# User talk:Nrco0e/Archive 1

Active discussions

 Archive 1 Archive 2

## Nrco0e, you are invited to the Teahouse!

 Hi Nrco0e! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Kerberos (moon)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kerberos (moon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Kerberos (moon)

The article Kerberos (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Kerberos (moon) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Nix (moon)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nix (moon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Nix (moon)

The article Nix (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Nix (moon) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Hydra (moon)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hydra (moon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Hydra (moon)

The article Hydra (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Hydra (moon) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 50000 Quaoar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 50000 Quaoar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PhilipTerryGraham -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

## MU69 flickter stereo img

Hi,

I'd like to replace that in the article with this one. Do you think that would work (c)-wise? A private individual made it, but released it and JHUAPL only credits it as NASA/JHUAPL/SRI. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I've seen a few other works by the same individual that were uploaded to Commons, so there's no problem with using this.

## Your GA nomination of 50000 Quaoar

The article 50000 Quaoar you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:50000 Quaoar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PhilipTerryGraham -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

## A Writer's Barnstar for you!

 The Writer's Barnstar For your contributions to Kerberos (moon), Nix (moon), Hydra (moon), and 50000 Quaoar! In just over a month alone you have raised these four articles to good article status, and I applaud your effort! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

## April 2019

Hello, I'm ST47. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Nut graph— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ST47 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoops. I didn't realize that there was one left out when I reverted an edit. Nrco0e (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

## thanks

for cleaning up 469705 ǂKá̦gára. Grundy et al.'s parameters were averaged over 10 Myr, so they didn't match the current params listed at JPL and MPC, and I didn't want to mix them. And the IAU got over whatever problem they had and approved the name Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà, so ǂKá̦gára shouldn't be too far behind. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

## 10 Hygiea

Hi. I added an actual image of Hygiea. I read on an old blog that there's a HST image out there somewhere that reveals its shape (though presumably at low res), but I haven't been able to find it. If you can, it would make a nice addition, I'd think, and we could probably remove the 2MASS img. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

## Using LCDB size for Dziewanna

In this revision of Dziewanna (April 28), you moved up the LCBD reference because it was newer. I've two issues with that.

How do you know it's newer? The reference on the LCDB page (Benecchi 2013) doesn't contain any size info, so the number in LCBD (697) is unsourced (unless I miss a reference there?). It may be older then the TNOS Are Cool ref. Also note that Brown's page, last updated for measured diameters on Nov 2013, uses 475 as the then-latest radiometric measurement.

LCBD is not a good source for diameters. Light curves aren't used to derive diameters, and the numbers given on the page are just reported from other sources. It's better to use the source they used -- hopefully it's in the references given there, but not this time.

Complaints aside, thanks for the great work cleaning up these solar system pages! Tbayboy (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the LCDB measurement. Other LCDB pages may also provide additional sources with different size measurements, though this is not the case for 471143.
Edit: It appears that its diameter estimate of 470 km is mostly used by sources including the lists by Mike Brown and Johnston's Archive. For now, I have moved the LCDB estimate down for this reason.Nrco0e (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

## Barnstar

 The E=mc² Barnstar For singlehandedly reviving the Wikipedia Solar System project, I think you deserve some recognition :) Serendipodous 23:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, I think that 2007 OR10 is ready for FA consideration. Serendipodous 07:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Kepler-47

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kepler-47 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Kepler-47

The article Kepler-47 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kepler-47 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Kepler-47

The article Kepler-47 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Kepler-47 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 90482 Orcus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 90482 Orcus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 90482 Orcus

The article 90482 Orcus you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:90482 Orcus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of (486958) 2014 MU69

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article (486958) 2014 MU69 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of (486958) 2014 MU69

The article (486958) 2014 MU69 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:(486958) 2014 MU69 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

## 2018 VG18 image

Hey Nrco0e, I see you added the discovery images of 2018 VG18 to the article.[1] I strongly doubt that the license for that image (CC BY-SA 4.0) is correct. The source [2] does not include that license, indicating that the image is copyrighted. I will request its deletion. Renerpho (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination page: [3] Renerpho (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I was doubtful about the image too, and I was thinking about discussing it. I might as well remove it. Nrco0e (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Renerpho: By the way, are Scott Sheppard's images from his website copyrighted? I recently uploaded an File:S2004 S 24.gif for S/2004 S 24 using his image from his website. I thought it would be okay to upload the image since Valetudo's article has an image from the Sheppard's website too. Nrco0e (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nrco0e: Hmm. The Valetudo image is from the same user, and is as bad as the other one. I just nominated it for deletion, too. The user has a history of copyright violations.[4] I would nominate your image for deletion, too, but maybe you better do that yourself! Just do it quickly. Renerpho (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

## 38628 Huya diameter

Hey Nrco0e, I see you updated the diameter of 38628 Huya, based on the stellar occultation of 18 March 2019.[5] Note that the source document you give was created in February 2018, a year before the event. It does not reflect the results of the occultation, but merely some assumed properties of the object, without any special care put into the estimate. Initial results of the occultation campaign have recently been presented at the EPSC-DPS2019 conference, see [6] (I am one of the authors of that study.) I can't give you an updated size estimated for the object - that's part of a separate future publication - but the 465.6 km figure should not be given as the top value for the size. I have moved it down and noted that it is an estimate. Renerpho (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of (225088) 2007 OR10

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article (225088) 2007 OR10 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 20000 Varuna

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 20000 Varuna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fotaun -- Fotaun (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of (225088) 2007 OR10

The article (225088) 2007 OR10 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:(225088) 2007 OR10 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

## GA review

Hello Nrco0e! Thanks for helping with the GA review. Please, when you make a change to the article in response to the review, note in the review what changes you made. Otherwise it becomes difficult for others to see what parts of the review still need attention. Renerpho (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of (225088) 2007 OR10

The article (225088) 2007 OR10 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:(225088) 2007 OR10 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Congratulations, and thanks for the help! Renerpho (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Renerpho: Thanks! Now that the major aspects of the article have been cleaned up during the GA review, it appears comparable to the quality of the articles on other dwarf planets (particularly high quality ones like 90377 Sedna), to the extent that it could be a featured article candidate. I will be setting it up for peer review soon after I make some additional preparatory changes. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nrco0e: Would you be interested in helping with the article about Gonggong (mythology)? There are a couple of relevant details that could be added from this source. In particular, the article currently doesn't mention any of the figures that might serve as namesakes for S/2010 (225088) 1, like Gonggong's son Hou Tu. Renerpho (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nrco0e: I'd like to help, though I'm kind of busy with work external to Wikipedia at the moment. While I won't be devoting my time contributing to the mythology article, I will be adding bits of information over time. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

## resonant TNOs

Thanks for cleaning up 2002 MS4. If you know of any good, reasonably recent sources for which TNOs are resonant objects, could you add them to Resonant trans-Neptunian object? I've tagged almost all the lists as cn. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Johnston's archive is the standard reference for this, giving a classification for all known TNOs. I've made a few changes, based on this, but I didn't remove the cn's yet. Renerpho (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Renerpho. That should do it, though it looks like the IDs are often tentative. I started to look into this because we claimed that Salacia and MS4 were in the same resonance, which suggested an obvious name for MS4 as well as for the resonance class (something based on paredrae). Since anyone can submit a name for MS4 now, I thought I might give it a shot. But now they're both ID'd as cubewanos, so that's out. Given that naming conventions depend on whether a body is resonant or not (not just if it's a plutino), how can anyone decide if a particular name is appropriate? — kwami (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The identification of resonances is always statistical (sometimes beyond reasonable doubt). This is further complicated by the fact that many of the higher-order resonances (all but two or three of them) are temporary, stable only for a fraction of the age of the Solar System. It's not too bad though, as not a lot happens on timescales of a few million years. As a reference for the identification of resonances, the most trustworthy and thorough I know of is that by Mark Buie. You can find his assessment of 2002 MS4 here: He calculates that it is securely in the "SCATEXTD" class (scattered extended). I recently removed a couple of (non)plutinos (2004 PF115, 2004 UX10) from the plutino article, based on Buie's assessment of those objects.[7][8] For comparison, a resonant object looks like this: [9] Renerpho (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Quote from Buie's website: The following table comes from a 10My integration of the orbit of the object. Three columns are shown. The first column is the result of integrating the nominal orbit. The other two columns are based on clones of the nominal orbit that are +/- 3 sigma from the nominal orbit. If all three types agree then the classificiation is deemed secure. The basis for these calculations is described in more detail in AJ, 129, 1117 (2005). Any use made of these calculations should refer to and credit this publication and the Deep Ecliptic Survey Team. Renerpho (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Renerpho. I was worried not so much about instability as about our ability to reliably detect resonances with such a short observation arc. I'm going through the list and updating per JA, but of course if you think some should be reclassified, please do so. (E.g., the librating trojan, JA only classified as 'other'.) — kwami (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of object classifications by the Deep Ecliptic Survey. https://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/desclass.html Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's nice in that it italicizes the less-certain IDs. — kwami (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe of interest in this regard is (Morbidelli, 1995), the first study of dynamics and resonances in the Kuiper belt. If you have access to that paper (it is behind a paywall, unfortunately), this also provides some background to the classification used by the Deep Ecliptic Survey and by Mark Buie, including the difference between resonances in eccentricity and those in inclination. The dynamics are complex, much more than what is currently reflected in the Wikipedia article. Renerpho (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm taking too much time out from other things I need to get done as it is. That would make a good ref for future expansion. My motivation for now is the more modest one of not having mis-ID'd objects. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the improvements you make! I am currently checking if Haumea is actually in resonance. I believe the information about that is outdated; if confirmed, I will remove Haumea from the list. Renerpho (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, given how often that's been claimed, I'd prefer to leave it in. It's currently at the end of the section, and makes a nice transition to 'Coincidental versus true resonances'. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The situation with Haumea is complicated. I haven't finished my simulation yet, but initial results indicate that Haumea is in resonance - temporarily. Buie only lists resonances that are stable for at least 10 Myrs. The knowledge of its orbit hasn't changed significantly since 2007; it's just that the 2007 paper and Buie do not use the same definition of what constitutes "being in resonance". I suggest to wait with adding any of this to the article at least until I can give final results. Renerpho (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to say that coverage in the Haumea article should be enough, and we can delete here. But if it's in a temporary resonance, that makes an even better transition to the next section, and IMO it should definitely be kept. Any chance that Salacia and MS4 are similarly in temporary res? That would suggest an obvious name for MS4, though personally I don't care for how much Venilia sounds like "vanilla". — kwami (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look at MS4 and Salacia later. Renerpho (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The naming is rather petty, I know, but it is a lot easier for people to remember names (well, maybe not Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà!), and MS4 is large enough to stand out from the mass of smaller unnamed TNOs. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

MS4 definitely deserves a name. I can confirm though that it is not in resonance (not even temporarily). It is somewhat close to the 2:5 resonance, but not in it, and I don't think it is close enough to it to have ever been in that resonance. Renerpho (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Without some reason the proposal is the obvious choice, I'd just be one more member of the public making a suggestion, so it may not be worth the effort. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am just looking at 2002 MS4 again. I don't know what object I was looking at before when I wrote that it was somewhat close to the 2:5 resonance. That's just nonsense, so I probably had the orbit of a different object. However, there actually may be a temporary 18:11 resonance for MS4, so this may be good news... I'll see that I double-check this time! Renerpho (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. If the same thing's true of Salacia, that may be reason for a companion name, though I'd really rather it had something more fun. — kwami (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Salacia is a different story. It is near the 38:23 commensurability, but that'd be a 15th order resonance... and it's currently not librating. This is probably just a coincidence, rather than a temporary resonance. Renerpho (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

### Haumea resonance

My orbit simulation for Haumea is finished. The resonant angle ${\displaystyle \phi }$  in this case is (with the variables as defined here):

${\displaystyle \phi ={\rm {12\cdot \lambda -{\rm {7\cdot \lambda _{\rm {N}}-{\rm {5\cdot \varpi -{\rm {1\cdot \Omega }}}}}}}}}$

This angle is librating intermittently, hence why Buie does not classify Haumea as a resonant object.[10] Haumea's ascending node ${\displaystyle \Omega }$  precesses with a period of about 4.4 million years. It seems like Haumea's 7:12 resonance is broken twice per precession cycle, about every 2.2 million years, and is reestablished again a few hundred thousand years later. The resonance will next be broken about 250,000 years from now. See here for some results of my orbit simulation.

Haumea and the other objects in the Haumea family occupy a region of the Kuiper belt where multiple resonances (including the 3:5, 4:7, 7:12, 10:17 and 11:19 mean motion resonances) interact, leading to the orbital diffusion of that collision family.[11] While Haumea is in a weak 7:12 resonance, other objects in the Haumea family are known to temporarily occupy some of the other resonances, and resonance hopping (switching from one resonance to another) is possible on time scales of hundreds of millions of years. (19308) 1996 TO66, the first member of the Haumea family to be discovered, is in an intermittent 11:19 resonance. Renerpho (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Renerpho. I'll copy some of this into the Haumeid article. Please revert or modify if that's inappropriate, of course. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind uploading your imgur img to WP or Commons? Since the data is publicly available, it's equivalent to other orbital simulations ppl have uploaded. It would be a nice addition to the Haumea article. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
A small correction: The precession time is 4.6 million years (half of which is 2.3 million), not 4.4 million.[12] I also have a video of Haumea's libration now, here, which shows the slow periodic changes to Haumea's orbit on million-year timescales. I could upload that video to Commons, but the video is 2 minutes in length, too long to be useful for a Wikipedia article. It can be added as an external link though. I will upload the other images to Commons, including an extended version of the image I linked to before, available here. Renerpho (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks, Renerpho. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The images I have uploaded:

The resonant angle for Haumea's weak 7:12 resonance with Neptune, over a period of 5 million years
The ascending node of dwarf planet Haumea, over a period of 3.5 million years

Renerpho (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Not sure what to do with the 2nd img, but I put the 1st in the article. Thanks for all your help. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

### Other resonances

I have had a look at some of the other objects mentioned in [13]. I checked (19308) 1996 TO66's 19:11 resonance, and (86047) 1999 OY3's possible 7:4 resonance. The results were surprising, as none of the two shows any sign of resonant behaviour over a period of 3 million years. I am not yet sure why that is. 1996 TO66 might be affected by the 19:11 resonance, on a longer time scale. Or the orbits used by Ragozzine&Brown in 2007 were wrong (we have 12 more years of data now). The claim that either of them is in an intermittent resonance at the moment seems to be wrong though... Renerpho (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Probably best to not mention them then. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Renerpho (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

An update: After trying to find what the problem was with (19308) 1996 TO66, I eventually found a simple error that screw up my simulation for it (sorry). I ran the simulation again, and this time found the expected intermittent resonance, with

${\displaystyle \phi ={\rm {19\cdot \lambda -{\rm {11\cdot \lambda _{\rm {N}}-{\rm {8\cdot \varpi -{\rm {5\cdot \Omega }}}}}}}}}$

See here for the resonant angle of the nominal JPL orbit. The "breaks" in the resonance are this time governed by changes in its eccentricity. The resonance is broken when the eccentricity is highest, and the object's orbit gets closest to Neptune. See here for its eccentricity over the same time scale. I can upload either to Commons, if that helps.

I also did the same simulation for the nominal orbit as of 2007 (the time of the Ragozzine&Brown paper), and found that the resonance appeared a bit stronger with that orbit, but the overall shape remains the same, with (smaller) breaks in the same positions. As with Haumea, Buie would classify neither as resonant because of those breaks. Renerpho (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Renerpho  It looks like TO66 will leave the res in about 200k yrs. Am I interpreting that right?
Yes, from about 200-400k yrs, and then again from 2050-2300k yrs. Right when the eccentricity is at maximum. Renerpho (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
If you could upload both of those to Commons, that would be great. I'm happy to do the editing, though it feels a bit weird to do it when you're the one who knows what they're doing. Also, may I copy this discussion over to the resonant TNO, Haumea and TO66 pages, so others will know why we made the changes?
And was there the same error in the 1999 OY3 calc, or does that still look non-resonant? — kwami (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it affected 1999 OY3, too. I did not redo the simulation on that one yet, though. Renerpho (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Agreed on the rest. Go ahead with moving the discussion over there. I'll add the image to Commons and make the edits to the article once I find the time. 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Renerpho  Thanks. On a side note, do you know when Haumea's 7.12 res was discovered? I ask because I'm trying to ensure that our coverage of the naming controversy is accurate, and since it's a resonant object, it was actually Ataecina that was the appropriate name. I'm assuming the IAU didn't know about the resonance in sept 2008. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the (intermittent) resonance was first noticed by Ragozzine&Brown in 2007, who also showed that Haumea was not a resonant object (i.e., was not in a permanent resonance with Neptune). There are a LOT of TNOs that are affected by weak high-order resonances. If any object that is temporarily captured in a resonance at some point (even at the present) counted as resonant, there wouldn't be many cubewanos left. I think the majority of hot Kuiper belt objects is in some resonance temporarily over million-year time scales. The IAU naming rule for resonant objects applies to objects that are firmly in resonance, for which you can take Buie's assessment as a guide. Renerpho (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) It's a bit as if we counted any temporarily captured asteroid as a moon of the Earth. 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Just heard back from the CSBN. The naming conventions have been simplified. Chthonic figures now only for plutinos. Others are just mythic/mythological, creation aspect encouraged but not required. Web site hasn't been updated yet. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Renerpho (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and measured the position of 2002 MS4 in all New Horizons images that are available so far (two from July 2016 and three from October 2017), and calculated how its orbit is affected by this. The article on MS4 mentions that the orbit is "significantly improved" by that data, but this is nowhere quantified. The astrometry has not yet been published anywhere. It turns out the object was about 7 arc-seconds from the predicted position. The data leads to an improvement in the knowledge of MS4's distance and orbital period by more than one order of magnitude. I report the results in my newsgroup, here. This is probably WP:OR, but it may interest you nonetheless - and maybe you see a way to use it in the article? All I have done comes from putting together freely available information (admittedly from numerous sources and in a fairly complicated way).[14][15][16][17][18] Also, there have been additional observations of 2002 MS4 by New Horizons in March 2019, but those have not yet been added to the Planetary Data System.[19] Just for good measure, I also checked whether the resonance remains the same with the new orbit - it does.[20] Renerpho (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool! If the resonance gif you uploaded is significantly affected, could you update/replace it? If it doesn't make much difference, you might want to just note for future ref on the file description that it's based on pre-NH data. Meanwhile, I'll just update the orbital info in the article. Yeah, not a RS by WP standards, but if someone wants to revert me, they can. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you fix the observation arc and epoch? — kwami (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not update the orbit yet. There is the convention that the infobox gives the orbit as it is published by JPL. I'd rather not be using a self-published orbit from unpublished data in the infobox. Renerpho (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is the orbit, for epoch 2019-Apr-27 (the standard epoch currently used by JPL). Note that this orbit is virtually identical with what is given on the article page (the improvement isn't visible in the rounded numbers). I don't think there is good reason not to use the JPL orbit. Renerpho (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Though I notice they have a longer observation arc. Did they include some 2018 ground images that yo don't have? — kwami (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Correct. There are two observations from June 2018 which have errors beyond 3σ, the threshold at which I discard observations. AstDyS does a similar thing, putting the threshold at χ2>8 (giving similar results; this also excludes the June 2018 observations).[21][22] JPL uses a different error model (and a different weighting scheme) in which the observations don't need to be excluded. Either is fine as long as it is done consistently. There's no single approach to error handling that works best. Renerpho (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: I hope you don't mind us using your talk page as a discussion board! — kwami (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a more suitable location for this discussion? The talk page on resonant objects, maybe? I really don't want to hijack your page, Nrco0e! Renerpho (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, just @ me from wherever. Though you're doing interesting work, so perhaps Nrco0e doesn't mind having the discussion preserved here! — kwami (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I leave it to Nrco0e to decide. It is his user talk page. Renerpho (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Renerpho: No worries, I'm fine with you two discussing here. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 22:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

## While you're at it...

Can you rename all (non-historical) instances of MU69 and Ultima Thule to Arrokoth? There are too many and I can't be bothered right now. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if others could help me rename every instance of 2014 MU69 to Arrokoth in Wikipedia. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. As I was saying that, I just found a script and I typed some code and ran the article through it. The text was replaced automatically. Feel free to add back anything that it incorrectly edited out. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe I am finished. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Writer's Barnstar For improvements to 20000 Varuna, nice article! Fotaun (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 The Space Barnstar Awarded for improving and expanding numerous space-related articles, including 20000 Varuna! Congratulations! Fotaun (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 20000 Varuna

The article 20000 Varuna you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:20000 Varuna for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fotaun -- Fotaun (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 38628 Huya

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 38628 Huya you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sam-2727 -- Sam-2727 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of 38628 Huya

The article 38628 Huya you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:38628 Huya for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sam-2727 -- Sam-2727 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nrco0e/Archive 1".