Contents

Talk:ʻOumuamua

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ʻOumuamua article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

A news item involving ʻOumuamua was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2017.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. Astronomy: Solar System Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

On the Anomalous Acceleration of 1I/2017 U1 `Oumuamua Darryl Seligman, Gregory Laughlin, Konstantin Batygin (Submitted on 12 Mar 2019)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Headbomb:, I was just wondering, what was the rationale behind removing the previous edit from the article in question? I saw two reasons for its inclusion: It fitted there under the section "Other interstellar objects" by its nature; and it was also discovered by Loeb. If your argument is that it's unconfirmed, that's fine, but then the entire section should be removed for exactly the same reason. Cadar (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unpublished article, not something that was published in The Astrophysical Journal. It was submitted to it, but has yet to be accepted. Case in point, another preprint from the same authors (arXiv:1811.09632) had to undergo 5 revisions before getting published.

Not saying this can't be mentioned in the article, but this is a very very recent preprint, and its claims have not been checked, so if there is a mention, then it to be clear this has not been published yet. There is also a lot of WP:UNDUE, and unless there is media commentary, I don't much see the relevance. This also applies to the others in the section. Good for interstellar object, not so much for Oumuamua. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, although I'm thinking we're reaching a watershed here. We need to make a call on whether or not these candidate objects should be included at all, and if so, why. To my mind, assuming we opt to leave them in place, then the PNG blast is a definite candidate for inclusion, if only because it's a relatively unique type of interstellar object in its own right (being a bolide as opposed to an asteroid or similar). Working, again, on assumptions, I would think that a sample of interesting such candidates deserve mention to illustrate the fact that they aren't just confined to captures or transitory visits, but also have reached Earth. And this one, doubly so, because it's the first such, even if only tentatively identified. Regarding the newness of the published study/preprint, I don't see the relevance? It's been widely reported in the mass media, and as such has entered into the public record. The article can state that it's tentative and even that it's only a preprint. That's just a matter of wording, not of the inclusion of facts. Later revisions to the paper can be reflected in revisions to the article. That's what we're here for, after all.

Cadar (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V1 (23 Nov 2018) of the paper listed two centaurs (2011 SP25 and 2017 RR2) that are not even included in V5 (4 Feb 2019). You can successfully do a text search for TL6 on both lists. -- Kheider (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A free version of the rewiew article The natural history of ‘Oumuamua in Nature Astronomy (paywall) is available using link in this tweet by one of the authors. Agmartin (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]