Talk:96P/Machholz

Reference question
The reference no 2. in the text makes reference to the perihelion of 2012. But the source of the reference stipulates that this date is the re-appearance of the comet. Not precisely the perihelion. For the same reason I believe that the reference to the perihelion of Oct 27 2017 are not correct. Capbat (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are the perihelion dates. The green dot just means the comet was observed during that passage. The Minor Planet Center clearly shows perihelion to be 2017-10-27.9. -- Kheider (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement question
"The name of the comet was created by examining the orbital period, which was less than 5.3 years.[13] Among finding 96P/Machholz, it was discovered that it was also traveling in a parabolic path curving around the sun."

A comet can not both be a short period comet in an elliptical orbit and also one that is "traveling in a parabolic path" - this is pure contradiction. These two sentences make no sense when put together. The "parabolic" statement must be incorrect.

The name of this comet was actually created by noting first of all it is periodic ("P") (not parabolic!) and that it is the 96th periodic comet to have been discovered and that more than one apparition has been observed proving it is periodic ("96P") and that Don Machholz discovered it ("96P/Machholz")