Talk:541132 Leleākūhonua

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 541132 Leleākūhonua article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is V774104 same as 2015 TG387?

J mareeswaran (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply over at Talk:Sednoid. —RP88 ^(talk) 05:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was confused for 2015 TG387, because it was similar (at least in name). 2601:58B:C80:2F10:A174:4D96:E11A:4219 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Multiple sources seem to name this "The Goblin", should this be added to the lead? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Planet Nine

The media, as always, links the discovery of a new TNO to Planet Nine or Planet X, which are the same hypothetical planet. I have removed the unencyclopedic statement for now. 108.160.125.102 (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic? That statement was cited with a reference to both the discovery paper and to Nature. I'm going to restore the statement. —RP88 ^(talk) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least the bulk of the article shouldn't be about Planet Nine - it should be about whatever we know about this cool new TNO! 108.160.125.102 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, discussion of the Planet Nine hypothesis should not dominate this article. For now there is just a single sentence in the body of the article about its relationship with the Planet Nine hypothesis. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added distance

It was only found because it was on the inner leg of its orbit.--GwydionM (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reobserved on 2018-Oct-17, huge improvement in orbit

The object has been observed again on 17 October 2018. The observations haven't been published yet, but they are included in the orbit computation by the MPC.[1] The data should be published in the next Minor Planet Circulars Supplement, due around October 24th, at which time the orbit here should be updated. The old orbit uses 22 observations, for an uncertainty parameter of U=4. The new orbit has 33 observations and U=1, which is a huge improvement. Renerpho (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: God this was only 4 months ago? it feels like forever ago, I thought you might like to know that I persuaded my friends Carlos / Raul de la fuente Marcos to recover it there to decrease the location uncertainty for a potential occultation on October 20. For what it's worth, the occultation location ended up being far up in northern Alaska and wasn't successfully observed as a result. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Planet Center

Ignore the 72.204 au perihelion for 2015 TG387 on Minor Planet Center's List of Transneptunian Objects. I believe it's due to a truncation of the eccentricities that happened when they added objects with semimajor axes greater than 1000 au. Agmartin (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are MPC naming citation to be taken as fact?

@Kwamikagami:@Rfassbind:@Nrco0e: I am unsure how to deal with the naming citation for this object. I had asked on 20 June to confirm whether the name does in fact appear in the Kumulipo, as claimed by the discoverers. (I believe it does not.) This was reverted by Rfassbind on the grounds that the MPC was "authorative".[2] The issue was raised again today by Kwami.[3] I still believe that the fact that the MPC says that Leleākūhonua is a life form mentioned in the Hawaiian creation chant, the Kumulipo and The name compares the orbit to the flight of migratory birds and evokes a yearning to be near Earth does not mean these should be taken as facts. I do acknowledge that the MPC is a reliable source in general, just not necessarily when it comes to Hawaiian religion/literature. If the naming citation is factually correct then it should be easy to add an independent reliable source that confirms it. Thoughts?Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: A WP:reliable source is an expert in the field in question, not just any expert. You are correct that astronomers and the journalists who report on them are not, in general, experts in the Hawaiian language. In this case, since the description is in both English and Hawaiian, I assume that it was prepared by someone who knows the language and was copied verbatim (hopefully without any typos). But the Kumulipo bit is the kind of garbled claim that we often see with astronomers explaining the names they give. For a recent example, Arrokoth means 'cloud' in Powhatan, not 'sky'.

Leleākūhonua is a descriptive phrase, composed of 'fly', 'until/when', 'stand' (~ reach) and 'land/earth'. That fits the claimed meaning quite well. Beings in the Kumulipo may have descriptive names, but since I can't find this one, I'll believe it when I see it.

IMO, MPC circulars should be taken as fact for why a name was given, what the namers thought it meant, where they got it, etc., but not evidence that it means what they think it does. — kwami (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Thanks for confirming that it's not mentioned in the source. I had checked several versions as well but could not find anything resembling this name.

Rfassbind's version In June 2020, it was formally named Leleākūhonua, a life form mentioned in the Hawaiian creation chant, the Kumulipo. The discoverers state in their citation that "the name compares the orbit to the flight of migratory birds and evokes a yearning to be near Earth".[4] adopted the "what the namers thought it meant" approach for the translation, which is uncontested, but not for the controversial part regarding the Kumulipo. Renerpho (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like several other names from Kimura and ʻImiloa, Hawaiian speakers or at least students presumably got together and came up with an appropriate descriptive name, and explained to the requesting astronomers what it meant. So I don't have any problem with the meaning, as long as we present it as the meaning of the meaning and not a direct translation. But who knows where the Kumulipo bit came from -- it's not found in the Hawaiian-language description. Maybe something Kimura or ʻImiloa said that the astronomers misunderstood, or a statement of intent that didn't pan out. — kwami (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the Kumulipo bit is the kind of garbled claim that we often see with astronomers explaining the names they give - Importantly, this is the part of the naming citation that makes this name eligible for a Trans-Neptunian object, which require names from creation myths. Renerpho (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, maybe that's the reason, then. Who at the IAU would know the difference?

But, actually, they only need to be mythological figures, not creation figures. Since last year that hasn't been required. (That's not what the IAU site says, but I think it just hasn't been updated.) And Arrokoth, even if it were the intended 'sky' instead of 'cloud', isn't named after a mythological figure at all, despite the huge amount of attention paid to it. — kwami (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that the name 'sky' ('heaven') has a mythological connotation, although that may be an ethnocentric interpretation (it has that connotation in "western" theology; I know too little about the world view of the Powhatan to tell). 'Cloud' probably does not. Or does it? The definition of "mythological figure" becomes vague, especially if you allow the pantheistic view of many Native American religions. Renerpho (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho, apologies for my "revert" on your edit removing an (unreliable source?)-tag placed next to the MPC-citation, but good Lord! are you guys really happy with the current version? Rfassbind – talk 01:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfassbind I am not. That's why I started this discussion. Renerpho (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the tag into the text. It's an unlikely name for a mythological being, even overlooking that it doesn't occur in the chant.

As for 'sky' being a mythological "figure", by that reasoning we could name VP113 "Quince", since some argue that the tree in the Garden of Eden was a quince tree. Or we could just name it "Tree". Neither is a "figure" as I understand the term. But, really, the rules are just guidelines, and an excuse. If the IAU doesn't like a name, they can argue that it violates the naming rules,, if they do like a name, they don't really care if it follows the rules. This is a good name even regardless, and it's a positive step to involve the community like this. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]