Talk:(471325) 2011 KT19

Niku (TNO)
Wow this article was created 8 minutes before mine. Great minds think alike. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 00:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Name
Why is this object called 2011 KT19 if it was not discovered until August 2016? Jonathunder (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the discovery paper, as well as Minor Planet Center information, it was originally discovered by the Mount Lemmon Survey in late May, 2011. After a mere 9 days of observations, it was soon lost, and only recovered by the Pan-STARRS telescope sometime in 2015 or 2016- keep in mind it was not *discovered* in August 2016, the paper was announced in 2016. The observations and orbit of it were made public in early June of this year. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not withstanding the fact that it had been lost after originally discovered in 2011, most notable newly discovered astronomical objects are not officially announced until the papers describing them have been published. This can be many months or even years after the object has actually been discovered.71.187.7.42 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While accurate in most cases, this is untrue in the case of nearly all asteroids and comets: the minor planet center is regarded as the official referee for discoveries on these. Of course, an object can be reported via paper and then submitted to the minor planet center, that still qualifies as a delayed announcement, instead of an invalid announcement via MPC and then an official one through a scientific paper. Once the available useful data on an object is provided, it would be announced, regardless of your opinion on validity. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence why I said notable, the vast majority of comets and asteroids are not particularly notable.71.187.7.42 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, why is it nicknamed "Niku"? 209.93.141.17 (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Planet 9 reference
The reference to the planet 9 in the main body of the article is very tendentious. There is no reference to the original Batygin and Brown article, and the mention of planet 9 is purely negative; that is, there is no attempt to explain why a ninth planet is even relevant to this object. Furthermore (and this is purely my opinion), the article cited presents a very unconvincing case of statistical anomaly. Both the perihelion and inclination cut-offs are quite arbitrary: as the article indicates, increasing the cut-offs by only a little cuts down the sample to 3-5 objects, and decreasing them by only a little destroys the coincidence. As 3.8 sigma results come, this one is not very believable. I have other reservations about the article, but I don't intend to put the authors on trial. Would it be alright to add a little more to this section to eliminate this odd bias? 131.215.220.165 (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)