Talk:(225088) 2007 OR10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

[Untitled][edit]

Cool! This one, at least, should get named. kwami (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Who discovered it?[edit]

Was it Mike? Can't find it anywhere. Serendipodous 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Mike, see [1]. Ruslik (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That paper probably should go into Sedna. I'll get going on it tomorrow. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2007 OR10 & Sedna[edit]

Serendipodous, sorry I forgot to log in when I edited the article - it's been a long time since I was last on. The comparison of OR10 to Sedna is original research (the links given are only the plots of the orbits and size estimates, not any external source making the comparison), and not justified on scientific grounds, since the only similarity between the objects is their size and 'Sedna-like' would be just as meaningful as 'Quaoar-like' or 'Varuna-like'. 'Sedna-like' is used in the literature to refer to objects on dynamically detached orbits (high perihelion and large semimajor axis), which OR10 most definitely is not. And now I go away again. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the object was detected as part of a survey to locate Sedna-like objects, though none were found. Serendipodous 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

nickname[edit]

Some astrologer posted a blog claiming OR10 is nicknamed 'Cinderella'. The original posting now appears to be offline, but it's been quoted a couple places, and now added here. Just a head's up—unless that really is its nickname? kwami (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unlike Mike not to have posted something about this by now. He hasn't updated his blog since November. Serendipodous 09:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Here it is: Snow White. Iridia (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Good. Now that Mike's posted it, we can mention the name here without worrying about complications. It would've been nice if he'd actually spelled out that it's 2007 OR10, though. If someone claims that's not a conclusive source, do we have any way of proving it? (Not that it's likely anyone will.) kwami (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
He did, in the comments to that post. Iridia (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It IS currently the 3rd most distant "large body" known to be orbiting the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And if we don't like nicknames, we can just call it Orten. Nice unambiguous name, that, even if it doesn't mean anything. kwami (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's snow white.

173.246.35.182 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really.
Made mention of the "seventh dwarf" meme. Delete if not credible. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we'll finally get a name! (See Mike's blog.) — kwami (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing "Unihipili" as a nickname (now that "Snow White" is no longer thought to be appropriate), but that might just be astrologers. Not notable? — kwami (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole talk section is full of weird made-up names... -- Kheider (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look as though Mike is going to propose a name after all. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt he will propose a name unless he thinks he has a good one that is a proper fit for it. Snow white was a bad nickname given the relatively low albedo. -- Kheider (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

eccentricity[edit]

"0.500" - really, with 3-fig precision? — kwami (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh! JPL has it as 0.5001794, and all other orbital elements with a similarly high precision, but with only a condition code of 3. The three-plus digit precision is also used on the pages of several other larger TNOs though, and it matches the source. Tbayboy (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Color/image[edit]

2007 OR10 should probably be made to be rosy in color. The nickname Snow White was based on the assumption that OR10 would turn out to be an icy-bright member of the Haumea family. OR10 is now estimated to have an albedo of around 0.19. Primary image: EightTNOs.png -- Kheider (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask you if you would do that, but having already asked you to do so many things with that picture, I thought I'd lay off. But, while we're on the subject, Makemake is probably too red in that image; it should probably more resemble this picture. Serendipodous 05:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, there's an article on space.com on the color / compositin of Snow White: http://www.space.com/13332-snow-white-dwarf-planet-water-ice-methane-atmosphere.html 91.64.80.69 (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

10:3?[edit]

Re resonance certainty, JorisvS claims all three types agree (from the source). However, the numbers in the columns differ for some fields (e.g., imax). Also note that there are many Es following the 10:3 at the top, whereas for well secured resonances (e.g., 134340 Pluto) there is only one E after the 3:2. I'm not sure really how to interpret it, but it looks like it's only a weak match to the resonance. Tbayboy (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Skimmed the paper, and it looks like the Es are just e to an exponent spelled out long-hand (because of ascii font), truncated to 6 because that's all the room in the field. Each column tries different measurements to account for 3-sigma errors in the measurements, and each column agrees to the type of orbit. So I think JorisvS is correct. I.e., per DES, the 10:3 resonance is deemed secure. Tbayboy (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

dp status[edit]

I think Tbayboy's (9 January 2012) edit is a good 3rd party compromise given that this has been debated since August 2011. -- Kheider (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of it is OK. However: "Some astronomers think it is most likely a dwarf planet" is not supported by the first two citations; they call it a DP, not likely a DP. Using these as refs for this statement is OR. --JorisvS (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's silly (in general) to list the opinion of every astronomer in their exact words, especially in the lead. The attempt here is to summarise the opinions of those who think there is an extremely high probability of it being a DP (i.e., likely enough that that's it's reasonable to call it one until we finally get a good look at it). Kwami's revision had one as "likely", so I kept that, but I don't object to stronger wording. "some ... consider it a DP" or "some ... classify it as a DP".
I also don't like the "IAU formally recognised" phrase, since it implies that there is such a formal procedure. The uncertainty of this is at the root of this whole disagreement. Maybe "the IAU has called it a DP". Tbayboy (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I share JorisvS' objections, but I agree with your concern about the 'formal' wording being misleading, though the IAU does make formal announcements. Could be "the IAU has not named it a DP" or even just "the IAU has not addressed its status".
I also agree that naming specific people is a bit silly, but I think it's come out of the edit warring. The point is that this is one of only a dozen objects that a RS has called a DP, whereas there are scores if not hundreds that are likely to be DPs. When we have s.o. like Tancredi (published by the IAU) or Brown etc. accepting a body as a DP, I think that should be stated explicitly (if not necessarily by name) in the lead, second only to the IAU accepting it as a DP. — kwami (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
They? Who exactly? Ruslik_Zero 11:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am letting this 15 JAN edit slide for now. The problem with Mike Brown's bot is that it uses an assumed albedo and thus assumed diameter for generating a result for OR10. The bot has no idea of the mass of any of the objects on its list. Any object assumed to be 1400km in diameter is a great dp-candidate. As for the Keck reference, is there a direct quote where Brown specifically calls it a dwarf planet or should I assume the use of "dwarf-planet" is the wording of Marcus Woo? Were we lying or should we tread on generating our own synthesis? -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Woo is a staff writer at Caltech. He is not an astronomer. His words should be treated with caution. Ruslik_Zero 14:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

Kwami, why don't you just tag all of Wikipedia while you are at it? You just refuse to let any editor word something other than YOUR way. The lead should promote the scientific consensus and not burden the average reader. I have allowed my basic version to be replaced by a 3rd party because I am tired of the horse beating. What you should do is create a subsection (at the bottom of the article) called "dwarf planet status" were you can list the name and comment of every astronomer. -- Kheider (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We have continuous POV-pushing across several articles, not helped by one nameless editor (I don't mean you) who doesn't even understand the IAU definition of a DP, and any compromise is just an invitation to further push that POV. I expect that articles, esp. FAs, reflect the sources. When we have significant figures in the field who comment on whether these bodies are DPs, then we should reflect that in the lead. We shouldn't say they "are" DPs unless that is what the lit says. That's all. WP policy is to follow sources, not just to follow them if we agree with them. — kwami (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You lament "any compromise"? That is the part of your editing that concerns me greatly, and why I choose to try going with a neutral 3rd party version from someone that has not been involved in making dozens/hundreds of posts on various dp related articles/talk pages. -- Kheider (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Compromise on matters of opinion is fine, and I have accepted many compromise edits from you. Most of your edits I have no problem with. But compromise on matters of fact is not fine. If we have two sources for the number of moons around Pluto, one saying three and one saying one, shall we compromise and call it two? And then when we get a source saying no, it's really four, compromise again and say three?
When we report what sources say, we should report what they say, and not a compromise between what they say and what someone here wants. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1752km?[edit]

Now that I know Tancredi2009 assumed 2007OR10 was 1752km in diameter, I feel I should publish my own book on the subject. Since this is a reliable source, should we add his size "estimate" to the article? -- Kheider (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not his estimate. You'll notice that he had little confidence in that figure, and wouldn't even evaluate it as a DP ("objects without a lightcurve or any other kind of information to decide whether they can be considered as “dwarf planets” or not"). It's also dated compared to the 2011 paper we currently use. And where did he get that value? We've generally gone with the source of the estimate with other objects. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The number comes from using an assumed albedo of 0.10. That is the only figure I see Tancredi list for OR10. Obviously, Mike Brown's 2011 paper logically thinks dps>~1000km have a higher albedo than 0.10. -- Kheider (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Volatile retention[edit]

In the article there is the statement "2007 OR10 has no known satellite, so its mass is unknown.". But can't the volatile-retention model provide a mass estimate? --JorisvS (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

order of the lead[edit]

It's poor organization to start the DP topic by saying the IAU does not accept OR10 as a DP. This isn't a point we make on other articles. We don't say in the Eros article for example that the IAU does not accept Eros as a DP. The whole reason for saying it at all is that some astronomers do accept OR10 as a DP, or think it's likely to be one. Since that's the point, and the only reason for mentioning the IAU in the lead, it should go first. The "but" logically comes after the thing it contradicts, and so goes second. The reader might wonder why the IAU hasn't signed up, so we then mention how poorly we know this body (though we don't know that's actually the reason, it is an important point to convey). — kwami (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's too tortured: we don't need to enumerate all the phrases in the lead, just summarise and leave the particulars to the body. Also, "some astronomers believe" makes it sound controversial. I try a more summarised lead, leaving the detail to the body. Also put the poorly know mass+size first, since that leads to the categorisation. Tbayboy (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It's tortured because we can't treat DPs as a scientific topic and simply present RS's. However, it's more than just "likely"; it's one of a handful which are DPs according to some of our sources. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Tortured prose again[edit]

In the section on DP status, we of course start with those claiming OR10 is a DP. Contradictory claims are fine (although there actually aren't any, AFAIK), but twisting the prose to say the IAU hasn't adopted the classification is no way to introduce a section. The point of the section is not that the IAU hasn't adopted this, but that Brown and others claim it. Basic English composition principles. To start off stating that the IAU hasn't adopted this, we'd need to present OR10 as a DP in the rest of the article, and then have a section on "Doubts as to DP status" or the like. — kwami (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I've rolled back to before your initial changes until this is resolved. You cannot seriously expect to claim that the IAU's position does not warrant inclusion here. --Ckatzchatspy 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course I don't claim that. I never have. What I object to is your insistence on twisting the prose of our articles to better fit your POV. The section is not about the IAU not adopting OR10 as a DP, it's about claims that OR10 is a DP. That, being the topic of the section, is what we should lead off with. You should have had this in high school. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Your latest edit is even worse. Now we go on and on explaining the reasons there may be doubts about the claim that OR10 is a DP, before even getting to where we note that there are claims that it is a DP. Utterly ridiculous.
(And I see you're back to playing games with POINTy edits. The edit is not disputed by anyone but you, and that was only about inserting the comment on the IAU. There's no dispute about the improvements I made.) — kwami (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, all I've done is roll it back to the version prior to your changes today, for that section only, until we can resolve your refusal to include the IAU position. As for "POV", It's your POV (and your blocks for aggressively pushing said POV, and your insulting behaviour when anyone calls you on it) that is the real issue. As for this article, any discussion of dwarf planet status would by its very nature require a statement of the governing body's position. --Ckatzchatspy 05:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I have never refused to include the IAU position. You know that full well.
I have restored your edit, reordering per normal English composition conventions. Is that acceptable? — kwami (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This could have been avoided if you'd simply done that to begin with, instead of deleting it while making spurious claims about "POV" and "tortured prose". It would also help if you refrained from changing and expanding your comments after someone has already replied to them. --Ckatzchatspy 05:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I should have done that to begin with. I am so used to your past automatic reverts of my edits that I didn't give you the consideration I should have. You were editing in good faith, so I owe you an apology.
(The exansions to my edits were due to edit conflicts with your replies.)
If I get into a conflict like this with you again, I will try to remember this, and to give honest negotiation a better chance. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)