Talk:38628 Huya

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with Russian pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huya was not the largest TNO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  size discrepancy... 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently includes this sentence:  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)
replies: text: See  and  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)

text: 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  18:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Neptune MOID and close approches 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colour diagram