# Talk:38628 Huya

I don't have anything to contribute to an actual article about Huya, but I did confirm the pronunciation with the discoverer, Ignacio Ferrín of the Observatorio Nacional de Llano del Hato, Mérida, Venezuela. In Spanish orthography, the Waruu name would be Juyá. kwami

The problem is that in Russian the name is obscene.

So is Uranus in English if it is pronounced certain ways. I have another example, Persephone, which includes an obscene word in Finnish. Your point?--JyriL talk 18:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How do Russian astronomers pronounce it and write it on applications for research grants? If they start it with "H" (kh) the financing authorities will be laughing sick. 212.188.109.219 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be spelt "Хуйа" (see ru version). I don't know what that means. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(I did not know what it meant four years ago; now I do...) Now it's "Гуйа", presumably to avoid this unfortunate state of affairs. Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
And thus starts my quest to get an exoplanet saddled with the name "Laputa"...209.93.141.17 (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Under Size it says that at the time of its discovery, Huya was the biggest and brightest Trans-Neptunian object yet found.  In fact, the biggest and brightest TNO known at that time was Pluto. 
[I see this has now been corrected.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 38628 Huya. 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/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107062601/http://www.aas.org:80/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/446.htm to http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/446.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lede says: 458km +- 9.2km diameter
Sidebar says: 406km +- 16km (without saying diameter or radius)
Even though both of them cite THE SAME SOURCE.
How do these things even happen?! And indeed which is correct, given there's no overlap between 390 ~ 422km and 448.8 ~ 467.2km? I'd just check and correct it myself but don't have access to the necessary resource (it's just an academic journal service link rather than an actual document file).
Plus, is it a binary, or just a small planet with a large moon? Again, both are suggested with equal weight, it seems. 209.93.141.17 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The larger number was based on the system flux. The smaller is a guess based on splitting the primary from the secondary, as explained in the Physical characteristics section. The article is freely available on-line by clicking through the arXiv link in the reference. I have fixed the lead to match. Tbayboy (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 38628 Huya. 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/20080415042237/http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/plutino_001024.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/plutino_001024.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20001204154300/http://hepwww.physics.yale.edu/www_info/astro/papers/eb173_paper_rev2.html to http://hepwww.physics.yale.edu/www_info/astro/papers/eb173_paper_rev2.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015155459/http://www.igorinternational.com/blog/2003/09/from-the-rain-forest-to-planet-huya/ to http://www.igorinternational.com/blog/2003/09/from-the-rain-forest-to-planet-huya
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article currently includes this sentence: As it orbits around the Sun, Huya does not approach Neptune within a distance of less than 1.62 AU, the minimum orbit intersection distance (MOID) of Huya from Neptune. While this is technically true (trivially, as no two bodies can approach each other to less than their MOID, by definition), it is misleading. The minimum possible separation between the two is far greater than their MOID, because of the 2:3 resonance between Huya and Neptune. The situation is similar to Pluto: While Pluto has a Neptune MOID of 2.54 AU, the minimum Pluto-Neptune separation is actually much larger, 17 AU. The sentence should be reworded, to avoid the impression that Huya and Neptune can come anywhere close (well below 10 AU) of each other. Renerpho (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC) EDIT: I just checked, the minimum possible separation between Huya and Neptune is about 21.5 AU, even larger than that between Neptune and Pluto. Renerpho (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

See [1] and [2] for the distance between Neptune and Huya/Pluto, respectively, over the next 100,000 years (images copyright by myself). The two are similar because both are plutoids. Renerpho (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have added a version of the image, and have changed the text accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding images to the orbit section. I guess orbits can be a somewhat touchy topic when it comes to trying to get the facts right. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 18:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nrco0e: It can be difficult, yes, especially when the relevant sources implicitly assume that the context is known to the reader. In most cases, the MOID can be used as a "proxy" for how close two bodies can come to each other. However, if they are in a mean-motion resonance, this is not the case. Renerpho (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: I see you have added an image about the colour distribution of TNOs. While this is a sensible addition, I really don't like this plot. As I noted on the file talk page, that diagram is outdated (based on data that is almost 20 years old), and much of it is erroneous. Many of the objects shown in the diagram (like 2001 KP77, 2000 CR105 and 1994 ES2) actually don't have known colours, and some of the other objects have known colours, but completely different from what's shown in the diagram. Given that Huya isn't included (it wasn't discovered yet when the data was published), maybe it is better to remove the image until it has been updated. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:38628 Huya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sam-2727 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll review the article with the general criteria of good articles on top, with specific comments/edits as bullet points underneath that. This will take me a couple days or so.Sam-2727 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Can you indicate below each bullet point if you have completed (or rejected) each suggestion? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


### General Criteria
Well Written: Since all comments below have been solved, I don't see any formatting or grammatical issues 
Verifiable with no original research: Checked the sources and all seem to be in order.
Broad in Coverage: Nothing I can think of that is omitted
Stable: Yep.
Neutral: I mean, it's an article about a solar system body, but neutral in every way it can be.
Illustrated: All images have copyright rationale and are captioned


### Specific Comments
Y "By 2002, Huya was observed 303 times, sufficient to accurately determine its orbit. For this reason, the Minor Planet Center...". Perhaps brings clarity to say "By 2002, Huya was observed 303 times. This was sufficient to accurately determine its orbit, so was assigned the minor planet number... by the Minor Planet Center". This just seems to bring a bit more clarity than "for this reason." Also in this sentence, what exactly is the criteria for "an accurate determination of orbit." It would be nice to have more specifics here.
Y "...being ranked as the second-largest minor planet...". Awkward: change to "ranking as the second-largest minor planet"
Y "...which happens to be the combination of the brightnesses...". Suggests that this was a coincidence. Change to "was later discovered to be" or something equivalent
Y "No signs of a possible atmosphere or rings have been detected during the occultation" to "No signs of a possible atmosphere or rings were detected during the occultation"
Y "...Michael Brown considers Huya to be probably a dwarf planet..." change to "...Michael Brown considers Huya to probably be a dwarf planet..."
Y "...placing it between the "likely" and "possibly" range." You can't place something between a range. You should delete "range."
Y "as a rough estimate derived from variations in brightness." Delete "as"
Y "The discrepancy between the visible and infrared spectra of Huya was interpreted as an indication of heterogeneity in Huya's surface composition." when saying "The discrepancy," you suggest that this is mentioned previously, but it is unclear to me as to where this is mentioned. Either clarify what this is referring to, or change to suggest that this isn't mentioned previously.
Y These two sentences are very similar. They should be combined: "The red color of Huya's surface results from the irradiation of organic compounds by solar radiation and cosmic rays, which produces dark, reddish tholins that cover its surface." and "Huya's featureless spectrum indicates that its surface is covered with a thick layer of dark organic compounds irradiated by solar radiation and cosmic rays."
Y "...some stony S-type asteroids..." shouldn't the entirety of "S-type asteroids" link to S-type asteroid and not only the "S-type" part of it?
Y "...Its apparent magnitude, its brightness as seen from Earth..." or rather "Its apparent magnitude, the brightness as seen from Earth"
Y "Like for Pluto..." delete "for"
Y "...the spacecraft have a launch date in November 2027 and use a gravity assist from Jupiter, taking 20 to 25 years to arrive." Previous sentences suggest that this is still a potential thing, so perhaps say "the spacecraft would have," etc.?
Y "Consequently, a definitive mass and density estimate for Huya could not be derived from the satellite's orbit." Not past tense because still can't be derived. So should be "can't be derived."
Y "From the two Hubble images of Huya taken one day apart in 2002, astrometry of the satellite's changing position from Huya indicates..." better worded as "astrometry of the satellite's changing position around Huya from two Hubble images taken one day apart in 2002 indicates..." as in the wording currently in the article, it is slightly unclear what the first clause is referring to.
Y Would it be worth mentioning that it has a moon in the lead of the article?
Sam-2727 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: Finished your current suggestions. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
ok I'm going to close this as a GA as all seems to check out now in the article Sam-2727 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A couple days ago, User:Renerpho and I have uncovered that the provisional designation used for Huya's satellite on Wikipedia is not only incorrect, but was fabricated by an IP user in an edit from 2015. As it turns out, Huya's satellite never had a provisional designation in the first place; the JPL Small Bodies Database says Huya's satellite is undesignated. This is an issue that pervades many other minor-planet moons mentioned on Wikipedia as well.
For full details about this issue, please see the discussion at Talk:Minor-planet_moon#Source_of_the_provisional_designations? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Credit where credit is due -- It turns out that IP user did not invent the wrong designation. An article "S/2012 (38628) 1" was created on the Portuguese Wikipedia on 18 June 2014[3] without giving any references that would have supported that title. Renerpho (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)