Talk:C/2013 US10 (Catalina)

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Use of "Oort Cloud" in opening paragraph

Saying that any comet is an "Oort Cloud" comet overstates that comet's case: as Wikipedia's own article on the hypothesized Oort cloud states in its opening paragraph, "the Oort cloud ... is a theoretical spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals believed to surround the Sun ....". The language of the article at hand needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the Oort cloud is, at this point, only theoretical - insufficient proof of its existence and measurements of its nature have been obtained; perhaps "long-period comet" would be more appropriate. 108.68.36.7 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oort Cloud is an accepted Scientific theory. C/2013 US10 took millions of years to get to the inner Solar System. There is no reason to change the language as this is not an article about the Oort cloud. Long-period comet should be used for object with aphelion less than ~1500AU, not objects with aphelion at ~47,000AU. -- Kheider (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have two tails?

I came to find out and was disappointed an answer was not present. I'll look about for an answer to add. --Pmsyyz (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all comets display an ion gas tail and a dust tail. Viewing geometry makes some comet tails more interesting than others. -- Kheider (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Some of this should be changed to past tense... --Mortense (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]