User talk:Exoplanetaryscience/2015

GA Cup - The Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Exomoon list
Don't you think it is a good idea to add references to the items? Tetra quark (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Feedback Form
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Periodic Comets
I'm puzzled about why you deleted all the early periodic comets from the list. Was it deliberate or accidental? plucas58 on 22 Feb 2015
 * I made a separate list List of numbered comets for the list of numbered comets, rather than periodic comets. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I have created a few links to the new list to raise awareness.Plucas58 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

 * Thank you! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 DB216, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perturbation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/2015 DB216 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2015 DB216
Hello! Your submission of 2015 DB216 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! George Ho (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Luther, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Ferguson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 YB35
Please provide a citation for the bit about the moon in that article. I was unable to find anything myself. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, how is that a reliable source? He also doesn't cite where *he* got the information from. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to the person who claimed the moon. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: He responded, cited sources:  exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit to PlanetObservation userbox
Shows how often I follow up on these things... anyway, I have reverted your edit to my planet observation userbox from nearly a year ago. Regarding your explanation for the edit that "you can't see earth :/", I recommend that you turn your gaze downwards. If you feel strongly that the Earth should not be counted as an observable planet, please feel free to use the graphic I created for it to make your own userbox rather than changing mine. Thanks! The Rev (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 1702 Kalahari. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 16:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Asteroid Redirects
When restoring the article for a previously redirected asteroid, just make sure you add referenced text to the body of each article supporting why it shouldn't be a redirect, so that it doesn't meet the established redirect-criteria. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 23:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me of that, it appears has taken care of that for me in this case, but I'll try to remember that for later. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These 56 asteroids are (mostly) missing the reference indicating that they're binary asteroids. A few just have Category:Binary asteroids yet don't mention it in the text ( in case you want to help).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• 854 FrostiaR

• 1313 BernaR

• 1333 CevenolaR

• 1727 MetteR

• 2006 PolonskayaR

• 2121 SevastopolR

• 2486 MetsähoviR, IB

• 2577 LitvaR

• 2623 ZechR

• 2691 SersicR

• 2754 EfimovR

• 2815 SomaR

• 3034 ClimenhagaR

• 3073 KurskR

• 3703 VolkonskayaR, IB

• 3782 CelleR, IB

• 3841 DiciccoR

• 3868 MendozaR

• 3905 DopplerR

• 3951 ZichichiR

• 3982 KastelR

• 4383 SurugaR

• 4492 DebussyR, IB

• 4765 WasserburgR

• 4786 TatianinaR

• 4951 IwamotoR

• 5474 GingasenR

• 5477 HolmesR, IB

• 5481 KiuchiR

• 5899 JedickeR

• 5905 JohnsonR

• 6084 BascomR

• 6244 OkamotoR

• (6265) 1985 TW3R, IB

• 6615 PlutarchosR

• 6708 BobbievaileR

• 7187 IsobeR

• 7225 HuntressR

• 7369 GavrilinR

• 7958 LeakeyR

• 8026 JohnmckayR, IB

• 8116 JeanperrinR

• 8306 ShokoR

• 8373 StephengouldR

• 9069 HovlandR

• 9260 EdwardolsonR

• 9617 GrahamchapmanR, IB

• 10208 GermanicusR, IB

• 11264 ClaudiomacconeR

• 15268 WendelinefrogerR, IB

• (15430) 1998 UR31R, IB

• 16525 ShumarinaikoR

• 26074 CarlwirtzR

• (66391) 1999 KW4R

• (175706) 1996 FG3R, IB


 * I will attempt to work on these later today, and by the weekend will try to have an infobox with basic orbital information on all of the included asteroids. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To help, I've marked the pages with a binary asteroid reference now in place with an "R".  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated all with an "R" now, and added "IB" to 12 missing an infobox.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm also including infoboxes on the moons, including otherwise omitted data, such as their volume (assuming a spherical shape) maximum apparent separation (calculated using the parent body's MOID to Earth, and the distance of the moon from the primary), absolute magnitude (assuming the same albedo as the parent body, and when albedo is omitted/not calculated assuming an albedo from 0.05 to 0.3. Is there any objection to including the described values? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, no objection at all. Multiple-star systems have information separated by the total system and each of its constituents. But, an infobox does not a notable article make. If the article is teetering on notability, I would say it's better to include whatever notable information about it you can find.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of R136a1
Hello! Your submission of R136a1 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Asteroids with no DefaultSort
Would you like a list of 1331 asteroids without a DefaultSort, so that you may expertly sort them in the future? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 22:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would be useful. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * FYU ~ User:Exoplanetaryscience/List of asteroids with no defaultsort.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  01:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Percentages in
What is "64% (0.256%)", as used in, supposed to mean? --JorisvS (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was specified earlier that 0.4% of centaurs would become Uranus co-orbitals, and as the percentage is further broken down I thought it would be useful to specify the percentage of the originally specified population of centaurs. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

VNH0004
VNH0004 has been renamed 2011 KW48. What reference do you have for that? Regards.--Io Herodotus (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked for trans-neptunian objects discovered in late may 2011 and with similar orbital elements. The identification is certain because this website lists observations of the object, and the minor planet center has the same observations from the same observatories. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We still don't know if New Horizons took any picture of it. Regards. --Io Herodotus (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! It's funny thinking a probe spent nearly 10 years traveling to Pluto, and yet all of its primary science objectives and one-chance observations needed to be carried out in a period of only a couple of hours. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyways it is still the first and only spacecraft to visit Pluto. It will collect a lot of valuable information. We might need to update the article again in a few years when the spacecraft visits the Kuiper Belt object. LOL! --LL221W (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of geological features on 21 Lutetia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regio. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have just taken the very unusual action of editing your user page directly. I had to remove the transclusion of the Wikipedia Sandbox as it was causing confusion at the Articles for Creation project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Kepler-452b
Hey, I'm not going to question your revert or anything, but it is bad practice to just revert a non-vandal edit with no reason given whatsoever. What reason does that IP have to not just revert your revert when you haven't provided reasoning. That's all I've really got to say. Regard, Dustin  ( talk ) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. My reasoning is that it's typical to use DMY dates on articles, because it makes more sense than MDY dates. Personally I would prefer if YMD dates were used, but the English wikipedia is not simply for Americans, but also any countries that speak English, including its namesake, England, which uses DMY dates. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia is not just for everybody else either, and it was discovered by the United States. As I said before, I am not suggesting any changes to format (at least not now), and you don't see us using DMY in every article on Wikipedia to cater to the majority, do you? Also, I disagree with your statement that MDY does not make sense; the year is usually not going to be used, so most of the time, it will just be Month-Day (identical to YMD), but when it is used, the year is simply added following a comma which offsets it. I understand that commas can simply indicate a pause, but I would rather interpret it as that thing where a comma is used to offset something moved from the beginning (like a book title, The First Book which when sorted becomes First Book, The). My greatest issue is with using Day-Month more than anything else, and if YMD is completely off-limits, MDY is the only Month-Day format left. Plus, if YMD is the ISO standard, why is it not being used? This is one the greatest annoyances I have experienced on Wikipedia, things like China using YMD but having its article in DMY. All formats can make sense to the user, but my deal is which ones are more logical (YMD in all cases; MDY partly because it maintains month-day and is more similar to YMD). Sorry I have added too much text. I doubt this is getting anywhere at this point... Dustin  ( talk ) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kepler-452b solar planet distances
Hello! Would you please reconsider your reverting of my exoplanet distances to zero? You're correct that the actual distances vary by up to .000032 light-years due to solar orbital conjunction versus opposition. (So for example, Mars is betweeen 0.000008 and 0.000040 light-years from Earth.) I chose to list the minimum distances, when the planets are at opposition. I suggest this is not pointless because the purpose of the column is to give some idea "how far away it is" e.g. for interplanetary travel. So the closest distance is a little more meaningful in that context. (And a range of distances would be even more bulky for this otherwise lean column.) The other reason it's not pointless is that here we have an unusual opportunity to represent some of the hugeness of the comparison with actual numbers:  0.000008 light-years to Mars versus 1400 light-years to Kepler-452b. Travel to this "new" exoplanet would be almost nine orders of magnitude farther than to Mars. And we have some historical understanding of how far away Mars is!

I'd like to change these back to nonzero distances. I think it gives some scale to the fascinating question of how far away these exoplanets really are. Your thoughts? Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but perhaps it would be useful to mention that the distances are simply the minimum, or even list the range of distances, because it wasn't clear that the distances weren't simply the provided distances from Earth at the time. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=680745684 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F680745684%7CList of nearest stars and brown dwarfs%5D%5D Ask for help])

hello
You are the creator of List of comets by type. You might be interested in checking out this list I made: List of exoplanets. It's not as big, but still it's pretty darn big. Haha. Huritisho (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is quite a spectacular list. Looking at the history, it would appear you made it in a matter of days? My comet list took about 7 or 8 months to create, so did you have the project previously on another workspace? Either way, thank you for fixing a few things on the list that I had been meaning to do eventually. However in case you weren't already aware, making lists of such things can be a tedious task, even after you're done. For me, I have to continuously update the orbits of the comets to fit with observation and close approaches to Jupiter & the other planets, and you would have to deal with a constantly updated list of known exoplanets, and additionally choose which ones would be considered confirmed and which ones are unconfirmed, and based on that which ones should be included or not. Either way, best of luck with that project, and welcome to Wikipedia! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't see your reply. And no, I completed the list in one hour or so, haha. I copied the raw list and pasted it in visualeditor. VE sorts all the content in form of a wikitable when you paste. Then I just grabbed the source and moved it to Microsoft Excel. There I added the wikilinks brackets in new columns both before and after the name of the planets. Then I moved everything to the notepad in windows and searched the tabulations and replaced for nothing, so the brackets fell around the name of the planets and all the wikilinks were added in an instant. Ican explain you better how I did that if you want to. Anyway, you can help me improve my list by adding remarks for some of the exoplanets. Cheers! Huritisho 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

list help
I just checked the traffic statistics of your list (List of comets by type) and wow, it has on average about 1000 views a day. Where are those people coming from and why doesn't my list have as many views? Just curious. By the way, I wish you helped me improve my list, List of exoplanets. You can do gnomish work, or write remarks... you know. It would be more than appreciated Huritisho 03:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had been aware of this for a while, and frankly I have no idea why people visit it so much. If only my sources provided where that traffic was coming from, however as an educated guess I can suppose it comes from the fact that it's the 4th largest article on Wikipedia, formerly 6th and before that 5th. It also may be contributed slightly by the fact that it's one of the largest single collections of information on comets ever assembled. One of the complications of creating the list, however, is that while the MPC keeps data on recent comets, there is no central database for all the information (as far as I know) so I have to rely on cross-referencing several sources to obtain information otherwise unattainable. That has helped the list grow significantly (especially for the list of comets before ~1700 AD) and may be one of the reasons people view it so much.
 * On the topic of your article, I had originally planned to help with it until I noticed that the article had been redirected. Unfortunately, I had not checked the article since then. Once I am complete with that, and done updating my comet list for the year, I will get to work and see what I can do on yours. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I wish more people would edit my article. I'm feeling lonely there. Oh and the article was taken to Draft space because some user decided to delete everything claiming the source wasn't reliable (it is). Anyway, cheers, Huritisho 16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I want people to do is mainly add remarks for some exoplanets in the list. Anyway, any edit (even if a minor one) is welcome. I don't want to make many edits in a row there. Huritisho 22:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A001113 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A001113. Since you had some involvement with the A001113 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WT1190F
This is just to tell you that I have nominated your article WT1190F for DYK here. Bharatiya29 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The DYK nomination of WT1190F
Hello! An article you created, WT1190F, was nominated for Did You Know. The nomination has been reviewed, and some issues with it were found. Please review the comments at the nomination's entry and consider responding there as soon as possible. Since you didn't nominate the article yourself, you're not required to assist with the review process, but we're hoping the article can appear on the Main Page either 12 or 13 November, since the expected impact will be the 13th. Under the circumstances, more help will make the article's DYK "hook" more likely to be featured on time. I note WT1190F has become quite a collaborative article, so feel free to recruit other contributors. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist   contribs talk 13:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for WT1190F
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

2004 VN112 and 2013 VZ98
2013 VZ98 does not exist. -- Kheider (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I had confused 2010 VZ98 and 2013 RF98. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Kheider (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ceres on wayward son
I have no problem leaving that alone. I was unaware of any accepted convention on it, & haven't ever seen that before. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You reverted
my edits where I had the minor planets (including many dwarf planets) be alphabetized by their given name. Why? Look at Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. How many times does he say “90377 Sedna” or “136199 Eris”? I'm not sure he ever mentions the minor planet numbers (MPNs) of said objects. Like everyone, he just says “Sedna” or “Eris”. Mike Brown's website, which is often cited by Wikipedia, doesn't even state the MPNs. Someone who only knows a minor planet's given name will find the object hard to find in an alphabetic list by MPN. Just now, I even had some trouble finding Sedna in an alphabetic list; and I couldn't find Eris until I looked a second time. That's even though I know the minor planet numbers. (Eris was alphabetized not as “136199” but as “20050105” [at least in “Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2005”, the category in which I looked for it].) The alphabetization as “20050105” is even more absurd.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for this is that as of the current situation, the Minor Planet Center assigns numbers to all asteroids as a form of identification of them. While their name can be useful, I wouldn't expect you to be looking for Sedna by a list of objects discovered in 2003. The sort purpose of the categorization is to sort it in a meaningful way, not just an index of what the name starts with, which a simple ctrl+F can find, as can a trip through special:search. Assuming my format, it provides a meaningful way for these asteroids to be sorted that makes sense- following them not by their name, but by the order of their numbering/discovery. for the date order, it establishes the dates at which they were discovered and in no way conflicts with the order. Additionally, this format has already been changed for over 1000 asteroid articles, and has remained this way for over 8 months. I have also encountered no resistance from anyone so far except you. 02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Exoplanetaryscience, thx for that clarification and rationale. However, these "conventions" should be discussed publicly in order to reach a consensus and to have a guideline for future edits. Otherwise we just waste our time changing each other's edits and create inconsistencies all over the place. As you may have noticed, I have adopted your YYYYMMDD-format as the sort-option for the category "Astronomical objects discovered in XYZ" in hundreds of articles by now, while I have always used the minor planet's name as the magic DEFAULTSORT keyword (simply because the majority of articles use a name-based, not a zero-padded IAU-number as default). I think it's time to address this and other issues concerning the standardization for minor planet articles. Since you are one of the most valuable editors on the topic, I'm eager to learn from your ideas and suggestions, and I will definitely ping on my post. 'Till then, cheers,  R fassbind  – talk   16:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rfassbind, you support my plan, of alphabetizing minor planets by their given name, correct? Other Wikipedians, do you support my minor planet alphabetization plan?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 ER61 orbital period
Orbital period is 43400 ± 1800 years in infobox, but it is about half of this value in 2015 ER61. And it is not clear meaning of first column in the table. Thanks! -- A.sav (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I should explain it better in the article- the provided semimajor axis in the infobox is assuming a heliocentric orbit, and the orbital elements table is the barycentric orbit- taking into account the solar system barycenter. which first column do you mean? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * which first column do you mean? - It is named Distance from Sun now.
 * Well, what does it means Period (p) (years) column in the table? It seems at least in one cell it should be 43400 years. -- A.sav (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not well acquainted with exactly how a barycentric orbit works, and even less qualified to explain how it works. I would ask Kheider about it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Last question - what is the source(s) for this article ? -- A.sav (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My sources for the orbits specifically are from the JPL small body database, with the barycentric orbits being from JPL horizons- go here and select 'elements' instead of observer, change target to 2015 ER61, and location the Solar System Barycenter (@0)- select the time and it will show you the orbit at any one time there. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! -- A.sav (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2MASS J18352154-3123385, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagittarius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)