21:5821:58, 19 August 2019diffhist+719(455502) 2003 UZ413→Physical characteristics: I'm not entirely sure how to cite this one, as it's more of a universal truth for dwarf planets (possibly the link to the WP article on them will be enough?), but I'm sure I've seen it laid out in a paper *somewhere*. Or maybe piecewise in several dozen different ones.
21:4421:44, 19 August 2019diffhist+21(455502) 2003 UZ413The original paper claims a simpler "H=4.3" alongside the rotational parameters... (the 2010ish paper ignores the rotation and just goes for colour and average magnitude)
21:4121:41, 19 August 2019diffhist+25(455502) 2003 UZ413A few minor twiddles, checking the cited papers against what's already written in the article etc. Whether or not to quote-escape the refnames seems mostly a matter of personal preference than an absolute requirement but we may as well be consistent about it. One small point of note, Perna et al don't give a single abs mag figure, but four; the average of their centre points comes out to 4.38, but the range isn't a simple "+- 0.05" unless you cherrypick a single measurement of the four.
21:2721:27, 19 August 2019diffhist+23(455502) 2003 UZ413All Fornasier et al really did was sort-of reconfirm the result obtained a few months earlier by much the same team, so it seems fair to cite both papers for the rotation period. (Possibly there's been something else published in the last 10 years that updates it, after the first brief flush of interest through 2009 that then seems to cut dead, at least as far as the wiki cites go?)
21:1221:12, 19 August 2019diffhist+299(455502) 2003 UZ413We have a size estimate, we have a density estimate ... and now a mass estimate derived from those in the main text. May as well copy it to the infobox (and add a choice through that of one-leading-digit standard form, and SI-unit-style powers of 1000), with appropriate caveats. And extra ones shoved into the diameter range estimate (if the lower figures are incorporated into the average, it still comes out as "600km", just - about 595.7 instead of 603.2).
20:5920:59, 19 August 2019diffhist+221(455502) 2003 UZ413→Physical characteristics: 300km radius, cubed, times 4/3 pi, times 10^15 to produce cubic cm, times 2.64, divided by 1000 for kg, then convert to standard form and round off to 3sf, gives 299 Petatonnes. Matching the input figure's 2sf, that's 300 x 10^18 kg; or 3.0 x 10^20 kg to simplify and emphasise the actual precision. Thankfully the VAL tag doesn't enforce rounding-off if the trailing decimals are 0.
20:3620:36, 19 August 2019diffhist−38(455502) 2003 UZ413I'm psychologically about 103% done with this page now, but a final twiddle if I don't do anything else: this is the only page I've seen so far that appends the orbital parameter symbols untidily on the end of the actual figures (they wrap to the next line on several of them), and if they were needed they'd be included in the tag titles. Which are clickable (with mouse hover popups) & lead to explanatory articles anyway. And anyone who really needs to know what's what will probably already know.
20:3020:30, 19 August 2019diffhist+152(455502) 2003 UZ413So the actual answer, after spending the intervening time running through multiple test iterations of the tag? EFN tags can't handle equals signs. I could punch a wall right now, if I wasn't on blood thinners, and wouldn't then have to put time and money into repairing it. Thankfully, the HTML standard allows for this insanity, and offers character code tags to insert "equals" without it having any pagecode effect. Maybe there's an actual wikitag for it, but the help pages are incomprehensible.
20:1920:19, 19 August 2019diffhist+36(455502) 2003 UZ413Right, that should be everything short of the actual offending footnote. Will sandbox the rest of it and see if I can work out what the sam hill is going on.
20:1520:15, 19 August 2019diffhist+35(455502) 2003 UZ413This bit of tag tidying being a casualty of said revert. Sod's law probably mandates that this will turn out to be the actual culprit - though I can't see why, as it's a long way from where the error occurred, and I don't recall doing anything that would have caused it (or seeing any evidence when scrubbing through all 70+ REF tags)
20:1120:11, 19 August 2019diffhist+2,551(455502) 2003 UZ413Wrist slapped, reverting page to the state it was before I tried putting that footnote in at all. Reverting everything I did over the preceding hour just because I couldn't get that one stupid tag to work (still don't know why yet) and got a bit annoyed at it seems a bit heavy handed / lazy.
This is thecontributions page for an IP user, identified by the user'sIP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you maycreate an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.Registering also hides your IP address.
