Talk:(612911) 2004 XR190

message: I put a blurb section into Scattered disc about a possible Extended scattered disk. Just to "hedge our bets". Awolf002 20:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended scattered disk 

message: Have a problem with my graphs. This object, in spite of its axis is classified as cubewano in the current MPCORB (col 162 – 165 = 0x10 for those who used this db). The distinction between cubewano and SDO seems to depend on the source. If I stick to the MPC classification some of our articles should be adopted. Recent Jewitt defines cubewano also as 39.4 < a <47.8. Not sure what to do; any suggestions are welcome. Thank you.. Eurocommuter 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: "With an inclination of 47 degrees, it is the most *tilted* object discovered thus far." Many objects have greater inclination that 47 degrees. Is that "most tilted dwarf planet candidate" perhaps? 76.116.43.72 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both asteroid 1580 Betulia (i=52) and TNO 127546 (2002 XU93) (i=77/H=7.9) are easily more "tilted" than 2004 XR190 (i=46/H=4.5). (2006 HU122) has i=48/H=6.6, but with H=6.6 HU122 is likely at best only 318km (low albedo of 0.04 assumed) in diameter.  Thank you for pointing out this errata. -- Kheider (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most tilted? 

message: It says 2006 AO101 is 63.9 AU from the Sun. I think this is excessive. According to , 2006 AO101's aphelion is 63.9 AU from the Sun. Is 2006 AO101 really that far from the Sun?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: JPL (and gives it a mean anomaly of 180.06 at epoch 2006-01-25. Although this is not an angle, given the symmetry in Keplerian orbits, it does mean that it was just barely past aphelion at that time (and hence for some 7 years now). That means that the value looks OK. On the other hand, it is lost (error code E), so its orbit is insufficiently known to be able to pinpoint it again... --JorisvS (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 AO101 

message: I've tagged "With an inclination of 47 degrees, it is has the highest-inclination orbit of any possible dwarf planet discovered thus far" as dubious because there are 4 objects with H<7.5 that have higher inclinations. JPL Of these,  and  are listed by Brown as 'possible'. The other two are  and , which Brown list as 'probably not'. Brown's list
I'm unsure how to reasonably rephrase this, short of a complete rewrite. Suggestions? --JorisvS (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly the largest of these highly inclined candidates: so, perhaps "With an inclination of 47 degrees, it is the largest dwarf planet candidate that has an inclination larger than 45 degrees..."? Double sharp (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest inclination 

message: We need an admin to move this back to 2004 XR190 as Buffy is not an official name for this object. -- Kheider (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: CSD G6'd. Hopefully the admins take care of User:Knson soon.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy 

message: I had a look in the 2006 discovery paper to see if it claimed a magnitude for the object, which might be different from the other sources (Brown is also different, as is almost always the case, but I'm yet to edit that in), given that the diameter is somewhat different to the others. However, it only gives an apparent magnitude, plus distance, rather than absolute mag. I've looked up how to do the conversion and ended up getting nonsense results back, from my best effort and understanding of the formulae - generally in the H = ~12 range rather than ~4.5. Part of it may be down to not knowing the phase angle, but I don't entirely understand how you work that anyway - in any case, the need to use that to alter the magnitude by more than 7, and the figure in question being a log (and cosine?) of the angle means it would had to have been observed as a tiny sliver of a crescent to make any sense, which seems unlikely.
So given that H = m - (5 log10 (dBS x dBO / d0^2) - 2.5 log10 q(alpha)) isn't working, is there another way of doing it? Can you even do the calculation to a reasonable degree of precision if all you have is an apparent mag, a (rough: 59 +- 5 AU) helicentric distance, and an assumed geocentric distance (~58.5 AU) plus assumed (most likely narrow due to the great distance between Earth and 2004 RX190 reducing the potential parallax) phase angle? They must have done some processing behind the scenes, but it's not revealed in the paper, we just get an estimated diameter based on a range of albedos.
...dammit. I just realised I can probably reverse engineer it using the usual absmag + albedo to diameter formula(e), which generally work(s) just fine (except for Brown's figures, anyway). Which gives us about H=4.465 (!), the lowest precision figure which agrees with p=0.16 and d=425km, and p=0.04 and d=850km (though that may be a bit obvious seeing as a 4x increase in albedo means a halving of diameter)... though it could be they calculated the larger diameter first and rounded off to the nearest 10km, then did a simpler job of dividing down for the smaller, where 4.46 or 4.47 would work, but nothing further adrift, let alone 4.4 or 4.5. Strange.
Still, should there not be an end figure available to reverse engineer, my original question still stands... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we convert apparent mag and distance into absolute mag for minor planets? 

message: OK, it's a snappy and easily read nickname, but as it's not been officially designated as such, and pretty much all extant papers or lists of observations concerning the object after the initial discovery announcement reverted to "2004 XR190", should we perhaps replace all instances of Buffy in the text - other than the actual paragraph noting the early use of the nickname and its origin - with the provisional designation, awaiting any proper (and most likely different) name it's eventually given?
Also, there's a nice pull quote from Allen in one of the linked New Scientist articles where she gives some suggestion that the name may have come from it being a potential "slayer of theories" because its orbital characteristics didn't fit well with the TNO origins / solar system evolution hypotheses of the time, would that be worth copying across into the relevant paragraph? 146.199.60.87 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "''Buffy''" throughout the article. 

message: Just wondering, how would we even track such stuff down? The Johnston's Archive has a colour-taxon classification for the object, as well as a "colour" magnitude slope rating, which suggests there's more papers to be had out there beyond the now quite old Allen (2006) and Schaffer (2007; thus, 12 years now) ones already used and cited, but its own citing system is completely hopeless for attempting to follow up on... like there's no inline notes showing where each datum came from, just a huge pile of about thirty possible sources at the bottom of the page (maybe eight of them available online rather than as journals/papers you'd have to find at, or maybe request via, a university library), somehow relating to the preceding list of several hundred TNOs... Therefore, it's probably more productive to sidestep it entirely and go looking for updated information independently. But as any google searches for the provisional designation basically just points back to WP, or one of the endless (and inexplicable) sites that just blindly republishes Wiki pages, I don't feel confident about randomly running across it with a general websearch. Pointers are needed... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh information / research out there somewhere which hasn't been included in the article yet?