Talk:(307261) 2002 MS4

message: Where did the old diameter of ~1386 come from?  Now that I check the history logs I see that User:Michaelbusch kept re-instating it in place of wild guesses. User_talk:68.186.106.251 was the 1st to insert it on 11 Sept 2006 :-) Kheider 06:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter 

message: Needs an image (even though it will just be a dot!)Fig (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on (307261) 2002 MS4. 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
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) 23:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (307261) 2002 MS4. 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/20110604033434/http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/02MS4.html to http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/02MS4.html
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) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Regarding your addition , I wonder where you take the information about the triaxial dimensions from. The occultation does not give triaxial dimensions; it gives an elliptical cross section a\cdot b, which may be assumed to be from a triaxial object with volume a\cdot b \cdot b (it almost certainly isn't, but whatever). It is almost never a\cdot a \cdot b for large bodies, even though this is possible. Do you have any source for why it should be the rare one (or the not-so-rare one, for that matter)? If not, I suggest to completely remove all of this, including the mean diameter. The source just doesn't give this information, and a lot of the assumptions must be WP:OR. Renerpho (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occultation size estimate 

message: Successful observation of a stellar occultation tonight, which was actually streamed live via Youtube. The occultation is starting near the 39:43 minute mark, and took about 23 seconds. The prediction details can be found here. Note that this is the first of three occultations by 2002 MS4 this summer, the other two coming up on August 8th and August 12th. Renerpho (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! We're getting a lot of occultation data, so hopefully we'll see tighter numbers. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occultation of 26 July 2020 

message: Isn't Ceres the largest known planetoid without a moon? This google search says that it is just another term for asteroid and Ceres is the largest known asteroid. (I don't think 2002 MS4 is an asteroid)108.46.173.109 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Planetoid' is synonymous with 'minor planet'. Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ceres]] 

message: We are giving a 3-sigma uncertainty of abt. 14 days for the perihelion date. This may be a sensible thing to do, but right now the article doesn't say what that reason is. The reference gives dtp=4.6936 days (1-sigma), and there has to be a good reason not to follow that. We could point here for why 3-sigma is a reasonable choice for some data, although I still don't see why we don't just give the 1-sigma value from the source.Renerpho (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncertainties are generally assumed to be 1 sigma unless stated otherwise. We don't state otherwise, so I changed it to 1 sigma. If there's a reason for 3 sigma, that can be restored with the reason added. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-sigma uncertainty 

message: Is it known if there are any yet suggested? I don't even know where you'd start to look, but it seems odd that there aren't even any proposed ones from some time in the last 21 years. Or might it just be left as a number forever, as a deliberate piece of astronomical weirdness, seeing as it's now been so long? (How long did Albion run before being named, again?) 51.219.168.15 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always going to be a largest unnamed object, so in that sense it doesn't matter. Often ppl will hold off naming an object until they know enough about it to decide on an appropriate (as opposed to arbitrary) name, or until someone has something or someone to commemorate. There's a whole string of small, unremarkable asteroids named after students who won an annual science competition, but there are more stringent guidelines for these objects. If someone discovers something notable about MS4, we might get a name then. — kwami (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Albion took just over 25 years to get a real name. Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Naming a common dwarf planet (as there are hundreds if not thousands of them) is not really a high priority or of scientific value. As I have known many of these objects by their "license plate numbers" for numerous years, I often find them getting a name making it more difficult to remember which one someone is talking about. -- Kheider (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad we can't find mythological names like 'Orten' or 'Emsephor'. — kwami (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but already in the first thousand some of the final names alluded to the provisional designation. Consider 572 Rebekka = 1905 RB, 573 Recha = 1905 RC, 574 Reginhild = 1905 RD, 575 Renate = 1905 RE. Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I was thinking, but harder to do that within the naming reqs of the IAU. — kwami (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Salacia and Varda got named, so naming similarly-sized MS4 and AW197 isn't really that unreasonable in my opinion. Especially since they were discovered so early. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

text: The discoverers had no naming interest in it, probably.  I would like to propose the name Jingwei.Chinese goddess.±  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 文爻林夕 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential names?