Talk:Great Comet of 1680

message: In a recent edit it was claimed that Edmund Halley discovered this comet a day before Kirch did. This claim was based on a faulty reading of Newton's Principia. Checking Motte's translation (1729, vol. 2, pp. 350-351) it is clear that Halley was merely citing Kirch's observations, reduced to the meridian of London, and converted to the astronomical day (which started at noon). In this way Kirch's date and hour of observation (shortly before sunrise on 14 November Gregorian) became shortly after the 17th hour of the 13th day, which in the Julian calendar was the 3rd. AstroLynx (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Halley's supposed discovery of this comet

message: Not being competent in astronomy, nevertheless I notice in Notes and Queries, 2nd series, 18 October 1856, p. 316, contributed by C. Mansfield Ingleby, Birmingham, that this comet's previous appearances were calculated by J. Russell Hind, The Comets 1852, based on Encke's calculations; this would have been proved not to have been the same comet noted in 1106, 531 and 43 BC. The modern assessment of the comet's previous appearances would add to the interest of the article. Godfrey Kirch at Coburg 14 November 1680 is credited by Mr Ingleby with the first sighting. --Wetman (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: JPL Horizons shows C/1680 V1 having an epoch 1600 barycentric orbital period of about 10,000 years and an epoch 2000 barycentric period of about 10,400 years. -- Kheider (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous appearances 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Comet of 1680. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906174837/http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/data/ELEMENTS.COMET to http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/data/ELEMENTS.COMET
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Judging by some of the references in the article, modern astronomers have located this comet. At the very least, the article should explain when this association was made, and a little on how. Or if it the estimations are simply extrapolated from the 1860/1681 data, the article should say that. But as it stands, there is a very confusing jump between 1680 and modern computations. Adpete (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: With a roughly  year orbital period this comet has not been seen since 1681. -- Kheider (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought at first, until I saw the precision of some of the numbers in the article and in the references. I think that's what confused me. Adpete (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The orbit will, ultimately, be extrapolated from the positions observed in 1680, rather than based on direct observation.Svejk74 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not explain how/if it is found in modern times 

message: Why the sic? I just added an image of the front page of the book, and it says "Exposicion astronomica de el cometa". Also, this article can be expanded quite a lot, from what's given in the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposisión [sic] astronómica de el cometa