needed In Australia, according to Siding Spring Observatory at Coonabarabran, where the comet was discovered, the comet was to have reached its theoretical peak in brightness on Sunday, 14th January, 2007 just after sunset [1], when it would have been visible above the horizon for just 23 minutes following sunset as it was then only 5° from the setting sun. On the 15th January, 2007 the comet was observed at Perth Observatory with an estimated apparent magnitude of -4.0. [2]
Note that there is still a need for a citation for the sighting at Broken Hill (in the previous sentence) - does anyone know where this reference can be found?-- Elizabeth Jane 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Robogun! The significance is the first recorded sighting in the Southern Hemisphere, where it was discovered - not insignificant if you live in the Southern Hemisphere. Some of us do!
Someone falsified the maximum estimated apparent magnitude for the Harvard reference by changing it to -5.5 to conform to the conflicting Spaceweather.com reference (presumably). Now I am not suggesting that anyone play around with the Spaceweather.com reference either - but comets are sighted under different conditions all over the world and a sighting in one place is not uniform for the whole world. Harvard has recorded three sightings of -6.0 or higher and one from Japan of -5.8, cited here for your convenience:
- 14.71, -6:*, -- (J. J. Gonzalez, Asturias, Spain, naked eye; 1.5-deg tail in p.a. 50 deg; just before sunset; alt. 2.2 deg);
- 14.37, -6.0:*, about 1' (M. Reszelski, Poznan, Poland, naked eye; daylight; comp. with Venus; 0.1-deg tail barely visible for a while);
- 13.92, -6:, -- (S. J. O'Meara, Volcano, HI, U.S.A., naked eye; daylight, alt. about 60 deg; comet *much* brighter than Venus; est. uncertainty +/- 0.5 mag; tail about 0.75 deg long);
- 14.32, -5.8:*, -- (Y. Nagai, Gunma, Japan, 7x35 binoculars; 1-deg tail; 4 min after sunset; comp. with Venus);
Harvard is a different reference to Spaceweather - please leave my reference to stand for itself and do not falsify it to conform to the Spaceweather.com reference. Both are valid references. Spaceweather.com is A reference, not THE reference!-- Elizabeth Jane 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Robogun 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not true Robogun. The scale is based upon visual comparison with other stellar objects. It is all very well to use highly accurate readings of non-variable stars with sophisticated equipment stationed at observatories, as such readings can be made and exist, but a comet is highly variable, short lasting, appears under different atmospheric conditions on Earth during its progress (during which time it is constantly changing in its location in space and in its relationship to the Earth and to the Sun) and is also subject to "spaceweather", which I am sure Spaceweather.com will not dispute. There are reliable astronomical observers all over the world, and these observers have reported the apparent magnitude to Harvard from their location and at the times observed and recorded by them, and these observations have been accepted and recorded by Harvard, and I have cited them. These are the average maximum readings reported - they range upwards to -6.5 and -6.* - and it is the average that I have used, not the upper limits. Harvard is a valid reference, and so is Spaceweather.com. And my reference clearly states -6.0 as the maximum apparent magnitude observed in the Northern Hemisphere.-- 219.90.149.227 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that maximum means the highest, not the median or the mean of all figures - that would result in a positive figure, I would guess. Extreme accuracy is not equivalent or relevant to "highest" - the 10th highest figure calculated to twenty decimal places is still only the 10th highest figure - it just happens to have been a very accurately recorded figure because such equipment happened to be available and was used at that location and that time. That does not invalidate other observations. A statistical average taken from many places over many occasions results in an accurate apparent order of magnitude for a star, but that is inapplicable in this case - here the observations do not apply to any stable object, or even to a stable range of magnitude. The figures, though expressing accuracy, are not subject to verification since the object is observationally volatile. The figures given by visual observation are not accurate to more than +/- 0.5 orders of magnitude, but that does not mean that they are not to be considered credible, only that they are not highly accurate. And if they are credible that is sufficient accuracy to determine that the maximum is -6.0 - i.e. to one decimal place. Extreme accuracy is not the question here, nor does it have any meaning or relevance in this case. It is about "maximum estimated apparent magnitude". -- Elizabeth Jane 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The link Recent Comet Brightness Estimates appeared twice in Links section. Please remove it. Chesnok 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add another -6.0 observation from Recent Comet Brightness Estimates to those previously quoted (above):
- 13.56, -6:, -- (A. Amorim, Florianopolis, Brazil, naked eye and sunglasses; daylight; comp. w/ Venus);
The Spaceweather.com data is actually different data. It does not include the higher magnitude Harvard data. They appear to have one observation of -6.0 or very close to -6.0. If they had the Harvard data as well they would have had six such observations, rather than just one. Six human beings considered credible scientific witnesses by both Harvard and/or Spaceweather...?! In independently corroborating each other's observations their credibility is enhanced, rather than diminished. (And remember, their credibility or observations have not been objectively refuted!)
... Yes, this is "estimated magnitude", certainly and "apparent" (as in "as appears visually"), as opposed to "absolute magnitude". -- Elizabeth Jane 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
The orbital data given seem to be incredibly precise. I checked the link and those numbers are indeed on there, but it's likely just an artifact of a computer calulation, not an exact measurement. For instance, the perihelion distance goes on for about fifteen decimal places. Do we really know the perihelion to within a tenth of a millimeter?
How about we change the name of the page from C/2006 P1 to Comet McNaught
I moved the following info from the main page, which was added 03:27, 21 January 2007 by
User:Urhixidur
Perhaps a disambiguation page or ? The McNaught comets have no pages as of yet. Robogun 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I support this move. While they are all redlinks the disambiguation seems unnecessary. The info can be added to McNaught's page.-- Golden Wattle talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
To all those who upload images of the comet: Please upload the images to the Commons, and put it in [[Category:Comet McNaught]]. Thank you! -- Vesta 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I put one in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Comet_McNaught Comet-McNaught-Mt-Macedon-Vic-Au-2007-01-24-9-11PM-800x600-gamma1-3-q9.jpg Robin Whittle 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
People are posting a lot of good images, but at some point we're going to have too many. I personally vote for Trevor Heath's closeup photo and the one over the Andes. I'll take mine down unless someone thinks we need more Nothern Hemisphere images.
I think the fact that there are images for a variety of places is very interesting - true mostly in the southern hemisphere - but still from a variety of places. I suggest not trying to curb enthusiasm at this time - for some people the image taken closer to their home is more interesting than the better image taken on another continent. The gallery seems a good format and not intrusive. Perhaps rationalise when the comet is not so visible. I saw the comet last night - absolutely superb. And to think I once got up at 3 am and went 50 miles into the Central Australian desert to watch Halley's comet - no spectacular tail - barely discernable from the rest of the night sky ... -- Golden Wattle talk 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes or no: Can this be seen from the northern hemisphere - lets say New York, for instance. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently it will return to be visible in the Northern Hemisphere soon. Re: Photos ... here is a nice photo page with ephemeris and historical info. Y23 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any official news on the nucleus splitting? Its not at all uncommon for it to happen to comets that pass that close to the sun and the picture above on this page and nucleus.jpg on the main article certainly suggest it has in fact split. -- LiamE 15:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why the tail of this comet appears to be curved? Is it just an effect of our perspective? I thought that the tail of a comet blows away from the Sun. Is it because the comet is moving very fast? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.217.173 ( talk) 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Now, this is what WP is all about - common effort yields a good product, and real-time, instep with the event. Self-organisation at its finest. William R. Buckley 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be in Sao Paulo tomorrow and i'd like to know if anyone knows any good spots in the area to see the comet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.83.141 ( talk) 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Does anyone know its mass and physical size? Anthill2006
It can only be guessed, without a close-up look at the nucleus. I haven't heard any estimates at all. Oh, and sign your posts, like me.-- Planetary 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
On January 22nd, around 10:00pm AUST EST (Daylight Savings Time), the Comet could be clearly seen from Werribee, Victoria (30 minutes east of Geelong - 40 minutes west of the Melbourne CBD). Looking south. Truly, truly amazing - my house mates and I were the only people in my street to actually notice it.
Blackxbellax 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean in my life i have never seen a comet. It would be pretty cool if this one was fading into the northern hemisphere. If it is visible then it would be pretty cool to see it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harryjoebill ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
On 21 January, I tried to add uniform (UK style) to the dates mentioned in the article, and they were reverted. I may have screwed something up somewhere. But something still needs to be done about the dating format, as the article pitches between US and UK stylings, which just looks sloppy. ZincOrbie 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The faint tail of the comet is/was still visible to the naked eye in evening sky. I think this is about 2 weeks ? Amazing !!!! How Fast is this comet traveling approx at the moment ???? Might be interesting to put the speed range on the main page. Yendor72 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In the image showing the comet's orbit (in green), which direction is the comet travelling? I am assuming clockwise because it had its perihelion on 12 Jan and the image shows its orbit on 14 Jan. Does anyone know for sure? Mikeeg555 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The article claims it's visible in the mornings also. I was wondering if anyone could give a general compass bearing to look at to spot it? Evening viewing from Christchurch, New Zealand sucks at the moment due to the weather. Mornings are generally patchy though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.176.126 ( talk) 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Will Earth cross the comet's orbit resulting in a great meteor shower? From NASA link "Comet orbital elements and diagram" it appears Earth and comet orbits intersect in late June. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.147.143 ( talk) 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
No see: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070122163427AA3BN32
1. Was it visible in North America 2. When will it be back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.36.231 ( talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Comet McNaught/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
—I live in Wagga Wagga and Tumbarumba New South Wales, Australia. This comet of Mcnaught is awesome in this district. I have never seen anything like it brfore in my comet watching over the last 40 years or so. Why isn't it in all the media? The brightness is incredible and the tail so long and magnificent. The date of this is 23rd January 2007. So I ask again, why hasn't it been publicised much more? The time of best sighting here is between 9pm and 10pm. Ken Day. |
Last edited at 11:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 04:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on C/2006 P1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on C/2006 P1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on C/2006 P1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p143.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/space/20070112/sc_space/thegreatcometof2007watchitonthewebWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Pages moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 05:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
– This comet is the only comet with the name "McNaught" that ever became a Great Comet. Given its fame among the astronomical community, the general public, the media, and publications, this comet is clearly the most significant comet with this name, more than the others combined, and as such, it should have the main title of Comet McNaught for the article title. The vast majority of searches for "Comet McNaught" are all for those particular Great Comet, and every single time I saw "Comet McNaught" come up in a book about comets, it is referring specifically to the 2006 comet. As such, this article should be moved, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. This would bring this article in line with Comet NEOWISE (which had a similar RfC last year), Halley's Comet, and Comet Hale–Bopp, all of which use their common names over their "official" astronomical names. We also have very few articles on other comets with the name "McNaught", and those that do have their own articles pale in comparison to this one, in terms of notability. I also find it ridiculous that " Comet McNaught" is currently a lengthy disambiguation page mostly populated by red links, when this comet clearly deserves the main title. To the staunchest opposers, let me remind you that site-wide Community consensus (e.g. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME) trump over local consensus, and honestly, we need to be following site-wide policies more often. Additionally, we have no obligation to use the official names (especially when they are complicated or potentially confusing) when the common names are much easier to reference and used much more frequently-used than the official name. Our readers would be better served by this article using the common name, and that's what we should do. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The first photograph of the gallery is captionned "Over Iceland on 9 January ". This is strange, as the lead section states that "(the comet) was easily visible to the naked eye for observers in the Southern Hemisphere in January and February 2007" but the whole article doesn't mention anything about possible visibility from the Norther Hemisphere, let alone from somewhere as far North as Iceland. All other pics in the gallery are captionned as pertaining to the Southern Hemisphere.
While composing this comment, I also find that there exists two files in Commons that somehow share the same handle: /info/en/?search=File:Comet_McNaught.jpg
I therefore motion that this photograph be removed from the article. Noliscient ( talk) 11:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)