Talk:Historical comet observations in China

Classical Chinese comet synonyms
I've removed the following line from the article: This seems trivial, and is incomplete in any case. I did recently update the sentence so it is not a direct quote of Needham (and complies with MOS:CHINA), and can add comet synonyms ff anyone feels like it needs to go back in. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Modern astronomers are using the term recorded for the comet to try and determine whether or not the comet was in opposition. I think the purpose of showing that there are many names for comets stems from this.  Those other names may or may not be capable of transmitting the same information.  We don't necessarily need to list the names, we could just say that there were other names. SpinningSpark 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Historic
I see no need to have "historic" on the front of this article. It's unwieldy, and also tricky to parse. What is a "historic comet" anyway? The original title of this article was Comets Appeared in China, and I agree that using "observations" is a better word to use than "appeared", but historic is not needed, and I think a requested move should be used if you want to add that. The present title accurately describes the title per WP:CONCISE. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS - if you really want to give a sense that the article does not refer to modern observations, how about something like Comet observations in ancient China? At least the adjective is applied to the correct noun then, and is much more precise than the vague word "historic" which could refer to anything from the Big Bang through to five minutes ago... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Historic" is necessary because that is the scope of the article, and it was also something that came out of the AFD so there has already been a discussion that resulted in that as a consensus. The title you suggest is unsuitable because "ancient" implies prior to the middle ages and that is clearly not the case here.  The title you have moved the article to is unsuitable because it instantly makes the article incomplete.  There are modern Chinese astronomers studying comets, but it would be out of place to include their work here.  I doubt anybody would muisunderstand which noun the adjective was meant to apply to, but that can easily be solved with Historic observations of comets in China. SpinningSpark 15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you're happy with that title then I guess I am too. It scans a lot better than the previous version. Although unless there is an engvar issue here, shouldn't it be "historical" rather than "historic"? As for the discussion, AfD is not the place to discuss a  title change, the venue for that is WP:RM. That's the mirror image of the situation where people express a desire to delete an.article during a move request, and an AfD is subsequently started. It was fine for you to move based on preferences expressed there, but once I reverted that move as contested, the proper route is an RM request. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My view is that the title of the page is not especially important. When considering what it might be, we should look to see what sources say.  Their titles include:
 * The Observations of Halley's Comet in Chinese History
 * Observations of Comets from BC 611 to AD 1640
 * A Study of Ancient Chinese Cometary Records
 * East-Asian Archaeoastronomy: Historical Records of Astronomical Observations of China, Japan and Korea
 * Ancient-1799: A Catalog of Comets
 * Ancient Chinese Observations and Modern Cometary Models
 * Daytime observations of sungrazing comets in Chinese annals
 * A Search for Encke’s Comet in Ancient Chinese Records
 * There seems to be considerable variation with no perfect or standard solution. It is therefore reasonable to push the title around a bit to generate a variety of redirects. Andrew D. (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * David, it is important because the title should properly reflect the scope. With the current title the article can be criticised for not including modern Chinese astronomers.  That would make it fail GA criterion 3a (broad coverage) and the page is currently nominated for GA.  The current title just has to be reverted, if not now, the GA reviewer will probably insist on it later. Yes, there is a great variety of titles to the sources, but they all clearly make a distinction between historic observations and modern observations, that is the essential point. SpinningSpark 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This probably won't be a very popular suggestion, but merging the content into Chinese astronomy would place it in its proper context without the need for a clunky title. Otherwise, I agree that the new title is quite a bit worse than the original Historic comet observations in China in that it inadvertently changes its scope. The "original" title may not have been the most eloquent, but I think most folks were able to figure out what it meant fairly quickly, if there was any confusion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, but in any case per my question above, should be "historical"? Historic means it was very significant and groundbreaking, rather than in the past. Well I suppose it was in some ways historic and groundbreaking, since it was the first observations of comets, but was that really the intention of this title? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Grammar guides do suggest that "historical" would be the more appropriate choice here. It would also be more consistent with article titles like Historical time zones of China and Historical Chinese phonology. Spinningspark, any objections? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't appreciate that there was a significant difference, so no, that wouldn't bother me. SpinningSpark 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was asked for an opinion, and the current title, "Historical comet observations in China" seems just about right. It was obviously the conclusion of the AfD that this was the proper scope of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Images
Has or anyone else located any Chinese historical images of comet sightings? These are pretty common in European art (c:Category:Comets in art). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I found one and added it.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)