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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
J mareeswaran ( talk) 05:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources seem to name this "The Goblin", should this be added to the lead? SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
It was only found because it was on the inner leg of its orbit.-- GwydionM ( talk) 08:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
J mareeswaran ( talk) 05:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources seem to name this "The Goblin", should this be added to the lead? SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
It was only found because it was on the inner leg of its orbit.-- GwydionM ( talk) 08:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)