Talk:(308933) 2006 SQ372

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

The Universe Today article says that "Scientists believe the object is only 50-100 kilometers (30-60 miles) across." Despite the title of the article, this is not a minor planet.

DanDixon (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor planet does not mean dwarf planet. Minor planet, AFAIK, is a denomination given to every small body orbiting the Sun. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Centaur?

An edit by Kheider classified 2006 SQ372 as a Centaur, basing on the classification by Marc Buie.

However, 2006 SQ372 seems not to fit the definition of centuar as from the WP article as "Centaurs orbit the Sun between Jupiter and Neptune, crossing the orbits of the large gas giant planets." - 2006 SQ372 aphelion is wildly beyond Neptune.

I undid the Kheider edit, but I want to state that the edit seems perfectly legit by itself. I just undid it to "freeze" the thing before the discussion is settled. So, is our object a Centaur, a TNO, both, or none of these? Or is the definition of Centaur wrong? --Cyclopia (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per wiki-definitions SDOs are suppose to have perihelion distances of greater than 30 astronomical units (AU). 2006 SQ372 is really more of a Centaur since it radically crosses the orbit of Neptune and is also under the influence of Uranus.^{(Nathan Kaib)} -- Kheider (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, now the article really clarifies the ambiguity. Too bad natural objects do not strive to fit our discrete, comfortable classifications! :D --Cyclopia (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT Centaur because its semi-major axis is behind Neptune. It is SDO. — Chesnok (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. What reference do you have that it is ONLY a SDO and is not a centaur? It comes inside the orbit of Neptune. This object blurs the definitions that are in use. DES treats it as a Centaur. -- Kheider (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit, I would just like to say that there are 3 centaurs (Chiron, 60558 Echeclus, and 166P/NEAT) (all perihelion < 8.6AU) that are classified as Comets. Moving deleted (though perhaps useful) external link to talk page: Huge Comet Discovered. Some day 2006 SQ₃₇₂ may be caught outgassing, though its current perihelion distance is likely too far from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroidal object 2006 SQ₃₇₂ was NOT (yet) observed with cometary activity, it is NOT a comet^[1], and that link gives us misinformation and should be deleted. Except few cases, comets classified ONLY as comets. I think, Centaurs have no official definition. There are some objects classified both as comets and asteroids (95P/Chiron, 174P/Echeclus, 176P/LINEAR). — Chesnok (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesnok, could you please specify what is the problem? Kheider deleted the stuff and agrees that no one can say 2006 SQ372 is a comet, as far as I can understand. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's all right. It was one external link named "comet 2006 SQ372" and I deleted it. — Chesnok (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital period?

In the header: Its orbit takes between 22,000 and 32,000 years to complete.
In the infobox: 35607.89 a
Which one is right? Other is a range of 10,000 years and the other is exact value (significantly higher) with two decimals... 85.217.46.254 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]