Talk:884 Priamus

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Here we go.
This article is going to be the guinea pig for edits made to several others, including re-correcting changes I already made to all the larger trojans. Reason being, I finally found where the AKARI and (NEO)WISE data tables were hiding (WISE preliminary ones are still obscure, I'm afraid).

They're not in the currently linked PDFs (which is what I was searching before), or at least no more than a tiny representative sample can be found there, but are separate files attached to them via the Bibcode links, and seemingly only accessible by using the Harvard "Vizier" database query system (though AKARI does allow download of the original data, as a single, poorly formatted, zipped-up, 391kb text file... NEOWISE may do similar, I didn't feel it worth checking after finding the DB query engine). These were found after spotting a tiny footnote in AKARI that gave a weblink to the AcuA data file, and then accidentally hitting the "wrong" button for the NEOWISE article that went to the bibcode listing instead of the arXiv PDF, with a bunch of links up top that included "on-line data" (and AKARI turned out to have the same available, but not WISE Prelim). For NEOWISE, you have to fill in the asteroid number as 5 digits padded with leading zeroes, because SQL is stupid like that, which will need a note added somehow.

As the original papers themselves are otherwise very comprehensive and would probably be quite edifying to a reader who could understand them and is prepared to sink a couple hours into the reading (i.e. not me), I figure I may as well move them into the External Links section to preserve access, whilst changing the actual direct cites to point to the actually-relevant data, instead of (in 3 out of 4 provided URLs, and not the first of them) to an extremely dense scientific paper that has a poor chance of enveloping any given object's actual data.

This will be re-adding data to several of the objects so the averaged "approximate" sizes will need recalculating again... guh.

Also fwiw, on top of not being able to see where the heck the figures given for the WISE preliminary measurements came from (presumably SOMEWHERE, but... where?! I spent literally *hours* grinding through the other links given in the two (NEO)WISE PDFs, e.g. to the main WISE project website, trying to find some way to get at useful numerical data that included a size estimate, or at least a magnitude + estimated albedo, going round in circles and hitting many dead ends (...and Oracle database errors, which might have previously pointed the right way?) and came up absolutely empty handed...), I'm not sure how the NEOWISE ones have been specified to 3 decimal places (ie for most of these objects, the nearest *metre*, which is totally excessive considering the magnitude wasn't measured to 6sf, the albedo is still only a best estimate from the object's IR-band colouration, and any impactor will either add a hillock or produce a crater of a metre height or more), because I can only get the database viewer to report to 2dp, with no controls on what it returns being obvious... So what's likely going to happen is I'll have to delete the rather overexacting supposedly-NEOWISE-sourced data, and apply the database citation to the supposedly-WISE-preliminary figures (which seem to match each other quite nicely).

All being done in good faith and with the aim of improving the data quality and verifiability (particularly as I'm trying to use it for a project of my own and don't want to end up using nonsense data), so wish us luck... 146.199.0.203 (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)