Talk:120347 Salacia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 120347 Salacia is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Start-class, Low-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So-called spheroid inside Haumea family[edit]

Revision as of 21:09, 29 April 2013 (edit) (undo) Roentgenium111 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 551919929 by ONaNcle (talk)(IAU explicitly classified Haumea to be a dwarf planet; it's not "potato-shaped" but a triaxial ellipsoid in hydrostatic equilibrium))
Ok Roentgen, I give you the last word inside Main but I prefer to let future contributors know about our controversy: you keep on thinking the balls used in soccer and football are both spheroid and myself I disagree with you. ONaNcle (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Haumea is a scalene ellipsoid. No one seriously disputes that. Potatoes are irregular, not ellipsoids. --JorisvS (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok about no disputes with you too ;-))) and, as soon as I've said earlier that I'll involve myself in no edit war about this funny legend, you can try by yourself to see if a specialist reacts if you edit and replace ellipsoid by spheroid over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONaNcle (talkcontribs) 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean to say exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Did the 2006 IAU vote apply to Haumea-like objects ?[edit]

The relevent criterium to being a dwarf planet is being in hydrostatic equilibrium (HE), not whether or not it's a spheroid. Haumea is not a spheroid, and nobody claimed it was, but it is in hydrostatic equilibrium. Tbayboy (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Such as said above, ellipsoid objects are different from pure spheroid ones and I keep on believing Haumea doesn't show a nearly spherical shape ONaNcle (talk)
That's what everybody else believes, too. What of it? The actual criterium from the link you provided is "(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape"; nothing about spherical. "Spherical" was only used in the Q&A, to try to describe the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium to casual readers, not in the actual definition/resolution. Tbayboy (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
When you say about Haumea it looks nearly round it means imho something quite different from the actual shape of Haumea... Too bad... I'll die idiot... Never knowing how Haumea became a planet while Haumea was not on those dwarf planets initial list... ONaNcle (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The definition is HE. "Nearly round" is an attempt to avoid jargon. The only problem is that Iapetus, at 1,470 km, turns out not to be in HE after all, though it's quite nicely ellipsoidal, so we can't be sure Haumea and Makemake are really DPs. It's not a practicable definition. — kwami (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Recent & different answers can be read here : Talk:Iapetus_(moon)#2001 ONaNcle (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's the same answer there. Just any old round is not sufficient; it must be correctly round. E.g., Haumea's roundedness is correct for Haumea, but not for Ceres, because of different spins. Tbayboy (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Failed attempt to save Pluto[edit]

The category of DP is a historical accident, born of a failed attempt to save Pluto's planethood. Since we can't tell which objects are DPs, it would be more professional to just call all the big ones "planetoids". — kwami (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research is forbidden on this wiki but some of you may fill or even translate this entry : Jacques Ovion aka ONaNcle (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The word planetoid already exists and conveys a more general meaning including many different Solar objects. Derived from the latin word orbis (meaning circle) plutinorb could be used imho as a better specific term excluding ipso facto the too eccentric Haumea. ONaNcle (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as Haumea is known, it can be well approximated by a scalene ellipsoid. It can therefore be said to be "round". --JorisvS (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, "round" is being used in the sense of "continuously convex", not just "ball-shaped". Tbayboy (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 120347 Salacia. 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:

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This link is not dead. The URL redirects to . I've updated the use of this URL in the article. —RP88 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)