Talk:Sungrazing comet

Comet ISON

Under OTHER SUNGRAZERS, the suggestion that Comet ISON is related to the Great Comet of 1680 is sourced to some dude's post on Yahoo Groups. A better source might be NASA's Comet ISON Observing Campaign, who do not seem to be in full agreement with the dude. The prevailing hypothesis seems to be that ISON came from the (theoretical) Oort Cloud. http://www.isoncampaign.org/potw-jul22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space formatting

Following discussion copied from our personal talk pages in preparation for invoking WP:3O --Floatjon (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I add mere spaces, but non-breaking thin spaces—where appropriate—for optimizing the display in justified text mode, and I also checked all the bibcode links. I opted to do just that again.--*thing goes (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERCENT and WP: UNIT (search for "nbsp" in that section). Your changes are in contradiction to WP:MOSNUM. And while your latest change doesn't add a space into the middle of a bibcode, your original change did, and that's what broke it (generating an automatic warning, which is what led me to the page in the first place). You can see that by selecting those two changes in the revision history and comparing them. --Floatjon (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Floatjon: I read that. I chose to use non-breaking thin space instead at places, because the guidelines do not work well with justified text. Not at all, to be exactly.--*thing goes (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has rules. If you don't like them, you need to argue to get the rules changed, not just violate them willy-nilly. When you change the nbsp to a space, there's a chance the number could get separated from the unit. I don't see how you can argue that your change violates fewer rules, when it directly contradicts both guidelines I cited. --Floatjon (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its guidelines, not rules. And I chose to be bold, because the page was looking bad in places – and was disobeying those rules more than mine. Feel free to enhance my text, but stop just reverting to a worse version.--*thing goes (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just looked at both versions with a lot of different browser widths, and I'm afraid I'm not seeing the huge difference you are that would justify violating such well-established guidelines. But it's clear we aren't going to reach consensus here, so I'm about to formally invoke WP:3O. --Floatjon (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

<It is clear that this article already had several violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style before any edits were made during this dispute. It personally appeals to me to suggest requesting a rewrite of the article so that it complies more completely with Wikipedia:Manual of Style.> Tlongoria2 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but what about the issue under discussion? I'm reluctant to take on a wholesale cleanup if my changes are going to get overridden, and I wouldn't be surprised if my debate partner feels the same way. --Floatjon (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity: 600 K/second? Add to article?

I read this and I wonder if these are the fastest natural objects in our solar system? This like .2% of the speed of light and we can't artificially produce this speed except in subatomic particles (or at least very tiny things). Perhaps this should be mentioned?