Talk:3548 Eurybates

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal 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 Mid-importance).

Orphaned references in 3548 Eurybates[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 3548 Eurybates's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "johnston":

From List of natural satellites: Johnston, W. R. (30 December 2008). "(136199) Eris and Dysnomia". Johnston's Archive. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
From Dimorphos: "(65803) Didymos". www.johnstonsarchive.net. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
From Namaka (moon): Wm. Robert Johnston (17 September 2008). "(136108) Haumea, Hi'iaka, and Nāmaka". Retrieved 2008-09-18.
From (208996) 2003 AZ84: Johnston, Wm. Robert (20 September 2014). "(208996) 2003 AZ84". Johnston's Archive. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
From 38628 Huya: Johnston, Wm. Robert (21 September 2014). "(38628) Huya". Johnston's Archive. Retrieved 31 October 2019.
From Hiʻiaka (moon): Wm. Robert Johnston (17 September 2008). "(136108) Haumea, Hiʻiaka, and Nāmaka". Retrieved 2008-09-18.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

I would be inclined not to split the (magnitude 26) moon Queta from the article until the section is either better developed and/or we get closer to the 2027 arrival of Lucy. -- Kheider (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is too close to call for a split at this point. TheWhistleGag (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]