Talk:99942 Apophis

message: The lead-in section of this article is misleading 
:"that caused a brief period of concern in December 2004 because initial observations indicated a small probability (up to 2.7%) that it would strike the Earth in 2029."
It should say has continued to cause concern from December 2004 until recently and then you can use this article http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/10/doomsday-determined-asteroid-apophis-strike-earth/ as evidence for example. Don't belittle the situation.212.219.231.1 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this lead-in section needs to be re-written.  It is obviously fairly old.  Additionally to the comment above, there is a comment about the existence of the keyhole being 800m (1/2 km) in size in 2006 and then refers to a 2006 article saying that in 2008, it had reduced in size to 1 km (which is greater than 800 meters). I may take a shot at soon, but feel free to do it before.  As a former Physics/Astrophysics grad student, I would suggest that due to the inertia of the asteroid as it travels through the Earth-Moon system, the Earth's magnetic field will not be noticed by the asteroid.  Gravity will be the only force of significance in this encounter.Autkm (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading Lead-in

message: This article just popped up this morning.  Anyone interested in editing this article may find it interesting and may be able to incorporate the information.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter  98.215.128.112 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. Apparently someone has already found and posted the article below. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree and have added it. The news story does not talk about Russian Plans, it merely talks about a statement to look into a possible mission, i.e. it may make plans and is considering that now. This is very relevant and worth reporting, as it comes from the official Russian Space Agency. Its not up to us to interpret that they "are not aware of the low probability." That is not relevant.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: My 2 cents. -- Kheider (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for letting it stay and I have no problem with your re-wording of my addition. I can see you are close to the subject, and you are probably right that Perminov has been mis-informed about your work. However, we as editors here need to be careful to merely report and not interject our bias, even if that bias is well informed on the subject. Perhaps Perminov is aware of the probabilities but doesnt want to take any chances, or perhaps its PR reasons that they are talking about this. Lets wait to see if other respected and notable people speak about this latest development, but lets not fail to report on it.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the impact is not very likely, this mission could make a lot of sense.  This asteroid would offer a perfect opportunity to practice deflecting a body headed for Earth, so if in a few decades or centuries another body appears that will actually hit Earth, invaluable experience gained during the practice mission will make deflecting it that much easier and cheaper. In other words, since we practice responding to disasters all the time, we could do so here as well.   Sourcelat0r (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian plans 

message: Novosti 2009-02-25 (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090225/120298367.html) says "In 2012, Apophis will pass close enough to Earth, enabling scientists to more accurately calculate its 2029 orbit."  If so, ISTM worth giving date and distance of that pass, and of any other comparatively near passes before the important ones. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 Pass of Apophis 

message: During the lecture for the 40th Apollo 11 Anniversary, Buzz Aldrin proposed a manned mission, here's a powerpoint slide of his which shows it, if someone wants to add something to the missions section:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/buzz_aldrins_on.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafafa Hots (talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aldrin Manned Mission Plan 

message: "Apophis’s brightness will peak at magnitude 3.3, with a maximum angular speed of 42° per hour. The maximum apparent angular diameter will be ~2 arcseconds, so that it will be barely resolved by telescopes not equipped with adaptive optics."
"On that date, it will become as bright as magnitude 3.3 (visible to the naked eye from rural and some darker suburban areas, visible with binoculars from most locations"
According to the Apparent_magnitude page, the second quote would appear to be the correct one. Does someone want to take a shot at fixing this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.3.245 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The resolving power of a telescope has nothing to do with the limiting apparent magnitude.  These are separate characteristics.  It is the difference between seeing an object (magnitude) and resolving it as a disc. -- Kheider (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is it? 

message: I rv'ed an edit showing a 1 in 250,000 chance of a collision.  The auto generated link at NEO does show the odds as only 1 in 233,000 (2036-04-13.37; 4.3e-06), but since it is an auto generated page I think it is better if we stay with a human created reference. Besides there have been no new observations of the asteroid since 2008-01-09. -- Kheider (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As per an October 7, 2009 NASA Release, chances of impact in 2036 have been recalculated to be 1 in 250,000. So, I undid your edit and added the reference. Darry2385 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah good.  Nice to know the automated program is accurate. :) -- Kheider (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still better odds than winning the lottery  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.242.193 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  Looks like the miscalculations continue. The link on Jan 10 2013 says 7.5e-06 chance, which equates to 1 in 133,000. Anarchofascist (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone does not bother reading the text. The risk in the year 2036 is 1.4e-07 which is 1 in 7,143,000. The cumulative risk from 2036 to 2105 is 1 in 133,000. -- Kheider (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 in 233,000 chance

message: The event of 2036 will occur on Gregorian Easter Sunday (Orthodox Easter Sunday will be a week later) - that seems worth mentioning.
Could there be a table of all nearest approaches this century, with brief details including miss distance, visible magnitude, GMT of pass, terrestrial nadir of pass, with uncertainties?
82.163.24.100 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NEODyS Close Approaches (ref #13) has the info you are looking for. -- Kheider (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You miss the point.  Such a table, in a more user-friendly form, should be in the Article.  Moreover, the NEODyS table includes only some of the above, and gives later figures with what looks like unreasonable precision. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  The Article indicates a pass or impact at 2036-04-12 - but NEODyS has nothing that year.  Why the discrepancy? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the asteroid passes through the unlikely 2029 gravitational keyhole, the nominal close approach of 2036 will be on 2036-Mar-26 at a distance of . -- Kheider (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Sunday 

message: Article includes "An impact several thousand kilometres off the West Coast of the US would produce a devastating tsunami."  True, no doubt; but why the parochiality?  An impact off North Brazil would devastate the northern coast of South America, the Caribbean, the African coast, etc. Better to say something like "A [deep-]sea impact would devastate coasts up to thousands of kilometres away". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The references says, "The most likely target, though, is several thousand miles off the West Coast". -- Kheider (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect

message: This image is used on both elsewhere on this talk page and on the main article, as well as on a few other articles.  The filename :File:2037 Apophis Path of Risk.jpg indicates that it charts the path of risk in 2037, but the descripion always cites 2036.  As 2036 is the greater risk, it seems likely that the file was misnamed.  Can anyone confirm the correct year for this image and correct its name or usage?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparr (talk • contribs) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly meant to represent the 2036 keyhole risk (NEO at JPL). -- Kheider (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk path, 2036 or 2037? 

message: I was wondering how the impact calculations would differ if the asteroid Apophis turns out to be a big rubble pile, its center of mass would change during close approach and rotation rate? Also if Apophis turns out to be a rubble pile that breaks apart on close aproach to Earth,How much more of a threat would it be to multible geostationary satellites? Jalanp2 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact calculations: solid rock vs. rubble pile   

message: "In the soon to be released id Software game Rage, the game-play takes place on Earth years after an impact by Apophis.[29]" 
Does anyone else think this section is utterly unnecessary (to be kind) in a serious article about Apophis?Rodney420 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These sections appear in tons of articles. Most of the time the content is rubbish. I think that's true for this particular section also. I've removed it based on the idea that we're trying to develop a quality encyclopedia and "gamevideospot.com" doesn't satisfy the requirements for using reliable sources. Good catch Rodney. Dawnseeker2000  20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Apophis in popular culture

message: In the section Possible impact effects, the article says:
: The result is a narrow corridor a few miles wide, called the path of risk, and it includes most of southern Russia, ...
This is incoherent.  If the path of risk is only a few miles wide, it cannot possibly cover "most of southern Russia", and indeed not more than a few thousand square miles.  Someone with better understanding should correct this.  —Dominus (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded that bit. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much.  —Dominus (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How wide is the "path of risk"? 

message: Curious about the dimension info in the Basic Data section. 1) There's a historical statement that there was an estimate of 450 meters at an unspecified time. 2) In the same sentence, an estimate of 350 meters, without stating that this is the most recent and accurate estimate (is it?) 3) In the summary sidebar, an estimate of ~270 meters, with a References link to a JPL database and a suggestion that the most recent observation in the database is 2008.01.09. I was looking for a statement of highest confidence for the dimensions of Apophis relative to most-recent observations, and am not sure whether I found it. Mvsmith (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Data 

message: Is a Bayesian or some similar statistical method being used to estimate the object's orbit? Is a standardized method being used by all of the observers presenting estimates of the probability of an Earth impact? (What is the apples/oranges potential in the numbers presented?) Are all of the observations obtained to date used to form a population of observations or are the estimates based on the short arcs defined by each of the sets of observations listed in the article? It would be pertinent to mention the methodology used in each case or at least point the reader to a general discussion of orbit estimation methods used by astronomers. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit Estimation Methodology 

message: There is no orbit info that I can see in this article for the Apophis asteroid. The articles for Ceres and other larger asteroids show their orbits and also considerable eccentricity in their orbits. Although most Asteroids orbit the Sun in the "Asteroid belt", their paths are also affected by gravitation of Jupiter and Mars and other planets of the Solar system, the paths also affected by thousands of other asteroids gravitation and possible collisions. Although Astronomers track thousands of these objects, there is a margin of error in each track that is multiplied by gravity's positive coefficient (the path of a Apophis sized body is affected by Jupiter and Mars and Earth and Venus but Apophis also affects them and other Asteroids and their altered paths affect Apophis and so on). Other unknowns in Apophis' orbital path range from pressure of Solar wind (Solar flares) to Yarkovsky effect.  Gravitation or collision can break up an object, close approach to Earth could fracture Apophis (Jupiter did that to an impacting Comet), sending smaller but still lethal pieces at us. Truth is we still plan on in course correction for our space flights. Radio beacons on the ten thousand objects we now track sounds good, not so when you consider the rate of air traffic control accidents with only a few planes in the sky. And wasn't that figure of a hundred thousand asteroids big enough to wipe us out?
Shjacks45 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The orbit of Apophis is listed in the infobox. Apophis is largely only affected by the Sun+Earth+our Moon+Venus over a short 200 year simulation.  The orbit of this asteroid is not known well enough to reliably calculate out beyond ~200 years. The affect Apophis' mass has on other bodies can be ignored in the simulations and Apophis can be treated as massless.  If you are truly anal you may also need to consider Earth's exosphere for very close approach simulations. -- Kheider (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: See the 99942 Apophis (2004 MN4) orbit simulation from JPL using a java applet at http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=99942;orb=1. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning!: That is a 2-body (Sun+Asteroid) simulation and can not be used to reliably predict the trajectory of Apophis during/ after a close approach to a planet (3rd body). -- Kheider (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit Guesswork 

message: Just have read the chance part here; of course it would go perfect, as if in its trajectory it will only pass earth, but there is so many more out there.
Such an object hitting the moon might be wrong too, depending on it internal makeup. Why not enter this rock as soon as possible use solar sails, or bombs and get it out of our path ?.
Seams to me better then visiting the Moon or Mars, so i think this is a nice space test at least rusia takes it serious. (but probaply lack funding).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.161.119 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to worry about it until 2013 when we know the trajectory better. Guessing is never good science. -- Kheider (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A space test 

message: The images shown for the 2029 close approach give a false impression of the current (March 2012) uncertainty.  The images are those produced for the JPL news release in February 2005 (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news149.html).  The white bar showing the range of positions is much too large to represent the current (March 2012) uncertainty.  Mind you, I haven't been able to find an easily accesible better image.
The following link (http://lesia.obspm.fr/semaine-sf2a/2011/proceedings/2011/2011sf2a.conf..0629B.pdf) discusses observations made in March 2011 (there have been even more recent observations reported to the Minor Planet Center) and shows the uncertainty ellipse on the 2029 b-plane and its relation to the keyholes for various impacts in future years.  Figure 3 in that publication shows how the 3-sigma ellipse on the b-plane has shrunk to 27 km x 140 km and is centred approximately 1800 km from both the 2036 and 2037 key holes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdthomas23 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2029 close approach pictures 

message: Now that there is a new size estimate, which ups the mass estimate by 75%, what should we do with the mass value in the infobox? --JorisvS (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem here is that the density is still an unknown so any crude mass estimate can be off by a factor of 2 or 3. -- Kheider (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New estimate – mass 

message: The date for the 2029 and the 2036 passes are both listed as April 13. Is this a coincidence or a typo? 
Listing the 2029 date as Friday the 13th is a superstitious reference rather than a scientific one. The day of the week wouldn't normally be included for other days such as Monday the 8th for example. Shouldn't this trivia be moved closer to other popular culture items such as songs mentioning the asteroid? 22yearswothanks (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The potential impact in 2036 would also be April 13, but the nominal solution shows the closest approach of 2036 as occurring around 23 March 2036. Thus Apophis and Earth will not be in the same place at the same time in 2036. -- Kheider (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase closest approach has a more NPOV connotation. Impact tends to promote a worst case scenario that it will hit with the word potential giving wiggle room in the meaning. Even the higher early estimates were far less than 50%, making it always more likely it wouldn't hit. 22yearswothanks (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Potential impacts is common terminology and is more accurate. -- Kheider (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close approaches 

message: JPL/NASA have seemingly ruled out impact for 2036, with closest approach being 19,000 miles. 
:http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/:
I think many parts of the article might need to be rephrased in past tense. Also, in the section "History of Impact estimates" it was stated "Apophis will then come no closer than about 14 million miles — and more likely miss us by something closer to 35 million miles.[29] " These distances are not correct.  --RichG (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements are not really out of date. The JPL Sentry Risk Table is current as of the 2012-Dec-29 observation arc. Goldstone observations are still on going and have not yet been fully submitted. Until Goldstone observations are complete the uncertainty in the trajectory will keep shrinking. The statement, "Apophis will then come no closer than about 14 million miles — and more likely miss us by something closer to 35 million miles" was written Jan 9th and refers to the 2036 passage. The statement, "comes no closer than 19, 400 miles (31,300 kilometers) above Earth's surface." was written Jan 10th, but refers to the 2029 passage. The nominal solution (even using the less detailed 2012-12-29 observation arc) has Apophis passing 0.38AU from Earth on 2036-Mar-23. By 2036-Apr-13 Apophis will be 0.41AU from Earth. Even in 2011 the nominal solution had Apophis passing 0.32AU from Earth on 2036-Mar-26. -- Kheider (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004mn4.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511010048/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231154154/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929071053/http://nai.arc.nasa.gov:80/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=161 to http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=161
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says that "Foreisght" would be launched aboard a Minotaur IV between 2012 and 2014 and reach Apophis five to ten months later. This is in the past, so this either already happened or the project was canceled or delayed, but the article has no information on this and when I attempted a google search I was unable to find out anything. What became of this project?71.89.179.54 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The keywords in that paragraph are "proposed" and "would be". It never got further than a contest entry. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened to Foresight? 

message: During the introduction the Torino Scale rating citations are unclear enough to make the rating itself unclear:
 "However,[...] a possibility remained that [...] Apophis would pass [...] a small region [...] that would set up a future impact [...]. This possibility kept it at Level 1 on the Torino impact hazard scale until August 2006, when the probability that Apophis would pass through the keyhole was determined to be very small. [...] During the short time when it had been of greatest concern, Apophis set the record for highest rating on the Torino scale, reaching level 4."
My main issue was that when reading this passage I wasn't sure until the last line that the Torino scale didn't peak at 1: the sense of danger is transmitted well, but then the implication that thus the Torino rating was kept at 1 due to the danger is very confusing.
So what happened? From my understanding, it was discovered in 2004 (or earlier), and during that year an estimated impact probability was made, and it was high, and the danger was only assuaged in 2006 when the probability was drastically lowered. 
Was the initial rating after the 2004 probability prediction 4? Was it 1? Did it just peak at some point during 2004-2006, but was reset to 1( or 0?) in 2006?
--NoePol (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torino impact hazard scale: rating inconsistencies in the introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228181959/http://www.b612foundation.org/papers/wpdynamics.pdf to http://www.b612foundation.org/papers/wpdynamics.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/paine_tsunami_asteroid99.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007201020/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=161
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106045208/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ip?1 to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ip?1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420013749/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6fIS_34_CxE8-vcC5GvbjD4MIOQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6fIS_34_CxE8-vcC5GvbjD4MIOQ
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317183119/http://apophisasteroid.net/ to http://apophisasteroid.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Yesterday I edited the article to say that the word should be accented on the first syllable, but  reverted it saying that I had not given a reference. What I said in my edit comment was that the o is short so in Latin the accent goes on the first syllable (as in Greek), and so in English it is also accented on the first syllable. What exactly needs a reference? There are several possibilities:
*In English, classical proper names are accented as in Latin.
*In Latin, the accent is on the antepenultimate syllable if the penultimate is short.
*The o in "Apophis" is short in Latin if it is short in Greek.
*The o in the Greek is an omicron, which is short.
In the meantime I am removing the incorrect pronunciation. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is questionable to label a pronunciation of newly set names as "incorrect". The name could be pronounced as in the  television series it comes from (and I do not know how they choose to do it without watching an episode). It could also be pronounced in Latin, as one often does in English, and you give a correct, but probably irrelevant, summary of how that is determined. Or it could be pronounced as in the original Greek. I don't care which. Mlewan (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether the word is pronounced with a short o in classical Latin is irrelevant. This article is about the asteroid. I have never heard it being pronounced with a short o by any astronomer (or anyone on the tv show, for that matter). It is usually pronounced with a long o in this context, and thus, the stress is on the second syllable. Note that this is mentioned as an alternative pronunciation on Wiktionary. Renerpho (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The asteroid is named after a mythological creature whose name is accented on the first syllable, because that's how it's pronounced in Latin and English follows Latin (when all the syllables are present). I suggest we put a sentence such as "Although the name of the creature Apophis is accented on the first syllable, many astronomers accent the second syllable." Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could add a paragraph that discusses the pronunciation, yes, as does Charon. Please note though that, unlike for Charon, there isn't really a debate about the pronunciation of the asteroid; it is pronounced with a long o pretty much unanimously. So it is not like those astronomers pronounced it wrong; it's just not the same word. We could write something like this: "The mythological creature Apophis is pronounced with the accent on the first syllage (). In contrast, the asteroid's name is accented on the second syllable." And we should reinstate the pronunciation  to the first sentence. Renerpho (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

text: All right, I have put in that sentence (with one word added). I couldn't bring myself though to say in the first sentence that it's definitely pronounced ! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can help out there. Renerpho (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Hi all (Eric Kvaalen, Mlewan, Renerpho), The asteroid was discovered 20 years ago, it was named 19 years ago, this discussion is 5 years old, and still, there is still not any reference given anywhere (neither in the article nor even in this discussion) to support the statement about the pronounciation. Either there are supporting sources to justify this statement, or it should have been purely removed long ago. "I have never heard..." is basically uncheckable. If there are no articles discussing specifically the pronunciation (and as a fact, only the spelling is officially approved by the IAU, not the prononciation), the bare minimum would be to provide a recording (e.g. a conference video) where the prononunciation can be heard (it wouldn't demonstrate that it is the majority pronunication, but it would show that at least someone uses this pronunication). (By the way, unfortunately but sadly unsurprisingly, Wiktionary is of no help on this point since not any of the sources in the article tells anything about pronounciation nor about the asteroid...) SenseiAC (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion hasn't changed. I still do not think it matters. If there is no information, there is no reason to try to say anything. (As the Greek said: Οὐκ οἶδ’· ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ σιγᾶν φιλῶ. Or the Romans: Tu ne quaesieris, scire nefas.) Mlewan (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  My opinion hasn't changed either -- I still think it should be accented on the first syllable! I think it's good to tell people how it should be pronounced. In my opinion, there's enough justification for saying that it should be accented on the first syllable (as I wrote above, and we could try to find references for those four things I said). One could add that it's often pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. I don't really care whether that has a reference or not. I take Renerpho's word for that. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   -- Here is how David Tholen (the discoverer) pronounces it: DPS 52 Monday Press Conference, 26 October 2020 (YouTube video, with timestamp). For reference, this is the pronunciation used in the TV show, with the stress on the 2nd syllable (example), and every astronomer I have ever heard follows that example. Here is the first published interview they gave about the origin of the name, from August 2005, in which Tholen talks about the TV show, and how he thought the name would be fitting: Asteroid Apophis set for a makeover Renerpho (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if Tholen was unaware that there was a different way to pronounce it. It doesn't matter though. At the risk of repeating myself, the "classical" pronunciation of the name of the mythological creature is of no relevance to the topic of this article. When  claims that people should be educated about how to pronounce it (that is, to put the stress on the first syllable), I believe they are misled by their affection for the classical sources, rather than the asteroid. I have no problem with having a clarifying statement in the article that tells people about how the name of the mythological creature is pronounced, but not more. Renerpho (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't have a reference for you. But I think it's ridiculous to call it "original research" to simply apply the well-known rules of Classical pronunciation! That's not what the "original research" rule is supposed to be against. It's not even research, let alone original. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: This should stay.  The headline says what it says.  WP:LIKE is no excuse for WP:Censorship.    7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Popular Mechanics reference incorrectly states, "Apophis is also scheduled to make a close approach to Earth muchin 2029. The chances of it colliding with Earth during this pass, however, are negligible." There is ZERO chance of Apophis impacting in 2029. Also there is no reason to think Apophis will be anywhere near Earth in 2068. That is why the odds of impact (the line of variation) is at 1/150000 and not 1/1000. -- Kheider (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference's statement about any negligible (non-zero) impact risk in 2029 is nonsense. All the rest can be more reliably verified via the hawaii.edu reference. I see no use in keeping the Popular Mechanics citation. Renerpho (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of a [[WP:RS]]

message: The lead says this asteroid is pronounced /ˈæpəfɪs/ yet §Discovery_and_naming says . Which is it?  Nixinova   T   C   02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, as you can see at Talk:99942_Apophis#Pronunciation, this has been discussed before, and the change was made to /əˈpɒfɪs/ in the lead section. This was silently reverted a few months ago, introducing the contradiction between the lead and the article body below. Renerpho (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation #2 

message: The article says "The close approach will be visible from Europe, Africa, and western Asia".  Will it be visible (but dimmer) from North America before or after closest approach?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Apophis approaches Earth from the south, so locations in the southern hemisphere are favoured, but it will be observable from the continental United States prior to closest approach (Canada is difficult, South America and Australia are better than the US). Apophis will last be visible from the US east coast about 14 hours before the closest approach (at 7th magnitude, when it is about to cross the Moon's orbit), and an hour or two longer (at 6th magnitude) from the west coast. Naked eye sightings might be possible from dark sites, especially in the south-west of the United States. It will not be observable at all after the closest approach. Renerpho (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, then a time exposure with my camera can probably get a streak.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2029 close approach 

message: *Apophis is expected to come to aphelion 2068-Apr-10 15:41 @ 1.31AU from the Sun (JPL #204 dated 2021-Mar-05).
*Apophis is expected to come to aphelion 2068-Apr-10 11:39 @ 1.31AU from the Sun (JPL #206 dated 2021-Mar-09).
*Apophis is expected to come to aphelion 2068-Apr-10 11:20 @ 1.31AU from the Sun (JPL #207 dated 2021-Mar-15).
*Apophis should be 0.52AU from Mars, **1.87AU from Earth**, 1.4AU from Venus, and 1.1AU from Mercury on 2068-Apr-12. Closest approach to Mars should occur 2068-Jun-11 @ 0.45AU. -- Kheider (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2068-Apr-10 Aphelion 

message: The article currently gives conflicting information about when and how Apophis was removed from the Sentry Risk Table, marking the point when an impact in the next 100 years was ruled out. While the final paragraph of the article lead, and some of the sources, give 25/26 March 2021 as the date, and the radar data collected in early March 2021 as the main reason for the removal, the Sentry Risk Table itself disagrees: Its Removed Objects page gives 2021-02-21 08:22:28 UTC as the time when Apophis was removed (not 26 March, as claimed in the article). At that point, only optical astrometry had been collected in 2020/2021. This needs to be clarified. Renerpho (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed both references to the timing of its removal from the Sentry risk list. If there was a way to resolve the issue, I think one year (more than 1 1/2 years, actually) would have been enough to resolve it. Since the available sources are inconsistent, there's no way for us to present the information accurately, so we better don't present it at all. --Renerpho (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Since the issue of the unsupported image remains unresolved, I have removed the image for now, so we can resolve the issues and make sure it can be added back with a proper source. I will copy that part of the discussion over to the file's page on WikiCommons. I suggest to discuss the necessary steps there, so that we can (hopefully - anyone?) use this page here to concentrate on the problems of the Sentry Risk page raised above. Renerpho (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal from Sentry Risk Table (timeline) 

message: * Specific text to be added or removed: (Image) 
* Reason for the change: To be added after the first paragraph of the 2020–21 observations section. The image could support the section, in the context of the Planetary Defense Campaign exercise.
* Reason for the request: I am one of the authors of the Apophis Planetary Defense Campaign paper, resulting in a WP:COI. I made contributions to this Wikipedia article before, including some where I had to disclose COIs, but here I'd just be citing myself.
* References supporting change: While the similar image used in the publication is copyrighted (see the link above, page 14, figure 8 - not my work), my February 2021 image  has been uploaded under a suitable license, and can be used on Wikipedia.
Renerpho (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  PK650 (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2029 hypothetical impact risk corridor 

message: I have just removed the following paragraph from the Popular Culture section, which had been added yesterday by an IP user:
Besides the fact that I don't even understand what it's trying to say (which phenomenon?), I have no way to assess whether this is complete nonsense or a useful addition. With no references attached, I considered it better be moved here for discussion. Any insights? --Renerpho (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI generated meme? 

message: I have just removed the Enter Shikari song from the "Popular Culture" section (again).  had last removed it on September 29th, and it was independently added back earlier today by an IP user. What is the baseline for inclusion? Of course we need reliable sources and establish notability, but maybe we can do that for the suggested additions, rather than simply remove them? Renerpho (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria for Popular Culture section