Talk:20000 Varuna

message: (anonymous) Varuna is an asura, not a deva as this article points.
:Please quote some refs; editors specialised in mythology will certainly review it. A single statement is not the most helpful way of fixing errors. Eurocommuter 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Is an 'artist's conception' really appropriate for a picture? JamesFox 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a professional space artist, yes. If it's an amateur Wikipedian, no. This looks like the latter; correct me if I'm wrong. The Singing Badger 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. in fact I see it's just a cropped version of the size comparison pic on the same page. Anyone have an opinion on this? The Singing Badger 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated on other pages, as long as artist's conception images are duly noted I see no problem with them as they provide some visual concept whether accurate or within reason.  Some astronomic objects may never be directly imaged and in those cases an artist's concept may be the best possible guess we may ever have. Abyssoft 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the problem is that this picture does not illustrate, lack of reference, neither the size, nor colour, nor albedo. In addition, it’s at odds with the elliptic model (see text). The literature presents Varuna (relatively to other KBOs) as reddish, dark, middle-sized, strongly elongated. The picture  fails to illustrate any of these characteristics. Consequently, in my opinion, the picture fails to live to the within reason criterion above. Eurocommuter 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new 'Picture' 

message: Varuna's mass is listed as ~5.9 kg and density of ~1 g/cc, yet that would imply a radius of ~520 km (~1040 km diameter) if spherical shape is assumed. Which is accurate? Dimension or mass? Sethhater123 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass is uncertain by factor several.  Diameter 1040 km is within allowed range. Michaelbusch 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is another thing I intend to edit, as the estimate seems to mix and match references for diameter and density that may not necessarily correspond. What I've got from my own calculations - using the same source for estimate of density and relative axial dimensions, and the best available estimate for the longest axis (ie the 2010 occultation) - is within the ballpark of the current figure, yet still different enough that it seems prudent to replace it. That is, about 3.316 x 1020kg (with pretty huge error bars, mind - like +1.810/-1.174), vs "~3.7 x 1020kg". Note that this is using an estimated 711.1km volumetric mean diameter (as noted under Size, above), which is itself larger than the currently stated 668km size from the TNOs Are Cool paper; that would work out to just 1.548 x 1020kg... So IDK whether to run with that instead? 146.199.60.87 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  Edit: I forgot how to volume. Just cubed the diameter, instead of cubing the radius, then multiplying by 4pi/3. Revised mass estimates are, of course, therefore about 52% of the above figures, as now included on the main page. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass 

message: "Varuna is predicted to occult a magnitude 14.7 star in Gemini on December 7th, 2008. This event will allow at least a lower limit to be placed on Varuna's size. If multiple observers at different locations record the event, several chords across Varuna will be measured, and this will allow the exact size to be measured. Current predictions suggest the event will be visible only from South America and southern Africa."
:The above text remains in our article. Do we know yet, if people were able to make those measurements, and if so, what the actual results were? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the blog that was cited in the last sentence of that paragraph and updated the article accordingly. Iridia (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This past event is described in the future tense. Do we have news yet of what emerged? 

message: Isn't this almost like Haumea in shape? Lacerda & Jewitt seem to think so. Here's their picture based on light curve data (along side Haumea, aka 2003 EL 61).
I think the picture is grossly misleading, in shape alone. The article text even mentions the shape.
Is this not scientific consensus or something?
68.183.80.244 (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they believe Varuna is shaped like Haumea (~1400km) , but since Varuna is likely less than 800km in diameter, I believe it is below the threshold were they can confirm the shape. -- Kheider (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. I guess my next question is, if we can't confirm the shape, why are we presenting one? 68.183.80.244 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Under physical characteristics I see the comment "Varuna is thought to be an elongated spheroid (ratio of axis 2:3)" and in the info box we show "(scalene ellipsoid)?".  I believe :File:Varuna artistic.png may be an old NASA image from before 2002. Sadly I am not sure of the original artistic source. -- Kheider (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.psi.edu/pds/asteroid/EAR_A_COMPIL_3_TNO_CEN_COLOR_V3_0/data/tnocencol.tab
** In (119070) 2001 KP77 on 2011-05-20 21:17:27, 404 Not Found
** In 20000 Varuna on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Not Found
** In (119070) 2001 KP77 on 2011-05-31 04:11:44, 404 Not Found
** In 20000 Varuna on 2011-06-10 04:57:16, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/papers/VARUNA/JAE2001.pdf
** In 20000 Varuna on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Not Found
** In 20000 Varuna on 2011-06-10 04:57:25, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: What led the IAU to giving the special number 20000 to this object? --129.13.72.196 (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article. Basically, at the time it was considered special. --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They knew it would be a relatively large object, especially for something discovered in 2000. -- Kheider (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 20000 Varuna. 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
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psi.edu/pds/asteroid/EAR_A_COMPIL_3_TNO_CEN_COLOR_V3_0/data/tnocencol.tab
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) 03:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 20000 Varuna. 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://www.webcitation.org/65Rdw3PYi?url=http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14199805/1726016548/name/Rara+Oculta%C3%A7%C3%A3o+por+Varuna+-+AAP-SAR+em+19-02-2010.pdf to http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14199805/1726016548/name/Rara+Oculta%C3%A7%C3%A3o+por+Varuna+-+AAP-SAR+em+19-02-2010.pdf
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) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: OK, bear with me on this one. I deleted it and replaced with Citation Neededs because the clickable arXiv link doesn't contain any reference to Varuna at all ... but when I reopened the PDF directly from its URL in the pagecode (just before wiping it - though I didn't read it until afterwards - because I wanted to refer back to it to double check whether the data belonged to a different object), it opened an entirely different paper that is flush with usable references - yet with the same general title?!
Obviously something weird is going on, maybe at the arXiv end. I'm going to try and repair it and, if the data matches, replace the incorrect URL with the correct one. It's just probably going to involve some edit reversion and so-on, so, it may take a little while and look suspicious whilst I'm in the middle of it. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: looks like whoever committed that link originally didn't realise the paper was in multiple parts, and just committed whatever reference they first found for it on arXiv (which seems to be a very popular one amongst the TNO articles, as it covers a lot of the larger objects - just not Varuna itself) as the "correct" one without double checking. Actually, the correct part isn't on arXiv for some reason, but it is available elsewhere, including on the Internet Archive, which is the link I've added... along with a secondary link to the ADS, because the old one arrived at via the Bibcode is at great pains to warn us that the old site is shutting down in a couple of months. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNOs Are Cool reference 

message: OK, so I put a note on the mass calculation in the infobox ... and added a Notes reflist at the bottom. All fine and dandy, that worked just as you would expect...
Then I put another note in the body text, expecting it would become #2 on the list... Nope! Somehow that's ALSO "note 1", and the only thing on the bottom-of-page Notes reflist, and the original note (still called "note 1") has suddenly retreated to the bottom of the infobox. Even though there isn't a reflist coded in there. What?!
I can't see any way to fix it. Never mind that the WP help pages are an incomprehensible jungle at the best of times, and didn't really give me much in the way of useful guidance when I looked before (mostly, I've just found pages with features on that I want to use, and copied-and-pasted them instead), but this seems to simply be at odds with the way even those say it should work.
Worse still, when I went back to another page where I've seen multiple notes used before (but with a different form of the code, using a strange "tag" based flavour of the wikimarkup, which I expected might offer a fix), including a mix of infobox and body text examples... it's now got the same problem, and I didn't even edit that one in-between! The disease is catching! HELP!
How do we fix this?! Because I'm totally at a loss... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to add footnotes is ; see how I did it. — JFG talk 01:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beautiful, and elegant, thank you times a hundred. Afraid your edit of 01:44 and mine of 01:50 actually clashed, as I was in the middle of doing a major revision of the infobox, and I had to redo all the notes in order to merge it, but I ain't even mad, as that's a much neater and self-evidently much more effective way of achieving what I set out to do. I'll try to remember it for the future, but I have a terrible fear that I won't... :-/ (...and now I'm wondering if the notes should go below the references, as by this point they just look messy) 146.199.60.87 (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  By MOS:NOTES convention, footnotes are listed just above references. In some articles, footnotes can be added within the article, for example at the bottom of a table. See for example Apportionment in the European Parliament#Lisbon system or List of the verified oldest people. Each invocation of  tallies up all  notes up to that point. If you need something more sophisticated, you can place individual notes in groups, with the  parameter, and gain fine control of where each group is displayed. — JFG talk 08:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the heck do we get all the notes to glomp together in a single block? 

message: By late 2000 the minor planet numbering was up around 30500.  Had they skipped 20000, or was the original 20000 given a new number?  If so, what is its current number? 216.255.165.198 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No number was skipped. No probably hundred of thousands. Ruslik_Zero 14:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I think the 20,000 was an upcoming number, and they adjusted the timing so it would be available for Varuna. Number 19,000 (2000 RM60) was discovered on 2000 September 3, Varuna on 2000 November 28, so that's consistent. There was discussion of assigning Pluto number 100,000; too bad they didn't. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwami's correct. Numbers are assigned in batches; I suspect they noticed that the batch they were about to number (see the relevant MPC batch) contained 20000, and intervened to pull Varuna a little ahead so that it'd be (20000) instead of (20894), as it would've been if they did the usual thing and strictly followed the order of provisional designation. So I guess they could've done the same thing with Pluto and made it (135000); too bad they didn't. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 3