Contents

Talk:2018 AG37

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018 AG37 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

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article verges on gloss/sensationalism potentially. How big it it? What colour is it? When will it next be (in more detail?) observed? We could be talking a quasi comet e.g. asteroid or proper spherical planetoid surely, why so limited data, this is not at all explained.- Adam37 Talk 14:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the object is not publicly listed in the Minor Planet Center database, we have only a handful of press releases to work with. -- Kheider (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The data don't exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no known published IAU designation for the object. Other than trying to search through a database of orbits and seeing which objects are currently ~140 AU, we have nothing to go off of. It's also possible that the 140 AU estimate was inaccurate. This object might become like V774104, which caused confusion once its designation was published. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, i made a concept of 2018 AG³⁷, and i want to add it here. but im new to editing things on Wikipedia, so can anyone tell me how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulohue (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, your cramming all of the references into a single line looks utterly horrible and makes readability far worse. -- Kheider (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it would have been nice had this been made in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Do you want to try again or stick with this kind of discourse? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The easier to read reference formatting has been in use since February 2021 and you (as the article's original author) are now changing it two years later? -- Kheider (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that it's easier to read? I find it much busier and harder to read. Additionally, I could have sworn that you advocated for the original style; do you want to stick to the original style or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the multi-line formatting with indenting (when they are in a reflist). I am fine with them being in alphabetical order as I put them in my "compromise" edit. -- Kheider (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does not answer either of my questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the style the article had been using since Feb 2021 but I think you know that. -- Kheider (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That answers one of my questions. Please answer the other one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will let other editors chime in as to which format is easier to read. -- Kheider (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]