Talk:V774104

What about Sedna?
It seems that an article discussing the most distant TNO should at least offer some comparison to Sedna, which has a semi-major axis of greater than 500 AU. Is the distance of ~100 AU this object's perihelion? Andrew John Bayles (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As a potential Sednoid, it is assumed that it has a semi-major axis greater than 150 AU. But the observation arc is too short to properly confine perihelion/aphelion. -- Kheider (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sedna's distance is currently 86.4 AU because it has a very short perihelion. Pi.r (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * All that we know is that V774104 has been discovered while ~103AU from the Sun. Perihelion and aphelion are not directly defined by its current distance. Scott and Chad believe it is a Sednoid, but want to keep the discovery details somewhat secret until they have roughly a 1 year observation arc so they can more adequately define the orbit. There are 250 objects with a semi-major axis greater than 500AU. -- Kheider (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that the proprietary period is over and the raw data is available online (http://smoka.nao.ac.jp/search?date_obs=2015-10-13&instruments=HSC&obs_mod=all&data_typ=all&dispcol=default&prop_id=o15317&diff=1000&action=Search&asciitable=table), I wonder how long it will take until the astrometry is finally published. We have reached a point where anybody could just do the measurements himself, submit it, and claim credit.Renerpho (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Most distant TNOs

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the same table appears in several different articles, shouldn't it be a template or something? I don't know exactly how these things work, so I won't attempt to do it myself... 78.145.113.232 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried creating a template TNO-distance but it doesn't show up right except when I'm editing the article. Anyone know what I messed up?  Please fix. - Denimadept (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you make it a template, instead of embedding it in the page coding? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of the post starting this section here on this talk page. Now what needs to happen is that the template needs to be included in whatever other pages include that table. - Denimadept (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, for everything listed in the table at any rate. Also searched for "most distant tnos" and found one other occurrence. It could be lurking somewhere else with a different title, of course, but there can't be that many pages that would need to include it... 78.146.212.83 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to current distance and magnitude, I think this should include the albedo factor, avg distance, semi-major axis, aphelion, perihelion, eccentricity, orbital inclination, proper motion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we really want to over-complicate the list? Even though albedo is relevant to distance, size, and vmag, I am not sure it will mean much to the average reader. Avg distance and semi-major axis are the same thing. Does the average reader care about proper motion? "Just my first thoughts on the subject." -- Kheider (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very possible that eventually the template will turn into a List-class article of all known TNOs. Then the relevant articles can add a See Also to point at the list article instead of having it embedded.  I expect this will happen when we get a few more TNOs for the list.  I'm kinda tempted to do it now, to invite more contributions.  We can rotate it and add more columns, as  70.51.44.60 suggested.  I suspect more people will contribute to an article than to a template.  It's just that 78.145.113.232 asked about a template, so I didn't think very hard about it.   Something like List of Trans-Neptunian Objects with a sortable table. - Denimadept (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - List article created: List of Trans-Neptunian Objects. It needs a lot of work, but I created it as a starting point.  Add columns as appropriate, add See Also to the referring articles, and stop using the template.  Then we can have the template deleted. - Denimadept (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. There's already a List of trans-Neptunian objects article.  Why not just refer to the existing article rather than including the original table? - Denimadept (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the list of most distant objects should only include those currently at least two Neptune distances away from the Sun (60.14 AU). Looking at AstDys, there are many objects inside that distance, but only 9 beyond (V774104 would be the 10th). | Objects at least two Neptune distances from Sun vs | Objects at least 50 AU from Sun. Ambi Valent (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a list article, it'd be better as List of most distant objects in the Solar System, with separate sections for current distance, average distance, and aphelion, for three different determinants of "most distant" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already List of trans-Neptunian objects. I've redirected my new article to the existing one. - Denimadept (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant the analog of this table, the most distant ones are not equivalent to all TNOs, so it would be better to just call it the most distant objects -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given how slowly these things move when far from the Sun, List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in 2015 is basically the same thing. I am not sure how many of these almost identical TNO "list articles" Wikipedia wants. Eris is moving at a slow 2.3km/s wrt the Sun and 2000 CR105 is still only moving 5km/s wrt the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So continue using the template if that works for you, but my feeling is that an ever-growing sortable list of TNOs would do. If you want to know what's farthest away, or nearest, click on the "distance" column. - Denimadept (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That would result in unreasonably large tables/pagesizes, as more and more TNOs are discovered. A separate list of most distant objects would make a smaller subset list, under the different classes of distance measurements (avg, perihelion, apohelion, current distance, distance above/below ecliptic, etc) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Magnitude estimate (24?)
The article states an apparent brightness of magnitude 24, without giving a source. It should be pointed out that this is calculated assuming that the given size estimate (500-1000 km) leads to an absolute magnitude of about 3.5-4.0, which itself gives an apparent magnitude of roughly 24-24.5 at a distance of 103 AU.Renerpho (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note added to infobox. -- Kheider (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Perihelion lifted?
I changed “Sedna and 2012 VP113 have both had their perihelion point lifted well beyond the classic Kuiper belt of 30–50 AU.” to “Sedna and 2012 VP113 both have perihelia well beyond the classic Kuiper belt of 30–50 AU.” This is because said two objects haven’t necessarily had their perihelia lifted; they may have always had their perihelia as far away as they are now. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not how TNOs work. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can be very confident they did not accrete in their current orbits as they are simply too far from the Sun/planets. This is what makes them interesting. They may have been scattered by the known planets, but then they were scattered by another planet, star, became an exo-planet capture from a different system, etc. -- Kheider (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on V774104. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2015SO20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dimensions
It says its dimensions are estimated to be 420 km – 1180 km. Quick question; is that for the radius or diameter? Could someone update the article to make it clear. Robo37 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is for 2014 UZ224, no idea what the talk page redirects me here (although it's also an appropriate question for this article) Robo37 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Is a dwarf planet
National Public Radio, which was quoted by Scientific American, claims that it is a dwarf planet. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Scientific American can quote whoever they like, the definition of dwarf planet remains unaffected. A dwarf planet only becomes a dwarf planet once the International Astronomical Union says so. For trivial reasons, this cannot happen before the object is officially discovered (which is still not the case for V774104!). What Scientific American probably wanted to say is that this object is a "possible dwarf planet": Given its size (500-1000 km) and distance, it possibly meets the requirements. But this is true for dozens of objects in the Kuiper Belt. For a list that goes beyond the five official dwarf planets, see http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html Renerpho (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Any new data?
It's been more than two years since the initial discovery announcement, now... does anyone know if better observations have been made of this object yet? 146.199.0.203 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No further observations have been published yet (but I am almost certain that more have been collected). This is not unusual: Trans-Neptunian objects require years of observations to determine their orbit, and it is common for observers to wait with a publication until enough data is available. How long this may take is hard to tell.--Renerpho (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If the object was truly 103 AU from the Sun, it could take years to see it move enough to securely determine the orbit, much less know much about any potential resonance with Neptune. I always thought it was bizarre to announce the object with a short 2 week observation arc. -- Kheider (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is easy to determine the distance to a TNO even from a short arc (because parallax dominates). You can know the distance with reasonable precision even from an arc of 1 day (and definitely from an arc of 20 days). But as said, there are many possible orbits that correspond to that distance - and finding the right one needs a much longer observation arc (many years). It is really odd that V774104 was announced so early. Not because the announcement was incorrect (the distance of 103 AU is certain) but because the discovers knew there was going to be a long delay between this and any official announcement. I guess they were afraid that someone else could find it first. Which is also strange, because making an unofficial announcement wouldn't help them at all to get credit... So, the question isn't "why does it take so long?", but "why did they make it public so early?"--Renerpho (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

2015 TH367 Uncertainty parameter
I notice JPL lists it at 9, while the MPC lists it at 3. I assume that the MPC is weighting the observations as more precise. I suspect the real-world uncertainties are smaller than what JPL is currently listing. -- Kheider (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Identification 2015 TH367 = V774104
There seems to be a problem with that identification. according to Scott Sheppard, “We just observed the object again a few weeks ago to solidify its orbit. The object is not the most distant object known, but it is only the third known object to have a large semi-major axis (greater than 150 AU) and a perihelion well beyond the Kuiper Belt edge, of which the other two are 2012 VP113 and Sedna.” Kelly Beatty, January 29, 2018 at 7:42 am Source: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/v774104-most-distant-solar-system-object-11212015/#comment-124767 The edit history claims a private email from David Tholen as the source. I don't think that is reliable. Also, the discoverers initially stated that 2015 TH367 was 24th magnitude. All taken together makes me believe that the identification is not correct.--Renerpho (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have rolled back the article, and then included the additional information from aforementioned link.--Renerpho (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be quite bizarre to announce a distant Trans-Neptunian object with a ~2 week observation arc and not have more than 5 observations at the time. -- Kheider (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, note that 2015 TH367 never had a 2 week observation arc. First it was a single nighter, then the arc was 4 weeks. And while V774104 was revealed to be in the constellation Pisces, 2015 TH367 is in Aries.--Renerpho (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the reason the team has not released data on this Sednoid is because they are trying to use it to refine their Planet Nine models. -- Kheider (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speculative - but possible. Both Mike Brown and DES are currently working on improving their models, and they do have a couple of objects that haven't been announced yet (like the one they nickname Caju). And Mike Brown is working on a big paper right now, with calculations on his model. It is likely that he tried to get the data on V774104 (the distant one) to implement it. That would explain why it is taking so long to finish. --Renerpho (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding that latter statement about Mike Brown: He hasn't included it in his calculations, because Tholen&Sheppard didn't share enough information. But he plans to do so once information is available. --Renerpho (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Distance
Given Sheppard's comment, it is clear now that V774104 (or what's commonly known under that name) is not the most distant known Solar System object. This is reflected in the article. However, the lists here and here still give the old distance estimate of 103 AU. This should be corrected - but I'm not sure what to do about it. We do not have an actual recent distance estimate; we just know it must be closer than Eris. In its current form, the list contradicts the article it is used in. --Renerpho (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Both of those tables come from the same template located at Template:TNO-distance. I have made an edit to downplay V774104. -- Kheider (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have begun to change the distance estimate where I see it, starting with two instances in 2015 TH367 besides the table. This is a mess, since the 103 AU are cited in many, many articles... --Renerpho (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Some more info (probably referring to V774104), from TNO2018 meeting:

Sheppard: trying to cover more sky to make a survey that is more uniform in longitude of perihelion. 97 discoveries at d > 50 au (only track these ones). New TNO with 3-year arc, q = 65 au, d=83 au, Q ~ 2000 au, long-term stable orbit
 * This would fit what we know. 3-year arc means observations from 2015, 2016 and 2017. So, distance is 83 AU. Not unprecedented: When Sedna had an arc of a few days, it was estimated to be 100 AU from the Sun; turned out to be at 89 AU. (Of course they didn't go public in that case.) --Renerpho (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth nothing that the overestimated distance (103 AU vs. 83 AU) leads to an overestimated size. The initial press release gave a size estimate of "500-1000 km", which was based on the assumed distance. Everything else being equal, the size is reduced by a factor of $$\frac{83^2}{103^2} \approx 0.65$$. So "500-1000 km" becomes "320-650 km" and the absolute magnitude increases by about 0.9 mag. At that size, the object is unlikely to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. --Renerpho (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a new section to the article? Is there anyone against adding a "Transneptunian Solar System Conference" section to the end of the article saying something along the lines of:

-- Transneptunian Solar System workshop -- (EDITED: Feel free to edit the working draft)

At the Transneptunian Solar System workshop in March 2018, Scott Sheppard mentioned an object with a 3 year observation arc that is currently 83 AU from the Sun and has a perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) of 65 AU. As there are only 2 known sednoids, this could be the object announced in November 2015 as V774104.

-- Kheider (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with such a section... Notice that technically it's a workshop, not a conference . We could mention that it has a much larger aphelion than Sedna or 2012 VP113, about 2000 AU, and a semi-major axis of about 1100 AU (mentioned in some of the other tweets). Those are relevant to identify it as a sednoid. As sources, we could give the tweets and the Sky&Telescope article. Can you get rid of the double instance of "object" in the last sentence? --Renerpho (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , my concern is that such a section would be pure speculation wrt V774104, and such is generally frowned upon for Wikipedia articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This whole article is largely speculation as there is no published astrometry to work with. I think the section would add to the article as long as no absolute claims are made. Given there are only 2 known sednoids, there is no real reason to not speculate that this object with perihelion @ 65 AU is not "the object known as V774104".-- Kheider (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

, : Things are getting interesting again! Michele Bannister today: "no, Scott mentioned a d=103 au object in his talk. Paper apparently in progress". So it seems there still is a distant object (at 103 AU), in addition to the new sednoid at 83 AU. So, we really know nothing and it's all speculation. Alas... I guess we leave it alone for now. It shouldn't take long. --Renerpho (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. -- Kheider (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the correction of the data of V774104, i.e. distance less than Eris and perihelion > 50 au, I think there is only some misunderstanding of Kelly Beatty when quoting Scott Sheppard:
 * according to Scott Sheppard, “We just observed the object again a few weeks ago to solidify its orbit. The object is not the most distant object known, but it is only the third known object to have a large semi-major axis (greater than 150 AU) and a perihelion well beyond the Kuiper Belt edge, of which the other two are 2012 VP113 and Sedna.” Kelly Beatty, January 29, 2018 at 7:42 am
 * Source: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/v774104-most-distant-solar-system-object-11212015/#comment-124767
 * It seems that in this statement, Scott is talking about the new TNO with perihelion = 65 au, current distance = 83 au and aphelion ~ 200 au, and not about V774104, as the statement is consistent to the parameters of the new TNO. Furthermore it would be quite accidental to have V774104 at a former distance of 103 au and a complete new further TNO now also at a distance of 103 au. It is more plausible that the data of V774104 has not changed but still is the TNO at a distance of 103 au, i.e. as before farther away than Eris. As stated in the Twitter of TNO2018, Scott (Sheppard) didn't spend much time on it in his presentation. This is not surprising if V774104 just is a smaller "sister" of Eris and (225088) 2007 OR10. According to the current MPC database, there are 25 dwarf planet candidates (i.e. h < 5.2 mag) with Q > 90 au, of which 21 are ordinary scattered disk objects with sufficient low perihelia and 2 are high perihelion 4:1 resonance objectes to Neptune with moderate eccentricities, and only 2 of them - Sedna and 2012 VP113 - are high perihelion and high eccentricity objects. For better analyzing P9 only the latter 2 of these 25 objects are helpful as well as the new TNO with q = 65 au and Q ~2000 au also is, whereas V774104 with a 23/25 probability is not.


 * Thus I suggest to undo the 2018-update of the data of V774104. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Reasonable, . The info from TNO2018 and Sheppard's/Tholen's comments contain zero reliable and unambiguous information. For consistency reasons, I think you better do the changes to the V774104 page and related pages yourself, since you best know what you edited (I guess there were changes made to over a dozen pages). OK? --Renerpho (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll see what pages I changed, and roll them back myself. --Renerpho (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this effort is not necessary as only minor things are possibly incorrect now. If you agree I make a proposal and you review it. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * done; if you prefer the old version you can easily undo my update -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also updated the template TNO-distance of the most distant known objects of the solar system -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why new data for V774104 included in table concerning Perihelion and Semi-major axis estimation ?
according to current knowledge there is no indication of the values in the table concerning Perihelion and Semi-major axis of V774104. Taking the data from MPC and filtering only the ones with H <= 5.1 mag (thus they are in hydrostatic equilibrium and hopefully big enough to be seen at this distance) and Q >= 90 au returns 25 TNO. Only 4 of them have Perihelia > 50 au of which only two are Sednoids and the other two are well understood 4:1 resonance bodies to Neptune. And regarding Semi-major axis, again only 4 of them have a Semi-major axis > 150 au of which only two are Sednoids and the other two are ordinary scattered disk objects. - You have marked them with a question-mark, so nothing is wrong, but I do not see any indication for the values you have provided. Anyway, I have registered myself on the Sky & Telescope side and replied to Kelly Beatty; possibly we can achieve further information. Bests, Ralf -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To be included in the Category:Sednoids or the list at Sednoid, both q>50 and a>150 are required. Many of the references (based on a short 2-week observation arc) suggest it might be on a Senda-like orbit. The only other options I see it is to remove V774104 from ALL sednoid lists/categories. -- Kheider (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ok, I agree. To me it is important that you have a reason for providing these data. Although it seems highly improbable we still do not know the confirmed data. And all these people around Mike Brown and Scott Sheppard tend to be too optimistic in this regard, thus we can find them at many places. Mike Brown is still not willing to accept that Eris is smaller than Pluto and lists her 1 km bigger in diameter than Pluto on his page . - Thus for the time being I suggest to follow your approach and leave it the way it is; if new data comes in you can ping me and I'll help you to update all the data. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this same as 2015 TG387 ?
J mareeswaran (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently not (e.g. different distances), though they were found at the same time. ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They might be, see Talk:Sednoid. The discovery images for both show the same object, and they are both in northwestern Pisces at the time of discovery. And Scott Sheppard had mentioned that the distance may have been wrong (not surprising given the 103 AU estimate was based on an extremely short arc of just 2 weeks). I can't say if they are the same, but they possibly are.Renerpho (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote Mike Brown:

yes, in fact. the unusually high perihelion leads to a very large overestimate of the distance. As I said 2 years ago: it's either the most distant KBO known, or it is actually interesting. Turns out it's interesting.
 * Now, this doesn't mean that they are the same. But it means that this is plausible (even likely).Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Any known identification yet?
So... assuming the distance report of 103 AU is in error, what object does this correspond to (if it's not 2015 TG387)?  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, there's a claim that it's also 2018 VG18. Is it 2015 TG387, 2015 TH367, or 2018 VG18? Ugghh, JPL! IAU! MPC! Tell us already!  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  17:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation regarding V774104 is frustrating. JPL, IAU and the MPC probably know no more than you or me, though. If you want to know what's going on, ask the discoverers. They are the only ones who can tell the story, if they feel they want to.Renerpho (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The discovery foto is the same. What more does it need ? Currently we realize the contrary situation with "Farout" (2018 VG18) where an orbit was announced after only one month of observations, suggesting that this body is a "Jumbo-centaur" with q near Uranus. An orbit nota bene, where the standard deviation of many parameters is larger than the value itself ... -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be confident saying that 2015 TG387 is V774104, if it wasn't for some serious inconsistencies. Most importantly, 2015 TG387 never had an observation arc of 2 weeks. By the time V774104 was announced, 2015 TG387 was a one-nighter with a very uncertain distance of 60±50 AU. It wasn't observed again until early December 2015 (after the announcement of V774104), at which time its distance was pinned down to about 80 AU.Renerpho (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The discovery photo shows 2015 TG387, that is clear. But David Tholen has confirmed that objects have been mixed up in the press release, so this doesn't say much.Renerpho (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you get too excited: This doesn't rule out the identification 2015 TG387 = V774104, either. It is still possible that the team had observations made in late November 2015 that have never been submitted to the MPC. That would be a very strange thing to do, but it would only add one extra layer of strangeness to an already messed up story.Renerpho (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputed
As discussed at various places (especially here and here and here), the existence of this object is put into question, and the article requires a complete rewrite. The article text is likely to (temporarily) become more confusing during the rewrite, as work is done on it. I'd like to invite everyone to take part in the process, but please familiarise yourself with the problem, as discussed on the pages linked above! Renerpho (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Tagging you all, to ask for your help with rewriting the article. I will have to work on RL now, but I'll continue later today. Renerpho (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So, to get things straight: V774104 corresponds to TH367, but was announced by the media as TG387 by mistake. The discoverer has confirmed via email that it is TH367 and not TG387. The press releases for V774104 were regarding TG387, which was formally announced a few years later under that name. The images used were the same for both. Inconsistencies were discovered between TG387 and V774104 later. The data for V774104 was poor at the time (one night of observation, misreported as two weeks), and did not correspond to TG387 at all. It was later discovered that V774104 was the designation for TH367, which was known well enough that by now that there were inconsistencies and doubts about the designation. Future reports did not use the V774104 name, so this was all that was known. The inconsistencies were discovered by Wikipedia editors, who emailed the discoverers to confirm it as TH367, but by now, so much was written that the article was a mess. It is now clear that V774104 as announced does not exist and has never existed. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these details.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  05:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is more or less where we stand, yes. (I may reply to one or two points when I get back later.) I created a sandbox page on my user page, User:Renerpho/sandbox/V774104. Feel free to use it for testing purposes, or to turn it into a draft (where the actual article is not ready for it). Renerpho (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been informed that we cannot use the email from Sheppard as a primary source. If that is true, we're screwed. I doubt Sheppard would clear it up on a public website or something.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, as much as I'd like to nuke the article out of existence, there's so much confusion here - incorrect things backed up by reliable sources and the correct things are not. This article is going to turn into a steaming pile of WP:OR if we are not careful to cite something - something!  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  06:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've emailed the discoverer asking to publish that V774104 = TH367 and not TG387 somewhere online so that this doesn't count as WP:OR. Still no reply yet.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  06:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * For now, I've almost blanked the article to remove most OR and incorrect information. I am sad to say that this is probably all that can be written without starting controversy.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  06:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * V774104 is a real object. Trujillo2018 verifies that V302126 = TG387 which is the object w/ perihelion@65AU. -- Kheider (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's clear now. Wasn't then, but it is now. Just need to cite sources as we rewrite. I have to go to bed now. Thanks for helping us figure out what this object truly is.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not expect the "email screenshot" to be a suitable source, but maybe we get a public statement from Sheppard in that direction that can be used. For now, it's probably best to let the WP:DISPUTED template in the article, to decrease the impetus to revert your blanking. I believe the article is now better than it was yesterday, although I don't believe it has a chance to survive in this form, either. We need something to cite. Let's hope that something emerges soon! "774104 is a real object. Trujillo2018 verifies that V302126 = TG387" - I wish it was that simple! We know that V774104 = 2015 TH367, as far as the team's internal designations are concerned, and that's what Sheppard says he reported at the 2015 conference that got it all started. But that's not what was reported in any of the "reliable sources". The object reported in 2015, and discussed in the Wikipedia article in its "old form", is very different from TH367, as it is a combination of aspects of 2015 TH367 and 2015 TG387, together with lots of misreported details (observation arc, distance, significance, etc). Sheppard stated multiple times since at least 2018 that V774104 = 2015 TG387, which shows that the object's identity is not so clear cut. The "concept" we know as V774104 has little to do with either of the two objects. Repeating what I said on Talk:Sednoid: A redirect from V774104 to any one of the two articles on  or  seems inappropriate to me. In my opinion, V774104 deserves its own article; not about an astronomical object, but about a scientific quirk, or a case of science communication gone wrong. There would have been lots of opportunities for Sheppard to set the records straight. For example, at a conference in 2018, where he seems to have mentioned V774104 again, and is quoted for saying that "there is a body at 103 AU and the paper about it is in progress". Or when he spoke to Kelly Beatty of Sky&Telescope in January 2018 (see the same link), now talking about V774104 and  as if they had been the same object from the very beginning. Or the paper and press releases about, when that object was announced as the third known sednoid. Or when Sheppard announced , nicknamed FarOut, now the most distant object at about 120 AU. (That one is at least 100 AU from the Sun, so calling it the most distant object is a sure thing for once.) Or when a similar case as V774104 was discussed at a recent conference, leading to the announcement of FarFarOut, at 140 AU from the Sun (except that this time there was an actual press release). That object was a single nighter at the time of announcement, and it may end up having the same fate as V774104, turning out to be closer than expected. Sheppard could have mentioned the similarities to V774104 in that presentation, asking for caution. He didn't mention it. See around the 40-minute mark in the presentation video. Coming back to identifying V774104: There is no object at 103 AU, and never was (at the conference, Sheppard spoke of an object at up to 100 AU, which was possible at the time, but 103 AU wasn't). There is no object with a 2-week observation arc (both objects were only observed on a single night at the time, and would be recovered 4 weeks later). V774104 = 2015 TH367 was thought to be 90 AU from the Sun with that single night arc, which is exactly where it is. V302126 = 2015 TG387 was thought to be up to 100 AU from the Sun, but is actually at 78 AU (a result of its unexpectedly high perihelion). So, the object reported had more to do with 2015 TG387 than with 2015 TH367, but with all of the details screwed up (even given the limited knowledge there was in 2015). The problem remains that all the "reliable sources" say otherwise. Renerpho (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh god... this is the article from hell. THE ARTICLE FROM HELL, I SAY!!!!  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich   Talk  13:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's just so much wrong with the older draft that I don't even know how to begin cleaning it up without introducing WP:OR. It's not my area of expertise. Perhaps you, can help figure out what to do to maintain a neutral point of view when there is so much misinformation in the RS.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich   Talk  13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep calm and take a deep breath. Renerpho (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I should. This article (and even its existence from time to time) just enrages me to no end.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  13:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A wise man by the name of Mike Brown once said: "Things move slowly in the Kuiper belt." The best thing we can do is not to act precipitately. An article in a bad state for a limited period of time is not the end of the world as we know it. We contacted Scott Sheppard, that's a good approach, let's see if he replies. I'd also like to get input from other editors. I have tagged those involved with the article and discussion, maybe some of them get involved in the next couple of days. We can all give it a moment of thought, then ask for help at the relevant Wiki projects. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the two-sentence version of the article pretty much says what it *needs to*. There really is no need to go into more detail when most of the sources have errors. -- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kheider, until there are more (better) usable sources. Renerpho (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to work out where the objections are to simply merging this with TH367? It seems the most straightforward thing to do. The material will be there, and a redirect will always remain for those searching this topic. What am I missing? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The main objection was that the initial reports confused it with TG387, and to some extent, this is a bit of WP:OR.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  03:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

changed to competing RD requests
Since this has been sitting here for a couple months now, and was quite confusing in that state, I added a second 'merge' tag and reduced the text to a minimum, V774104 is the internal designation for a trans-Neptunian object. Due to press-release errors in November 2015, it's not clear if the object is the one now designated 2015 TH367 or 2015 TG387.

Since the links have whatever astronomical data info the reader will need, we don't need to provide anything substantial here. Once the identity is confirmed with a RS, we can turn this into a RD, and add a section about the confusion in the target article. Meanwhile, this dab text can be a placeholder. Or, maybe we should even keep it as a dab page, V774104 may be: * the internal designation for the trans-Neptunian object now designated 2015 TH367 * the designation reported to the press in 2015 for the trans-Neptunian object now designated 2015 TG387.

I think with something this messed up, a minimalist approach is best. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * V774104 is 2015 TH367. You should probably discussed any radical changes before making them. -- Kheider (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The identity isn't really in dispute anymore. It's just that most reliable sources and the media ended up getting it wrong, which might confuse anyone searching for more information.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  12:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The object is 2015 TH367. It should be merged because the article says that it is the internal designation for 2015 TH367. Kepler-1229b talk
 * Comment - Unfortunately we run into the issue of WP:OR, as discussed above and in Talk:Sednoid. Keep in mind that this whole dilemma was caused by the press mixing up the internal designation of  for, and this confusion was discovered and solved by solely Wikipedia users. N rco0e    (talk · contribs)   04:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could easily create a new section in 2015 TH367 and move the content there. Also, if you oppose merging, then I will at least add in an infobox. Kepler-1229b talk
 * The purpose of this disputed article is to explain what happened to V774104. There is a dispute tag on the article and there is no need for an infobox that would likely further confuse the reader. Two of us resolved this article in part via personal communications with Sheppard. As long as there is a dispute tag the article definitely should not be merged. Keeping the articles separate also makes the talk history much more accessible. -- Kheider (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As discussed on the relevant talk pages, V774104 can't be merged with either of the objects identified with it, because, although it shares some commonalities with each of them, it is identical with neither. I still hope that this article can one day be expanded and the dispute tag be removed, once the information shared elsewhere is covered by reliable sources in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards. Renerpho (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I could split into both articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 18:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Please explain. Renerpho (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)