Talk:(469372) 2001 QF₂₉₈

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 Low-importance).

Assuming a density of 2.0

Just as I did in 2008/2009, I still have neutral/mixed feeling about assuming a density of 2.0. -- Kheider (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed dwarf planet

Burton shows that with an absolute magnitude (H) of 4.7 and an assumed albedo of 0.1, you would get a dwarf-planet candidate of about 482km in diameter. Once an object drops below absolute magnitude 4.9 it would be assumed to be smaller than the generic 450km cutoff. The MPC discovery reference, JPL, and Buie all show the original absolute magnitude of 4.7. The Minor Planet Center currently shows an absolute magnitude of 5.1. -- Kheider (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here. The first is that MPC magnitudes (and JPL's ones that are likely based on them) are generally not reliable. For instance, they do not report their photometric errors. (See Mommert 2012 et al for details). The second problem is frequent confusion between R-band and V-band magnitudes. When an object is reported to MPC, it is its R-band magnitude that is often reported. This explains why MPC now thinks that QF298 is 5.1—this is 0.4 (V-R color) more than 4.7. By the way Doressoundiram 2007 reports the V-band absolute magnitude as 5.34 ± 0.11, which is consistent within errors with 5.43 ± 0.07 from Mommert 2012. So, I prefer to use magnitude only from the photometric literature where available. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Tegler the magnitude is 5.33 ± 0.05, which is also consistent. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MPC absolute magnitudes are more reliable than JPL's when someone is not citing an in-depth study. -- Kheider (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (469372) 2001 QF298. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5Pkgpyk4n?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcfa-www.harvard.edu%2Fiau%2Flists%2FTNOs.html to http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (469372) 2001 QF298. 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/698ybAqUb?url=http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/01QF298.html to http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/01QF298.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]