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 is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Missing Citation for the analogueness of the new object to 2004 XR190[edit]
According me, both references mentioned in [9] and [10] are valid citations. Both 2004 XR190 and 2014 ST373 have though high perihelion a moderate eccentricity; this is usually achieved by a MMR (Mean Motion Resonance) as 5:2, 3:1 or 4:1 or in case of less "good" MMR-rations due to the Kozai Effect in case of sufficiently high inclinations >~ 40°. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
outcommented > Jewitt-2008 and Lykawka-2007 (did not verify since both cites are also in the original article content was copied from)
Please note that new articles of minor-planet objects should not be created like this. Use google to find sources; do not just copy them from similar articles. If an article cannot be properly sourced, it will be redirected. Rfassbind– talk 01:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rfassbind: It is correct that I have copy/pasted this article from (523635) 2010 DN93; the reason for that is that I am the author of this article as well. The problems you mention are all these references to different authors which makes it really hard to create new articles, instead of just referring to the two relevant ones, namely the MPC database and the reference of Sheppard et al. ("Beyond the Kuiper Belt Edge: New High Perihelion Trans-Neptunian Objects With Moderate Semi-major Axes and Eccentricities") describing well the properties of its orbit. - 2014 ST373 is not just one of many new TNOs - in this case I would not have made a new article for it, but it belongs to top 10 of our solar system concerning its high perihelion and is the one of the MMR-KR-Group with the highest aphelion. - All other references besides these two may be fine for template purpose, but they are not really easy to handle. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ralfkannenberg I appreciate that the article you created follows the formatting and cite-name conventions. But this is not about authorship. Nor is it about notability (though it should be easy to find sources if an object is notable). I also don't understand why you complain about using irrelevant citations, if you added them yourself to the article (without adjusting them, in some cases).
Here's a simple question: how do we know that 2004 XR190[correction: 2014 ST373, see my next post] is an object of the scattered disc? In your original version you make that statement three times: in the lead (doesn't need to be cited), in the infobox (SDO cited with "johnstonsarchive-TNO-list" and "MPC-CEN-SDO-list"), and in the body "This distant minor planet is a trans-Neptunian object and a member of the scattered disc population." (cited with "jpldata" and "johnstonsarchive-TNO-list"). However, as you know, none of these citations even mention this object. Sheppard-2016" does not mention 2004 XR190[correction: 2014 ST373, see my next post] either. So you must have derived it from the body's orbital parameters. But the next sentence "Scattered-disc objects are thought to have been ejected from[...], and typically have highly eccentric orbits and perihelia of less than 38 AU", actually contradicts the objects perihelion of 50.20 AU. So, all in all, the SDO claim is not supported by the given cites, and directly contradicted by the few statements in the body of the article. This is sloppy. Maybe "Sheppard-2016" could give some insight, but you should definitely consider adding {{rp}} to indicated a specific page. Does this make sense to you? Rfassbind– talk 00:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rfassbind: Actually I am not happy with the classification "scattered disk objects" for 2004 XR190 and the other high perihelion objects with moderate eccentricities, but it is not about me: the Minor Planet Center lists these objects in the List of Centaurs and Scattered Disk Objects. And of course 2004 XR190 is mentioned in Sheppard-2016, already in the abstract. 2004 XR190 is the example for such a body with a "bad" MMR which is compensated by KR, what is possible for bodies with i > ~40° - all written in Sheppard-2016. But as said: classifying these MMR+KZ-bodies of high perihelion as scattered disk is really misleading and any correction concerning this is welcome to me. Still there is no consensus about these classifications and e.g. Brian Marsden (!) classifies Eris as a detached body ! Anyway: your corrections make sense to me, thank you very much for your time. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I copy/pasted (!) 2004 XR190 from this section's title. In fact I always meant 2014 ST373... But you are wrong about the objects being on MPC's List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects. Instead, it is on the List Of Transneptunian Objects (as I mentioned in bullet-point #3 of my feed-back above). Based on your feedback in this thread, I just revised the article. Hope that was of any good. Rfassbind– talk 13:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rfassbind: Obviousy some of the "e>0.2" as well as "Buffy" (2004 XR190) have been moved from the Centaurs+SDO-List to the TNOs-List. I don't have my database on this PC, so I will check at a later time if I can find the new logic. On the first glance it seems that all MMR-KR-Objects now are in the TNOs-List to which I fully agree, and at least some of the Centaurs with Perihelion beyond Neptune also are newly listed in the TNOs-List, what I am not happy about, but as said: I have to check this more thoroughly. - For the moment: Thank you very much for your great and thoroughful work on this article, although I am the "author" I regard you as the real author of this article. As I am working 100% (and nowadays this is more than only 100%) unfortunately I lack the time to do this important work you have done for me. Let us keep in contact ! -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
