Talk:ʻOumuamua/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pronunciation?

Could we get a pronunciation for the name? I get 99.9% of my news from text sources, so have not heard it pronounced yet. Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Ignore me. I see now that it's in the infobox. I was expecting it to be in the prose. Possibly next to the name in the lead sentence. †dismas†|^(talk) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I like it better just in the infobox personally. Less clutter. Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you guys are wrong. It should be right after the English name as normally appearing in Wikipedia. I came to this article to find out how it's pronounced, and came to the talk page after I didn't find it. Burying it in the infobox ain't enough. Please include it in the article as well.Shimmy (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the lead sentence has been recently de-cluttered I've added the pronunciation, per MOS:LEADPRON (if people say the pronunciation isn't obvious then it isn't obvious). nagualdesign 00:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Table/image alignment

I've just been wrestling with the CSS mark-up to get the two tables to sit well. (See before and after.) The problem was that one of them was stacked against the infobox at certain resolutions, resulting in a bit of paragraph in the middle that was only 2~3 words wide. I think I've fixed it now. Let me know if it doesn't look good on your own monitor/phone/tablet. Cheers. nagualdesign 21:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I left the tables in the same order in the mark-up, which has actually caused them to render in the opposite order than before. Swapping them would be a simple matter, if anyone prefers it that way, although having the narrower table opposite the infobox is probably a good idea as it maximizes the space between them. It also means that the sentence, "Extrapolating the orbit backward, the asteroid is calculated to have gone through perihelion on 9 September," is next to the table that shows "perihelion", which is helpful. nagualdesign 21:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that before. It looks better now in my laptop. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. nagualdesign 21:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The William Herschel Telescope image is now on the left, which works better. I removed the {{clear}} that User-duck placed as I didn't like the look of all that whitespace. Arguably, having the proceeding section header pushed into the middle of the page isn't particularly easy on the eye either. Feel free to add that back in. I'll stop playing with it now. nagualdesign 22:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I now realize I should have been using this forum before. I moved the image up slightly and restored the {{clear}}. I agree about the whitespace BUT that is an issue with the template. It does not show up if the screen is narrow enough that the text wraps around an image.User-duck (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That looks much better now (on my laptop), thanks. I'd moved the image down a tad because I didn't like the way the subsection header was removed from the text. I didn't even consider moving the image up a tad! Funny how we sometimes miss an obvious solution, isn't it? And the {{clear}} also functions much better now. nagualdesign 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The infobox continues to cause problems with image alignment. Basically, if you float elements to the left they get pushed down past the infobox. I've left a note at Template talk:Infobox planet#Issues with CSS clear. Hopefully there will be a fix for this. In the meantime I suggest we just put up with it for a bit. nagualdesign 19:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tomruen: You did it! Nice one. How did you do it? nagualdesign 23:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the floating alignment? Basically the right floaters were getting scrolled way down because of the table, and that forced the following left floaters down more. So I moved the right floater below the left floaters. It did take me about 6 tries! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah... So we just had to declare the right aligned images before the left aligned images, and it had nothing to do with the infobox! I see. Thanks, Tom. nagualdesign 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There's still an issue with the William Herschel Telescope image. When I view the page at 100% on my 1600px wide laptop there's a tonne (metric) or whitespace showing that, try as I might, I can't seem to shift. Fancy having another crack at it, Tom? nagualdesign 14:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I see white space above that in IE, while FireFox and Chrome seem good. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Table notes

How do you get the same note for both tables without using a generic cut&paste for the whole note? <ref group="n" name="Horizons"> was what I was looking for. -- Kheider (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you managed to work that out. I'm guessing you were just missing the /> at the end. nagualdesign 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Too many details (and references) in lead.

The lead has too many details not found in the body of the article. Therefore there are too many inline references. I am thinking about moving details.User-duck (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead of an article should have a simple Who, What, Where, When, How and Why. These are expanded as desired/needed in the body of the article. "6° from apex" is too complex. I have a physics degree (and some interest in astronomy) and I needed to spend way too much time looking up terms to understand the article's lead.

The details about the trajectory currently located in the lead should be in the Trajectory (and removed from the lead). Most are already repeated there but a few are not.User-duck (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I simplified the lede and moved the details to the sections (and added some general stuff like color and unknown system of origin). Comments and fixes welcome. LouScheffer (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

First bold subject of the lead

According to WP:BEGIN, the subject of the first sentence should usually match the article title. I changed it to reflect this practice and was reverted. If 1I/'Oumuamua is the preferred name, then the article title should be changed to match it, but there should first be consensus for any rename. It seems to me, there was consensus that the article title should be 'Oumuamua, not 1I/'Oumuamua. So I ask, which of the many sources cited here use the name 1I/'Oumuamua besides the MPEC listing of official designations? What justification (based on sources, not a Wikipedia editor's opinion) is there for putting it first, or even using it at all? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If avoiding confusion on the primary name is the goal, I see no reason this article shouldn't be renamed as 1I/'Oumuamua since 'Oumuamua and even Oumuamua will redirect here anyway. Here's a statement on correct forms: [1] "Correct forms for referring to this object are therefore: 1I; 1I/2017 U1; 1I/ʻOumuamua; and 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)." Tom Ruen (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, the article name follows WP:COMMONNAME. And I agree with Robert that the first sentence should match the article title. At the moment it's pretty opaque:

1I/ʻOumuamua (formally designated 1I/2017 U1; previously C/2017 U1 (PANSTARRS) and A/2017 U1) is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System.

Perhaps something more prosaic is in order. The IAU says, "The object was initially classified as a comet (C/2017 U1) and later as an asteroid (A/2017 U1). [...] the new object is now officially known as 1I/2017 U1. In addition to the technical designation, the MPC also exceptionally assigned the name 'Oumuamua to the new object." If we just follow the IAU's lead, how about something like this:

ʻOumuamua (formally designated 1I/2017 U1), initially classified as a comet (C/2017 U1) and later as an asteroid (A/2017 U1), is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System.

I think that's far easier to read and understand, accurately reflects the source, and also satisfies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BEGIN, as well as MOS:INTRO ("avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols.") nagualdesign 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

..The quote from the Minor Planet Centre, "Correct forms for referring to this object are therefore: 1I; 1I/2017 U1; 1I/ʻOumuamua; and 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)." already appears in the Nomenclature section. nagualdesign 21:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I prefer: ʻOumuamua, formally designated 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua), initially classified as comet C/2017 U1 and later as asteroid A/2017 U1 -- Kheider (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua) is a "formal designation" per se. It's a "correct form for referring to this object", in the same way that C/2017 U1 (PANSTARRS) was more of a convention (when the actual designation was simply C/2017 U1). A subtle but important difference. nagualdesign 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, there doesn't seem to be any need to repeat the common name in a parenthetic expression when it has already been given earlier in the sentence. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How about splitting it into two sentences:

ʻOumuamua (also known as 1I/ʻOumuamua) is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System. It is formally designated as 1I/2017 U1 and previously was named C/2017 U1 (PANSTARRS) and A/2017 U1.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that keeping it as clean and simple as possible is a good idea. The also known as part is covered in the Nomenclature section, and I don't see the need to reproduce one possible way of referring to ʻOumuamua above all others. The most important parts would seem to be the name and designation, so I think they ought to be paramount.

One reason I chose to reproduce the sentence in my suggestion above in much the same way as the IAU is that all three designations are parenthetical. The first (current) designation includes the words "formally designated" so is absolutely unambiguous. The other two terms very clearly resemble the formal designation and are also parenthetical, which I think helps to imply that they are (or were) also formal designations without having to spell it out. It's also obvious that the only bit that has changed is before the /2017 U1, and that C probably stands for Comet and A probably stands for Asteroid. nagualdesign 20:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

...If we do change the opening sentence to begin, "ʻOumuamua (formally designated 1I/2017 U1)...", I think the entry in the table should also be changed to "1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)". nagualdesign 21:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we please do something about this now? It's been over a week since anybody commented and the article still contravenes WP:BEGIN. I'm going to suggest a combination of what Kheider and I previously suggested (since nobody agreed on the use of parens):

ʻOumuamua, formally designated 1I/2017 U1, initially classified as comet C/2017 U1 and later as asteroid A/2017 U1, is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System.

If nobody disagrees at this point I will make the edit later today, but I'd much prefer a show of support. nagualdesign 16:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the first part, but prefer to move previous names to a non-lead section. There is certainly no need to mention the previous names in the very first sentence. The best place, in my opinion, would be the Nomenclature section. Of all the things a reader might want or need to know from the article, previous names are pretty low on the list. LouScheffer (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the fact that C/2017 U1 and A/2017 U1 both redirect to this article, so it help readers who have typed either of those in to understand that they've found what they were looking for. That's also why they're written in bold (per WP:BOLDSYN). Other than that I agree with what you're saying. nagualdesign 17:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So perhaps make these older names re-direct to the Nomenclature section of this article? Then the lede could be much cleaner. LouScheffer (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved older names to nomenclature, and updated re-directs for those names. Seems sensible to me, but other opinions welcome. LouScheffer (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I made one more edit. Thanks, Lou. nagualdesign 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! Made one more wording change. Other opinions welcome, LouScheffer (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does look much better. It now reads:

ʻOumuamua (/oʊˈmuːəˈmuːə/ ; formally designated 1I/2017 U1) is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System.

I hope everyone's happy with that. nagualdesign 00:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign and/or @LouScheffer: Sorry to bother you guys, but doesn't "ʻOumuamua (/oʊˈmuːəˈmuːə/ ;" require one more close parenthesis? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Feel free to change these things yourself - in the worst case the old version is always there, and this is a pretty friendly crowd. So feel free to make any changes you deem to be helpful! LouScheffer (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, and there is one: ʻOumuamua (/oʊˈmuːəˈmuːə/ ; formally designated 1I/2017 U1) ←There it is. And if you look carefully the parens around listen are slightly smaller. nagualdesign 03:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first paren introduces the pronunciation, so the corresponding close should be after the 'listen', not after the formal designation. That's why I moved it (not delete it). Other opinions welcome, LouScheffer (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of articles have pronunciations, translations, etymologies, alternative names and other additional information within the same parentheses, separated by semicolons. Closing the parenthesis after the listen creates a visually awkward double parens, and the formal designation must then be rendered parenthetical using commas. I think that having two parenthetical parts, one in parens the other in commas, interrupts the sentence flow a little too much without any particular benefit. By having both parts in parens the reader can easily visually skip over it, so the sentence becomes something like: ʻOumuamua (yada; yada; yada) is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System. If anything I'd say that the parens around listen are unnecessary, but I'm not sure if anyone else will want to have them removed from the IPAc-en template. nagualdesign 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

...I posted a suggestion at Template talk:IPAc-en/Archive 3#Removing the parens. nagualdesign 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the Inbound Velocity table original research?

The notes on the "Inbound velocity at 200 AU from the Sun comparing ʻOumuamua's interstellar speed to Oort Cloud objects" (in Observations > Trajectory) say, I think, that the table was built using the JPL Horizons tool. Who ran it and in what publication did he publish the results? This should be an inline citation. Or was it some well-intentioned Wikipedian/editor manipulating the tool and the only place that the table exists is in Wikipedia? If so, I think the table is an example of WP:OR and should, most likely, be removed. Or am I missing something? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I did it and it passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Kheider (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I verified a couple of entries, a different option is required to get distance (AKA range), and corrected the note. Compiling these tables was a lot of work and I appreciate the effort.User-duck (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The (1.89×10¹³ km / 26.33 km-per-sec / 60 seconds-per-min / 60 minutes-per-hour / 24 hours-per-day / 365.25 days-per-year = 22,700 years) calculation could be consider WP:OR. I consider it value added. (once I corrected it) User-duck (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, unless it is published in a reliable source other than Wikipedia, it does not pass Wikipedia: No original research. I quote from the first paragraph: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." If anyone can get the analysis published then the argument turns to: Is the publisher reliable?

It does not even pass the Paris rule: "For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it." To say that the Moon orbits the Earth needs no source. To say that the Moon orbits the Earth at a distance of 384,402 km needs a published source, if challenged. To say that the Moon orbits the Earth at a distance of 384,402 km because the Wikipedia editor has measured it using the Mount Wilson observatory needs a published source or it fails WP:PRIMARY.

However, I think your best chance of passing OR is in WP:CALC: Routine calculations. That all the machinations of JPL HORIZON are equivalent to Basic arithmetic and form an "obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." Like 2+2=4, you would have to prove to the average Wikipedia reader that HORIZON is 100% correct and Kheider's input is also 100% accurate. In my humble opinion, of course. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

One problem with your comparison is that editors do not have easy access to Mount Wilson observatory, but they do have access to Horizons and WP:CALC, especially when provided with the steps (notes) required to get the WP:CALC. Horizons has been used by other editors in featured Wikipedia articles as even the orbits of the major planets have been computed with Horizons (see:Mercury_(planet)#cite_note-horizons-5). To remove the table(s) would harm the article as it removes a useful illustrative tool. PS: As of 2017-Nov-27 the moon has a geocentric distance of 0.0026206 AU (392,040 km). -- Kheider (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is OR. The information is verifiable, and presenting it in a convenient table format serves well. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the two tables in the Trajectory section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The survey result was to Keep the tables and, by implication, to allow data from JPL Horizons to be included in Wikipedia. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the "Observations > Trajectory" section contain the two tables "ʻOumuamua speed relative to the Sun" and "Inbound velocity at 200 AU from the Sun comparing ʻOumuamua's interstellar speed to Oort Cloud objects"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. These tables are solely based on the results from the public software tool Horizons by JPL with input supplied by a Wikipedia editor. Unless the results are published in a reliable source other than Wikipedia, the tables do not pass WP:NOR. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I now believe, like agr and Tom.Reding down below, that the publisher of any Horizons calculation is JPL and JPL guarantees the results. JPL may be wrong in the same sense that the New York Times (or any other reliable source) may be wrong but the problem is then with JPL, not the editor who relied on JPL. Whether the editor spent his time inputting parameters or searching the web is immaterial. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. There is a note on how to reproduce the results with JPL Horizons and so it passes Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:CALC. To remove the table(s) would harm the article as it removes a useful illustrative tool. Horizons has been used by other editors in featured Wikipedia articles as even the orbits of the major planets have been computed with Horizons (see:Mercury_(planet)#cite_note-horizons-5). -- Kheider (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is a clear policy-based reason not to use it put forward by the wider community. Seems like an invaluable resource to me. nagualdesign 23:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:OR. Calculating the sum of a set of numbers appears to be close to the limit of what is acceptable as not OR. Calculating the product, or the mean, of a set of numbers is regarded as OR. Trusting a presumably complex computer program to calculate a result is certainly OR. Maproom (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources says, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult." Out of curiosity, did you even try to verify any of the numbers using note 7? -- Kheider (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not. I don't doubt that the calculation is correct, and that I could have run it. But it's still OR. Maproom (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:CALC is the relevant policy. If you have to use a specifically programmed 3rd party tool to run the calculation, its not a routine calculation. It should be published in an RS. The wording of of calc is "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." If you are relying on the tool to tell you it is correct, it is clearly not obvious. If it was obvious, you wouldn't need a tool to tell you. It may well be correct, but that's why we require RS to publish it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. This is basically like looking something up in a database. You will get the same answer every time (assuming that you search for the same stuff, etc.). We have refs in multiple articles that link to a database and list the search terms you need to get to the information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable calculations using verifiable data from verifiable database. The table saves the reader time and work. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It's no different than using a plotting program to create a graph of a known function. No original thought is involved. Rentier (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The data was obtained from a reliable source and is verifiable.User-duck (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep WP:CALC does not apply here because Wikipedia editors are not performing any calculation. They are simply looking up answers in an online resource provided by an impeccable source, NASA/JPL. How the source gets its answers, via a data table look up or using a computer program is not our concern; we don't normally inquire as to the methods used by any other WP:reliable source.--agr (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As long as all table settings are clearly identified in the reference. JPL/NASA is a reliable source. Editor isn't calculating anything themselves.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If/when there is a published paper with distance/velocity estimates, prefer it over current table, but I see no problem with the current table until that time.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. It can be considered a routine calculation in this specific context. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• keep per reasons given by last seven editors(this had been posted at [2])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep For the purposes of Wikipedia it is a database lookup in a reliable source. I don't understand why this needs discussion. It doesn't matter if a calculation is done by a scientist with a pocket calculator or with software that scientist wrote. --mfb (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Uncontroversial routine calculation. Whether to include or not should be debated on the merits of this being relevant to the article or not, but this it not WP:OR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Kind-of a routine calculation (bot-summoned) I think WP:CALC is the relevant guideline, and I also think it applies, though it is debatable (detailed rationale to be posted below). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep since this is a verifiable calculation using a reliable calculator using reliable data it should be fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of the accuracy and reliability of the calculation that's WP:OR. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the data is sourced and verifiable, by definition it is not OR. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. If you asked 10 people familiar with the field whether JPL Horizons is a reliable source, they would all say yes, based not only on reputation, but also on comparisons with other ephemerides, and independent solutions such as done for the Pioneer anomaly. In these cases, other independent experts have verified consistency with the JPL calculations. LouScheffer (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This has implications beyond this article. The results of the Horizon software are also used in Mercury_(planet)#cite_note-horizons-5 and possibly many others. Can a piece of software (an algorithm), run specifically to provide data to an article and not appearing anywhere but Wikipedia, be considered a reliable published source? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Roy is correct. If the results of the Horizon software are deemed inadmissible then this RfC would affect other articles. I suggest that links to this RfC be posted elsewhere. I don't think this is about WP:OR though, since the facts presented in the article are provided by a published source (Horizons). The only questions are whether Horizons passes WP:RS, and/or whether using Horizons somehow contravenes WP:SYNTH. Remember, we don't always have to follow every rule to the letter. For example, WP:PRIMARY need not necessarily apply, as long as the information is reliable (and the broader topic is demonstrably notable). The goal of Wikipedia is to provide good quality, verifiable information and knowledge. nagualdesign 20:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've just posted directions to the RfC under Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) and Talk:JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System. There are various usages of JH, mostly among long period comets, in Mercury (planet), Transit of Deimos from Mars, C/1980 E1, C/1999 F1, Comet Machholz and C/2017 K2 to name a few. Do you think RfC directions should be posted to these articles? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
    • For Oort cloud comet articles the orbit *MUST* be computed at epochs when the comet is outside the planetary region (say epoch 1950 and epoch 2050). A generic link to the JPL Small-Body Database or the Minor Planet Center will be unreliable as it will be defined while inside the planetary system, near perihelion, as a one-size-fits-all solution. Attacking the tables in Oumuamua is much different than attacking Horizons use for orbital periods of Oort cloud comets. This probably should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. Roy, I am not sure you are aware of the damage you could do to the quality of some of Wikipedia's cometary articles. I am not confident this is the place to make and enforce a Wiki-wide policy. -- Kheider (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
      • We are an encyclopedia. We don't publish unpublished ideas, regardless of the damage done to articles about comets or anything else. The main reason why we allow routine calculations is that, if we had to because someone challenged 2+2=4, we could prove that the overwhelming majority of arithmetic textbooks and other materials say that 2+2=4. We don't have anything like that amount agreement on JPL Horizons. Thus we require a person (hopefully an astronomer or a ballistician) to say that he has run Horizon and he personally takes responsibility for the results. Kheider, are you aware of the damage you could do to all of Wikipedia itself? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I am not concerned as people can ask questions about how to reproduce a specific result on the talk page that JPL Horizons is used. I (and I believe others) feel the benefits of an accurate orbital period both inbound and outbound (say millions of years inbound and then 10000 years outbound) far outweigh the disadvantages of an incorrect one-size fits all solution. As far as common Oort Cloud comets are concerned, peer reviewed journals have little reason to compute barycentric orbital periods at inbound and outbound epochs. It is fair to call it more of a database lookup then original research as I did not create Horizons and anyone can verify the results if they are willing to. I do not change the values unless I am rounding off or it is a simple conversion of days to years by dividing by 365.25. Never the less, this talk page is no place to create a Wiki-wide policy rule. Concerns about Horizons should be brought up on the talk pages of the handful of pages that it is used on. -- Kheider (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm a little concerned about the insistence on seeing these numbers independently published. As far as the astronomical and planetary science community is concerned, these _are_ routine and automated calculations. They may or may not be by Wikipedia standards, but they are by the scientists in question. As a result, no one would think of independently publishing them, and no peer reviewed journal in the field would consider them worth publishing (except as a side comment or footnote to a more substantial paper.) Is there a problem with calculations which Wikipedia's standards do not consider routine, but which researchers in the field feel are so routine that independent publication is inappropriate?Fcrary (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• There is no disagreement that the table is a product of calculations (WP:About Valid Routine Calculations). I don't think there is a difference if it is done with a pocket calculator or a software. The basic source is still reliable, and it is verifiable, if you go through the trouble of computing it yourself. My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think that WP:CALC would apply (assuming that the formulas used & the input data are uncontested), which among other things is the reason why {{convert}} template and similar widely used calculation templates exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• The concept of using existing data in an application and the results being OR is troublesome. In this article a published image was manipulated to agree with printed info. Under the strict interpretation of OR that I have read on this talk page, it should certainly be OR! It is NOT the result of "routine calculations", I do NOT know any details of the application used, and I can NOT verify the results. I verified a few of the table entries with the JPL Horizons website. The original instructions had a small error and I updated them. Actually, I would not personally consider the use of the Horizon website "routine calculations" in most instances (the results are not "obvious"), but I do consider them "correct and a meaningful reflection of the sources", This is a contradiction in WP:CALC and I defer to editors with more experience with Wikipedia standards.User-duck (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Turns out the 23,000 year calculation may be OR. It is a "routine calculation" but I personally have not read that tidbit in any reference. Also, converting a distance in LD (lunar distance) units to kilometers is OR if the "convert" template is the standard for routine calculations. It was a synthesis "to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources." (WP:NOR) An additional, non-Wikipedia, reference is required to convert an LD distance in one reference to more familiar units. It is not acceptable to use the value in the Wikipedia LD article. However if a NYT reporter took WAG at the number it would now be acceptable. (I am not belittling reporters, they usually do their job very well. I just trust my own calculation more.) I will get off my soapbox now. If some of my ranting sounds ridiculous, you can appreciate how some of this discussion sounds to me.--User-duck (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Unless someone has more to say, I'm going to close this RfC down later today with a result of Keep. Any objections? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd give it another day or two. There's no rush. nagualdesign 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something about how JPL Horizons works, I strongly disagree with arguments to the effect that it is merely a database lookup. The software grinds some numbers provided by the Wikipedia editor or reader; we have no particular reason to assume this particular set of numbers was already given by a topic expert to the same software with the same results. While many databases are generated automatically and include such numbers, such databases are published and (we assume) there is someone akin to an editor who spot-checked the results for mistakes after generation (in a different step than debugging the generating program).

It seems to me that JPL, an obviously reliable source, has published Horizons as a way to access various ephemerides. It's up to JPL to ensure the calculations are correct. If the editor inputs the wrong parameters, it's like the same editor finding reliable text on the internet to paraphrase but he chooses the wrong paragraph. In this case, it's the editor's fault. But both errors should be discovered eventually.

In other words, if you assume that the calculations are correct (because JPL is a reliable source, even for software) then the editor must have made the mistake. Which happens all the time. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

People incorrectly paraphrase peer reviewed papers all the time. I have seen it editing this article. ALL references are subject to review by other editors. The only options to Horizons are what output you want displayed and what dates. You are not providing numbers to the software. -- Kheider (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So the question is whether WP:CALC applies. My view is that if something is routine for specialists of the domain (i.e. any of them would be able to perform the necessary conceptual steps without consulting a handbook even if some calls to computing power are needed), it can be considered a routine calculation. Essentially that boils down to "anything that is in the textbook (in that domain) goes". But one could easily argue that WP:CALC should be restricted for calculations that a general Wikipedia reader can check, not necessarily one particularly familiar with the article they are reading; we can assume such a reader to know basic arithmetic, but not much more. That is, of course, a subject for a much larger discussion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to leave this RfC open for another few days to accommodate those who couldn't find its location because of the okina mixup. See User_talk:Sphilbrick#Talk:?Oumuamua for details. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Just a final thought: Do we make the decision on what is or is not original research based on the publisher or the product? If the publisher, I don't see how we can have a more reliable source than NASA/JPL. If the product (individual runs of JPL Horizons) however, we then get into WP:CALC and what constitutes a "routine calculation". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• A final thought on why this is a routine calculation. From orbital speed or hyperbolic trajectory or any physics book, speed is a function of distance:

$v={\sqrt {\mu \left({2 \over {r}}-{1 \over {a}}\right)}}$

where:

• $\mu \,$ is standard gravitational parameter ( $1.327\times 10^{20}~m^{3}s^{-2}$ for the Sun )
• $r\,$ is radial distance of orbiting body from central body,
• $a\,\!$ is the (negative for a hyperbolic trajectory) semi-major axis, as specified for 'Oumuamua in the infobox

Plugging in the values specified (1, 10, 100 AU, etc) gives the speeds claimed (I tried this), so this is indeed a routine calculation. LouScheffer (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it doesn't matter. The editor is only supplying the input, not actually performing the calculations, which is the whole point of WP:NOR. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree: choosing the inputs can be part of the research. I can probably get reliable sources for the prevalence of piracy, for global warming measurements, and get a web interface to compute the coefficient of determination between the two, but saying pirates used to stop global warming from happening from that is plain original research (and bad research at that). Even if I were to only claim that "piracy and global warming are negatively correlated", which is a true statement, it should not go on Wikipedia without a source saying so (because the (stupid) reader could easily infer a causality link, so we should not say stuff that is not within the sources or immediately and easily deducible from them). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedian is merely selecting the output options and the date range. -- Kheider (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

OK but @Tigraan, you give an example True Fact of an article in Forbes that specifically pokes fun at the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Surely you're not saying that JPL published the Horizons software for a like purpose. If I use a New York Times story as input to a Wikipedia article, it doesn't matter to me the NYT spent months researching the story, eating up dozens of reporters time and that the story required massive calculations to prove that certain parts were correct. All that matters to me is that the New York Times is a reliable source. All the results from Horizons are guaranteed by JPL, a reliable source. Verbum sap. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

All the results from Horizons are guaranteed by JPL, a reliable source. - I think Horizons' calculations fall under "routine" in WP:CALC, but assuming for the sake of the argument they are not, then it is not enough that the results be guaranteed to be correct. They must still have been discussed by a reliable source. Not (only) because they could be false - again, piracy and global warming are negatively correlated is true and undisputed. In your NYT example, there would be context around any fact you try to extract from the article, that gives meaning to that fact; in the Horizons case, all it spits is a raw number. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The answer is that statistical correlation is NOT routine calculation! Or that you are describing Synthesis of published material. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If computing a R-square is not "routine", few things beyond high school arithmetic are. The SYNTH problem is precisely at the root of the problem here; if I take an algorithm to transform foos into bars from RS1, and data for foo from RS2, does it make the computed bar usable in Wikipedia? I argue it is so only if the algorithm from RS1 is so standard as to be "routine" as per CALC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood, but it seems to me that WP:CALC doesn't really apply. As I understand it, JPL Horizons provides reliable ephemerides based on their own observations and calculations. In a sense it's just a database that can be queried, although rather than every data point being stored most are simply calculated on the fly by the website. As far as the user is concerned it's just a storage retrieval system, and the only 'inputs' are to specify the target body, the timespan and so on. Including specific ephemeris data in an article is equivalent to displaying a small portion of any large database, a bit like including a quote from a book. As long as it's a relevant portion I don't think we have to worry about whether a third-party have themselves quoted the same bit. Nobody here is conducting research or drawing conclusions. nagualdesign 23:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Are you saying that WP:CALC applies since the computations done by JPL Horizons are obviously more than routine? Or are you saying that any results by Horizons must be reviewed by someone outside of Wikipedia; for example, someone connected to JPL (you say "must still have been discussed by a reliable source")?

Point 1: SYNTH and therefore CALC only apply to research / calculations done by an editor, not an independent software program. If you agree that the calculations are done outside of Wikipedia, what part of CALC do you think still applies?

Point 2: I don't see where WP:NOR mentions that a human being, not a program, must review the Horizons results. However, you bring up a valid point: how do we know that any results included in Wikipedia are pertinent, in the sense of WP:Verify? The editor picks the input and thus determines (say) the dates observed. How do we know that those dates are pertinent unless someone (not an editor) says they're important, or at least, relevant?

In my opinion, this is not the place for such a discussion. Right now neither WP:NOR or WP:V says anything about who must determine the relevance of the source data. We should close this RfC and kick our meta-discussions up to the talk pages of both the NOR and V policies. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As JPL is a reliable source and the numbers can be verified, we should close this discussion, and avoid the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Dates can be relevant because orbits change depending on the Epoch (astronomy) they are defined at. An orbital solution that does not specify the epoch is borderline worthless. -- Kheider (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some talk after the RfC closing

• Should we start a discussion on the talk pages of WP:NOR and/or WP:VERIFY about whether the results of JPL Horizons (and other programs) are pertinent? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Being bold, I have changed the two footnotes referencing Horizons in the article to inline citations. Would someone please check if everything is OK, especially if anyone knows the date when that particular ephemeris was generated. If you're going to revert my changes (because maybe I shouldn't have been so bold), please state your reasons here so we can discuss. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Found the date (and author/developer) by running the ephemeris. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rama

I assume everyone realizes the similarity to the subject spacecraft of the book Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke. In fact, the section ʻOumuamua#Potential_space_mission parallels the opening of the book so closely as to make me suspect the section was written as a joke. Johnson487682 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For me it resembles "Pirx's Tale" from Tales of Pirx the Pilot by Stanislaw Lem which described an alien craft at a hyperbolic velocity of 90 km/s (Lem has guessed!) and conjectured to be a part of galactic swarm: "The perfectly symmetrical spindle had become a disk — better, a ring... a ship measuring twenty kilometers in length". By the way, rotating ring can also produce variation in brightness. — Ace111 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly a worthy SciFi comparison. I recall Rama was obviously artificial when it slowed down as it approached, and its speed outside Jupiter of 100,000 km/h was only matched by ʻOumuamua inside the orbit of Mercury. I also see Rama (50km) was ~100 times larger in length. I admit when I heard of this being first discovered, 1I, I wondered if it was one of many heading our way from the same source, although Rama might suggest this first probe as exploratory, while ʻOumuamua II and ʻOumuamua III are still coming, and we should be ready to intercept them. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

First thing I though of! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It may sound trivial but perhaps this is worthy of mention at the end of the article? It's been mentioned on APOD and The New York Times (although I'm not sure if either of those are considered reliable). nagualdesign 22:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The shape really is not that far from 2003 SD220 in 2015, or 1865 Cerberus. -- Kheider (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

i am not sure what to believe. i found object sd220 mixed up with it in google images and cannot explain why we don't have a picture of it yet. radar or light (reflectance and radiative). my page looks at the other image as a possible hidaway for the overall coverup. http:// the ubie . com / is-it . htm . Perhaps you can help explain the other problem that the argument of periheilion 241.7 looks like it should be about sep 4 or 5 --not the september 9 stated. 72.94.230.198 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Were this to be something more than an odly shapped chunk of metal and it is using our sun a gravitaional slingshot, where might it be headed ? Robin48gx (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bold text in Nomenclature section

This is explicitly recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?. In particular

Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term.

So those redirects should then go to the Nomenclature section, and INDEED this is the case, A/2017 U1 is #REDIRECT [[ʻOumuamua#Nomenclature]]. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes let us keep these names bolded. They were also earlier names for this article, and should be kept prominent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Paper: 1I/'Oumuamua is tumbling

1I/'Oumuamua is tumbling Wesley C. Fraser, Petr Pravec, Alan Fitzsimmons, Pedro Lacerda, Michele T. Bannister, Colin Snodgrass, Igor Smoli'c (Submitted on 30 Nov 2017)

Summary: The discovery of 1I/2017 U1 ('Oumuamua) has provided the first glimpse of a planetesimal born in another planetary system. This interloper exhibits a variable colour, within a range that is broadly consistent with local small bodies such as the P/D type asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and dynamically excited Kuiper Belt Objects. 1I/'Oumuamua appears unusually elongated in shape, with an axial ratio exceeding 5:1. Rotation period estimates are inconsistent and varied, with reported values between 6.9 and 8.3 hours. Here we analyse all reliable optical photometry reported to date. No single rotation period can explain the exhibited brightness variations. Rather, 1I/'Oumuamua appears to be in an excited rotational state undergoing Non-Principal Axis (NPA) rotation, or tumbling. A satisfactory solution has apparent lightcurve frequencies of 0.135 and 0.126 hr-1 and implies a longest-to-shortest axis ratio of 5:1, though the available data are insufficient to uniquely constrain the true frequencies and shape. Assuming a body that responds to NPA rotation in a similar manner to Solar System asteroids and comets, the timescale to damp 1I/'Oumuamua's tumbling is at least a billion years. 1I/'Oumuamua was likely set tumbling within its parent planetary system, and will remain tumbling well after it has left ours.

Maybe Wikipedia needs a new article tumbling (rigid body) for chaotic rotations. This also applies for a couple moons of Pluto and Hyperion (moon) of Saturn. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. tumbling (rigid body) should more clearly explain how that can produce a variation of rotation period - presumably non-chaotic. Moons of Pluto implies that the chaotic tumbling is due to the varying gravitaional field due to pluto and the other moons (which may not apply as much to 1I). - Rod57 (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Seti

Seti's Breakthrough Listen project is going to listen for radio waves from a derelict interstellar spacecraft tumbling through space for a million years. It's worth a try I guess! Tom Ruen (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Alien Probe or Galactic Driftwood? SETI Tunes In to 'Oumuamua December 11, 2017

Astronomers to Check Mysterious Interstellar Object for Signs of Technology

Added short description of these efforts under 'Observations'. LouScheffer (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Starting on December 13, 2017, the Green Bank Telescope will "observe the asteroid for 10 hours across four bands of radio frequency." Update to investigation. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I heard that ET onboard ‘Oumuamua loves Justin Beaver, and it is on a mission to share his "art" across the galaxy. Get yer earphones ready. :-P BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any update on this matter? I can't find anything online. Xanikk999 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Size

Hi

I am a little confused, with JPL and NASA still reporting as 400m long and the article refs putting it at 180m. If there is no definitive size, surely the other size should be mentioned for balance? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It is confusing, probably because no one really knows. I added a second reference in the stat table as "Up to 400m". Tom Ruen (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Important point! Even the sources given in the infobox disagrees, with the Astrophysical Journal Letters article stating ∼230 m × 35 m with a A ∼6:1 axis ratio. The infobox does not even include this much more credible result. RhinoMind (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed now. I have used the most credible of the two size-sources already in the article, as I mentioned above. There may be more on this issue later, but for now this appears to be the most reliable estimate. RhinoMind (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Appearance and shape - infered

Could we start the Appearance and shape with something like "In all observations so far it is an unresolved single pixel." All mention of shape should be to inferred/predicted... shape ? The artists impression seems too prominent. All is inference from the light curve which we could give more prominence to. The ESO light curves look good and seem permitted for use in WP ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I demoted the image, and added the warning in the caption. I agree the light curve is important if we can upload. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems there is a discrepancy between the axial dimensions stated in sources 8 and 9 (Jewett et al., and NOAO) under appearance and shape. Since the NOAO makes key references to the Jewett paper, it may well be a major source. I suspect that the NOAO have either erred when citing the figures from said paper or presented figures from another source. The figures from the NOAO article are 180 m x 30 m x 30 m while Jewitt's paper has it at radii 230 m x 35 m, (verbatim 35 m for both minor axes.) Can others confirm and correct!? John11235813 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea about more prominence to the light curve interpretations. A light curve interpretation is all we could possibly ever hope for. RhinoMind (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded the light curve image, inserted into Appearance section File:Eso1737a.jpg. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)