This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Astronomy:Astronomical objects /Solar SystemLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related toAstronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related toastronomical objects. This article is supported bySolar System task force (assessed asLow-importance).

Yethere --Itu (talk)00:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D. Warner claims 2015 TB15 has a rotation period of ~3 hours on the Minor Planet Mailing List(MPML). I guessWikipedia thinks he is not awp:rs. --Kheider (talk)17:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against the man, but your cheap web link to a Yahoo forum. Can he publish that in a competent venue? Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk)17:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it will be published given some time, but the asteroid was just discovered ~2 weeks ago and his comment made 2 days ago. You are simply not currently going to find many high quality sources about 2015 TB145. When the rotation period wasadded to the article it had no reference what-so-ever. There is a reason forwp:Ignore all rules. I do not see this as much different thanwp:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter given that many well known astronomers are active on the MPML. --Kheider (talk)17:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that sometimes you will give the same degree of latitude to other editors that you reserve to yourself. Thank you. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk)18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit improves the referencing and does not mislead the readers, I am all for it. But the simple fact, for better or worse, is that when it comes to near-Earth asteroids and bright comets, I have have been one of Wikipedia's most active editors for 7 years. Quite often I start an article before even the general press writes about it. --Kheider (talk)18:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging I found "3.1 hours" and "The rotation rate is still uncertain" mentioned in aSky & Tel article. --Kheider (talk)21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of the gibbous moon here? It's going to affect the visibility of the already naked-eye-invisible asteroid?Rothorpe (talk)13:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nearly full moon in close proximity will definitely make telescopic viewing more difficult, by direct glare, and by sky brightness.Tom Ruen (talk)14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using a 100 mm (4 in) scope, you will reallywant a 150–200 mm (6–8 in) scope. Any moon greater than 33% harms viewing. A nearly full moon just sucks for viewing faint objects. Instead of the sky looking dark with good contrast, the sky will look a milky grey with little contrast. You can increase your magnification for more contrast, but then you will have a smaller field of view to locate the asteroid. --Kheider (talk)14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks very much to you both!Rothorpe (talk)16:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote astory about the near miss of 2015 TB145. As far as I know, mine is the only story to give an estimate of the crater size had the object hit the Earth. Describing the potential damage seems relevant and should be part of the Wikipedia entry. If I want to add that detail and reference my own article, how do I do that without it being a COI?Robin Rowe (talk)01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you don't. A "story" (which I assume means a work of fiction in this case) would pretty much never be areliable source for such a fact in a Wikipedia article, even if you didn't have aWP:COI, which you do in citing your own work. Even if this were a non-fiction article, published by a reliable publisher so that it does constitute an RS,you should not be the one to cite it. If itdoesn't constitute an RS, no one should cite it. And in general, as perWP:CRYSTAL that sort of what-if speculation is not encouraged in Wikipedia articles, although it can sometimes be used to illustrate a point or a theory. I think you should drop this idea.DES^(talk)

The "story"Robinrowe linked to seems to be a "story" in the sense of "news story" rather than fiction. GoshTV, the publisher,does not appear to be a reliable source to quote in a Wikipedia article, however. For something like this, a statement by NASA would be a good source for an estimate of what size the crater might have been; but then, if NASA had provided such an estimate, it would be strange for no other reliable secondary sources (such as newspapers, magazines, or scholarly journals) to report that estimate. Mainstream sources are preferred when they are available. —GrammarFascist_contribs^talk21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even on the announcement day, with only a 4 dayobservation arc, it was KNOWN that there was azero chance of an impact on this approach. 2015 TB145 has NEVER even been listed on the JPLSentry Risk Table. Why do people always want to sensationalize an asteroid impact when there is zero risk? Our Moon would destroy Earth, "if it impacted". --Kheider (talk)15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [1]
• ‘Spooky’ the Asteroid Comes Clean in New Radar Images
• Radar images provide new details on Halloween asteroid

• Start-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• Start-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Astronomical objects articles
• Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
• Start-Class Solar System articles
• Low-importance Solar System articles
• Solar System task force