Talk:List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Translation

this is a translation of de:Planet (tabelle)

2003 UB313

It is doubtful that this object will be named a planet. Instead, it is far likelier that what should have been done earlier, namely removing Pluto from the list of planets will occur. In any case, until the IAU decides that we have either added or lost a planet, this table should remain unchanged because of this discovery. Caerwine 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So why has Pluto already been removed? As of current, it's considered a planet. - Reed Braden 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I can't seem to find any news of this in national newspapers, NASA.gov, IAU.org, etc. Shouldn't news of this magnitude be swarming all over the press? I thought the IAU meeting to redefine a planet and add/remove planets was today... this should be bigger than people are giving it credit for. Also, Ceres and Charon are on the list of planets under consideration. There were 12 others I'd never heard of before that were original candidates, but I guess they were too far to count as Solar System planets. This is deeply confusing. Why does nobody care? - Reed Braden 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A new planet

I heard there was a new planet that was discovered sometime ago. Nicknamed Xema it's about 10 billion miles away from the sun...anything on that?

It's nicknamed Xena. It has a moon, Gabrielle. These are just nicknames, however. The planet is 2003ub313. I heard there was an Internation Astronomy Union meeting today to discuss adding this to the canon of Solar sytem planets along with the "moon" of Pluto, Charon, and Ceres, another planet revolving around our system. Also, Pluto is - by definition - a planet. Why is it not in this table? Did someone remove it? Who gave them consent to remove this planet? - Reed Braden 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAU, apparently. They passed an amended resolution today. No new planets, and Pluto is officially demoted to dwarf planet. -- Shadowlynk 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ceres and Xena

If Pluto remains on this table, we should add Ceres and Xena, otherwise we should remove Pluto 132.205.93.19 02:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Ceres to the list, also listed as a dwarf planet. I have now also added 2003UB313 to the list (some boxes are left blankas the data is not availabe), I think the update tag can be removed now, does anyone disagree?

Keep It!(?)

For pedagogical purposes, I think that the distinct planets and dwarf planets would preferrably coexist peacefully (in the same table). I also think that the table should make the distinction clear, and that the title then should be Table of planets and dwarf planets in the solar system.

Just a reflection...

Said ... tomas.kindahl@comhem.se at CET09:49:45 25 aug -06.

I've restored the dwarf planet information. While I understand Seinfreak37's argument about the title, I still think that the information is much more useful when it is in one, easy-to-compare location - as opposed to being spread across two articles. I'm also proposing to move this article to Table of planets and dwarf planets in the solar system in a few days, if there is no objection. --Ckatzchatspy 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. —Nightstallion (?) 09:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of Dwarf Planets

As the dwarf planets have been removed from this table, I there own article here. Should these 2 articles link to each other? User:Jebus0 8:35pm 26 August 2006 (EDT)


Sea Level?

Is it meaningful to talk about sea level for other bodies without seas? Would people object to replacing it with the term datum? --86.133.69.11 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous suggestion. Datum is more appropriate than sea level.

Smaller font-size...?

This is a wide table; anyone else think a smaller font-size (90%) plus maybe some blankspace reduction acceptable...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting into two tables

Recently, the table was split into two parts - planets and dwarf planets. While I respect UKPhoenix79's efforts, I have restored the combined version for one simple reason: it is much easier to compare data between all of the objects. If (and when) there are more dwarf planets, then it might be appropriate to consider splitting the list. However, for now, I think it is best as one unit. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch I spent a long time doing that :-( I would disagree for the simple reason that the table as it stands right now is too large and is quite cumbersome. It is a given that the list of dwarf planets will increase but that is not the reason for this edit, by separating them out it still allows for easy comparisons without the table being too large.
I have included the tables below so that they can be seen (and saved) or you can go to the original version in the pages history here.
--UKPhoenix79 09:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm quickly reverting it back to the previous version to see if there is any other disagreement with the new format aside from Ckatz (hope you don't mind). This way we can at least bring others into the discussion. So if you could Ckatz please keep it this way for the moment so we can see if others disagree with this version :-) thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eris

could we just fill in some of the boxes by using formulas to calculate the various values (such as density) ? 132.205.44.5 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Orbital period of the Earth

Orbital period of the Earth is shown as 1.0000174 years, however my dictionary, Australian Concise Oxford, defines a year as "the time occupied by the Earth in one revolution round the sun." I assume that is the generally accepted definition of a year so it follows that, irrespective of the frame of reference, by definition the orbital period of the Earth is one year exactly. John L Ryan 13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out Sidereal year versus tropical year - I agree, it probably could use a minor rejig to clarify where the number comes from. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclination of Earth

It makes no sense that the inclination of the Earth is non-zero. After all, the ecliptic defines the inclination of other planets. Where is this value of 0.00005 from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.122 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

References

It is not proper to reference Wikipedia articles, is it? Jecowa (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Attributes of the largest solar system bodies

There doesn't seem to be any need for two sets of tables on the objects in our Solar System, and this one seems far more detailed and better organised than the one above. I think merging the info on the ten largest minor planets (excluding dwarf planets) and the ten largest moons would be a good idea. Serendipodous 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is better to add the 7 largest moons into this article (as a separate table) and delete Attributes of the largest solar system bodies article. Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree, we should keep this article and make a separate table for the moons. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just performed a very crude merge. It will be a while before I get the hang of the layout. I replaced the four dwarf planets with the largest SSSBs. And I would also suggest moving the page to Table of the largest objects in the Solar System. Serendipodous 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of planetary bodies

If we could get pictures into this article, there wouldn't be much need for that one. Serendipodous 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The other article has, at least in theory, a definite criterion for inclusion. This one seems to be quite arbitrary. Peter jackson (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is that criterion? I can't see one. If it's roundness, then they're about 40 objects short.Serendipodous 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The criterion is roundness, in principle, but it's applied inconsistently, I think. Dwarf planets are listed on the basis of official IAU recognition, which I imagine doesn't exist for satellites. I think there should be a section for uncertain objects. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Serendipodous What you did is a pure nonsence. Please refrain from such destructive edits. If you want to delete article, use AFD procedure.--Dojarca (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it was "pure nonsence", and AFD is not for discussing redirects. Ruslik (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Legend is inaccessible

An exclusively colour-based legend, such as those used here, is of no use to someone who is colour-blind; using a monochrome monitor; viewing a monochrome print-put; or using a non-visual device such as a text reader or Braille device. Please consider the additional use of text labels or characters such as daggers (†) or card-suits (♠♣♥♦). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be ten different symbols. Are there ten different symbols? Serendipodous 08:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes; not least this set: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be too easily confused with refs and exponents.Serendipodous 10:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest the use of an alternative set of symbols, or, as suggested above, text labels. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This was your idea. Please come up with some alternatives. You obviously have a far better idea of what symbols exist and where to find them than I do, so if you could just find five more, that would be appreciated. Serendipodous 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As listed below the text-box where you edit this page:
Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶ # ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ∞ ‘ “ ’ ” «» ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ m² m³
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
There. Serendipodous 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

awkward title

change the object to atronomical bodies or simply bodies. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That title would include every speck of dust in the Solar System. This list is limited strictly to those objects that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. I know "spherical" isn't entirely accurate, but "List of hydrostatically equilibirial objects in the Solar System" would be even more awkward. Serendipodous 05:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant "List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System". Also, why isn't Vesta here? Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll do the move. As for Vesta, it doesn't even make the top 30 SSSBs. Serendipodous 08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
How about "List of large spherical bodies in the Solar System"? "Astronomical" seems redundant when talking about the solar system. The article can say that large in this context means large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium.--agr (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
To avoid me doing a "Duck Season-no-rabbit-season-no-duck-season" on the redirects, I think it might be best if we have a vote on this. Serendipodous 10:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What next?

There are two main considerations I have for this article's future. First, we need to decide whether to have the attributes listed along the side, as now, or along the top, as suggested during the AfD. Along the top would allow the list to be made sortable, as well as allow the moons to be combined into a single table. However, it might make the article too wide. The second issue is referencing. I do not really understand the standards used to determine a well-referenced list, but if this list were given the full treatment of a regular article, then between 200 and 400 refs would be required. Also, many of the infoboxes from which this information was taken appear to have no references for much of their information, so that will have to be tracked down. Serendipodous 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged from List of planetary bodies

I've merged information from List of planetary bodies which has been suggested to merge into this article, since some people agreed that horizontal layout better represents the structure of Solar System and better for search. I think no harn is to add another table in this article which also contains a number of tables. --Dojarca (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If this article is to be shifted to a horizontal layout, then it will be done with the tables already here, not from adding a table that merely repeats information already in the article. In the long run, if this article is listed horizontally, it may become sortable, which means that it probably could be merged with List of Solar System objects by mass, List of Solar System objects by radius and List of Solar System objects by surface gravity, but such a merge will take weeks, if not months, to complete. This is not and was never intended to be the end of this project. Serendipodous 09:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Ling.Nut has done a prototype of a horizontally aligned table. It is simply too wide to be practical. I think it's best if we leave it as is. Serendipodous 09:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I got the table entries transposed in case anybody needs them. The too wide part: at the dwarf planet page I found it useful to split orbital and physical characteristics. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

test

this is the very raw data from transposing the tables that are now in the page. These tables should be easily sortable. Some work is still required due to some small glitches in the entries. I hope it helps. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

' ' Astronomical symbol Mean distance from Galactic center Mean radius ' Surface area ' Volume ' Mass ' Density Equatorial gravity Escape velocity Rotation period Orbital period about Galactic center Mean orbital speed Axial tilt[4] to the ecliptic Axial tilt[4] to the galactic plane Mean surface temp. Mean coronal temp. Photospheric composition
km light years km :E[2] km² :E[2] km3 :E[2] kg :E[2] g/cm3 m/s2 km/s days[3] years km/s deg. deg. K K
Sun ~2.5×1017 ~26,000 696,000 109 6.0877×1018 11,990 1.4122×1027 1,300,000 1.9891×1030 332,946 1.141 274 617.7 25.38 2.25–2.50×108 ~2.20×105 7.25 67.23 5,778 ~5×106 H, He, O, C, Fe, S


' ' Astronomical symbol Mean distance from Sun Mean radius ' Surface area ' Volume ' Mass ' Density Equatorial gravity Escape velocity Rotation period Orbital period Mean orbital speed Eccentricity Inclination Axial tilt[4] Mean surface temp. Mean air temp.[7] Atmospheric composition Number of known moons Rings? Planetary discriminant[8]
km AU km :E[2] km² :E[2] km3 :E[2] kg :E[2] g/cm3 m/s2 km/s days[3] years[3] km/s deg. deg. K K
¿ Mercury 57,909,175 0.38709893 2,439.64 0.3825 75,000,000 0.1471 6.083×1010 0.056 3.302×1023 0.055 5.43 3.7 4.25 58.646225 0.2408467 47.8725 0.20563069 7.00487 0 440 He Na+ P+ 0 No 9.1×104
¿ Venus 108,208,930 0.72333199 6,051.59 0.9488 460,000,000 0.901 9.28×1011 0.87 4.8690×1024 0.815 5.24 8.87 10.36 -243.0187[5] 0.61519726 35.0214 0.00677323 3.39471 177.3 730 CO2 N2 0 No 1.35×106
¿ Earth 149,597,870 1 6,378.15 1 510,000,000 1 1.083×1012 1 5.9742×1024 1 5.515 9.81 11.18 0.99726968 1.0000174 29.7859 0.01671022 0.00005 23.45 288-293 288 N2 O2 1 No 1.7×106
¿ Mars 227,936,640 1.52366231 3,397.00 0.53226 140,000,000 0.2745 1.6318×1011 0.151 6.4191×1023 0.107 3.94 3.71 5.02 1.02595675 1.8808476 24.1309 0.09341233 1.85061 25.19 186-268 CO2 N2 Ar 2 No 1.8×105
†Jupiter 778,412,010 5.20336301 71,492.68 11.209 64,000,000,000 125.5 1.431×1015 1,321.30 1.8987×1027 318 1.33 23.12 59.54 0.41354 11.862615 13.0697 0.04839266 1.3053 3.12 152 165 H2 He 63 Yes 6.25×105
†Saturn 1,426,725,400 9.53707032 60,267.14 9.449 44,000,000,000 86.27 8.27×1014 763.59 5.6851×1026 95 0.7 8.96 35.49 0.44401 29.447498 9.6724 0.0541506 2.48446 26.73 134 [6] 135 H2 He 60 Yes 1.9×105
†Uranus 2,870,972,200 19.19126393 25,557.25 4.007 8,100,000,000 15.88 6.834×1013 63.086 8.6849×1025 14 1.3 8.69 21.29 -0.71833[5] 84.016846 6.8352 0.04716771 0.76986 97.86 76 [6] 76 H2 He CH4 27 Yes 2.9×104
†Neptune 4,498,252,900 30.06896348 24,766.36 3.883 7,700,000,000 15.1 6.254×1013 57.74 1.0244×1026 17 1.76 11 23.71 0.67125 164.79132 5.4778 0.00858587 1.76917 29.58 72 [6] 73 H2 He CH4 13 Yes 2.4×104
' ' Astronomical symbol Mean distance from primary: Mean radius ' Surface area ' Volume ' Mass ' Density Equatorial gravity Escape velocity Rotation period ' Orbital period about primary Mean orbital speed Eccentricity Inclination to primary\'s equator Axial tilt to orbital plane Mean surface temp. Atmospheric composition Rings?
km km :E[2] km² :E[2] km3 :E[2] kg :E[2] g/cm3 m/s2 km/s days[3] days km/s deg. deg. K
€ Moon 384,399 1,737.10 0.273 37,930,000 0.074 2.2×1010 0.02 7.3477×1022 0.0123 3.3464 1.622 2.38 27.321582 (sync)[11] 27.32158 1.022 0.0549 18.29–28.58 6.687 220 H He Na+ K+ Ar No
₤ Io 421,700 1,821.30 0.286 41,910,000 0.082 2.53×1010 0.02 8.9319×1022 0.015 3.528 1.796 2.56 1.7691378 (sync) 1.769138 17.334 0.0041 0.05 0 130 SO2 No
₤ Europa 670,900 1,569 0.245 30,900,000 0.061 1.59×1010 0.07 4.80×1022 0.008 3.01 1.314 2.025 3.551181 (sync) 3.551181 13.74 0.009 0.47 0.1 102 O2 No
₤ Ganymede 1,070,400 2634.1 0.413 87,000,000 0.143 7.6×1010 0.15 1.4819×1023 0.025 1.936 1.428 2.741 7.154553 (sync) 7.154553 10.88 0.0013 1.85 0–0.33 110 O2 No
₤ Callisto 1,882,700 2410.3 0.378 73,000,000 0.143 5.9×1010 0.05 1.0758×1023 0.018 1.83 1.235 2.44 16.68902 (sync) 16.68902 8.204 0.0074 0.2 0 134 O2 CO2 No
$ Mimas 185,520 198.3 0.031 490,000 0.0001[10] 3.3×107 0.00003 3.75×1019 0.000006 1.15 0.0636 0.159 0.942422 (sync) 0.942422 14.32[12] 0.0202 1.51 0 64 No
$ Enceladus 237,948 252.1 0.04 799,000 0.0016[10] 6.7×107 0.00006 1.08×1020 0.000018 1.61 0.111 0.239 1.370218 (sync) 1.370218 12.63[12] 0.0047 0.02 0 75 H2O, N2, CO2, CH4 No
$ Tethys 294,619 533 0.083 4,940,000 0.001[10] 6.3×108 0.0006 1.0244×1020 0.000017 1.15 0.064 0.159 0.942422 (sync) 1.887 802 11.35[12] 0.02 1.51 0 64 No
$ Dione 377,396 561.7 0.088 3,965,000 0.0078[10] 7.4×108 0.0007 1.095×1021 0.0003 1.48 0.231 0.51 2.736915 (sync) 2.736915 10.03[12] 0.002 0.019 0 87 No
$ Rhea 527,108 764.3 0.12 7,337,000 0.0144[10] 1.9 ×109 0.0017 2.306×1021 0.0004 1.23 0.264 0.635 4.518212 (sync) 4.518212 8.48[12] 0.001 0.345 0 76 Yes
$ Titan 1,221,870 2,576 0.404 83,000,000 0.163 7.16×1010 0.066 1.3452×1023 0.023 1.88 1.35 2.64 15.945 (sync) 15.945 5.57[12] 0.0288 18.29–28.58 0 93.7 N2, CH4
$ Iapetus 3,560,820 735.6 0.115 6,700,000 0.013 1.67×109 0.0015 1.8053×1021 0.0003 1.08 0.22 0.57 79.322 (sync) 79.322 3.265[12] 0.0286 0.34854 0 130
₩ Miranda 129,390 235.8 0.037 700,000 0.0014 5.5×107 0.00005 6.59×1019 0.00001 1.2 0.08 0.19 1.414 (sync) 1.4135 6.657[12] 0.0013 15.47 0 59
₩ Ariel 190,900 578.9 0.091 4,211,300 0.008 8.1×108 0.0008 1.35×1021 0.00022 1.67 0.27 0.56 2.52 (sync) 2.52 5.50898[12] 0.0012 4.2 0? 58
₩ Umbriel 266,000 584.7 0.092 4,296,000 0.008 8.4×108 0.0008 1.2×1021 0.0002 1.4 0.23 0.52 4.144 (sync) 4.144 4.66797[12] 0.005[15] 0.26 0 61
₩ Titania 436,300 788.9 0.124 7,820,000 0.015 2.06×109 0.0019 3.5×1021 0.0006 1.72 0.39 0.77 8.706 (sync) 8.706 3.644[12] 0.0011 0.36[15] 0 60
₩ Oberon 583,519 761.4 0.119 7,285,000 0.014 1.85×109 0.0017 3.014×1021 0.00046 1.63 0.35 0.73 13.46 (sync) 13.46 3.152[12] 0.0014 0.34 0? 61
₫ Proteus 117,647 210 0.033 554,000 0.001[13] 3.4×107 0.00003 8×1017 0.0000001? 0.02? 0.06 0.16 1.122 (sync) 1.122 7.623[12] 0.0005 0.52 0 51
₫ Triton 354,759 1353.4 0.212 23,018,000 0.045 1×1010 0.00958 2.14×1022 0.00358 2.061 0.78 1.46 5.877 (sync) 5.877 (retro)[14] 4.39[12] 0.00002 157 0 38 N2, CH4
¶ Charon 17,536 603.5 0.095 4,580,000 0.009 9.2×108 0.00085 1.52×1021 0.00025 1.65 0.28 0.58 6.387 (sync) 6.387 0.2[12] 0.0022 0? 53


' ' Semi-major axis ' ' ' ' ' Mean radius ' Surface area ' Volume ' Mass ' Density Equatorial gravity Escape velocity Rotation period Orbital period Mean orbital speed Eccentricity Inclination Mean surface temp. Number of known moons Planetary discriminant[8]
km AU km :E[2] km² :E[2] km3 :E[2] kg :E[2] g/cm3 m/s2 km/s days[3] years[3] km/s deg. K
♠90482 Orcus 5,896,946,000 39.419 473 0.0742 2,812,000 0.0055 443,506,000 0.0004 6.2×1020 0.0001 1.5 0.2 ~0.44 0.55 247.492 4.68 0.22552 0.22552 ~45 1 0.003
♠28978 Ixion 5,935,999,000 39.68 411 0.0644 2,122,000 0.00415 290,689,000 0.0002 6×1020 0.0001 2 0.23 <0.4346?  ? 249.95 4.66 0.242 19.584 ~44  ? 0.003
♠(55637) 2002 UX25 6,212,804,940 41.53 ~325 0.051 1,327,000 0.0026 143,793,000 0.0001 8×1020 0.00013 2 0.25 0.4811 0.6–0.7 277.31 4.54 0.142 19.482 ~43 1 0.003
♠2002 MS4 6,268,156,200 41.9 ~363 0.057 1,655,900 0.0032 200,358,829 0.0001 ~1.3×1020 0.00001 2 0.12–0.33 0.22–0.63  ? 271.48 4.58 0.139 17.667 ~43  ? 0.003
♠(145452) 2005 RN43 6,362,402,940 42.53 ~365 0.057 1,674,000 0.0033 203,689,000 0.0001  ?  ?  ?  ?  ? 267.6 4.63 0.023 19.3  ? 0.003
♠20000 Varuna 6,451,398,000 43.13 294 0.0462 1,091,000 0.00214 107,217,000 0.0001 2.65×1020 0.00004 2 0.39 0.39 0.13216 283.2 4.53 0.051 17.2 ~43–41  ? 0.0013
♠(55636) 2002 TX300 6,453,572,000 43.14 437 0.0685 2,399,000 0.00469 349,420,000 0.0003 5.9×1020 0.0001 1 0.15–0.20 0.28–0.37? 0.33 or 0.66 283.35 4.52 0.124 25.856 <41  ? 0.003
♠50000 Quaoar 6,493,296,000 43.6 625 0.098 4,906,000 0.0096 1,022,217,000 0.0009 2×1021 0.0003 2.6–3.3 0.28–0.38 0.276-0.376  ? 287.97 4.52 0.0384 7.988 ~43 1 0.01
♠(55565) 2002 AW197 7,073,647,000 47.28 350 0.055 1,359,000 0.003 179,518,000 0.0001 5.2×1020 0.00009 2 0.22 0.2216?  ? 325.15 4.31 0.132 24.41 ~39–40  ? 0.003
♠90377 Sedna 78,668,000,000 525.86 745 0.0117 6,971,000 0.0136 1,731,298,000 0.0016 3 ×1021 5 2 0.33–0.50 0.62-0.95 0.42 12,059.06 1.04 0.855 11.934 <33  ?  ?

move

I moved the article from 'spherical bodies', since they're not spherical, and removed Proteus from the table, since someone scanning the list would likely conclude that it's in equilibrium too. kwami (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred a vote, because everyone and his brother seems to have some idea of what to call this page. Proteus is an illustration of why nature can't be easily categorised. If Mimas is on the list, then Proteus, which is larger, should also be on the list. Serendipodous 07:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I had originally just added a move suggestion, but then went ahead and moved it, because the old title was clearly wrong, and I didn't foresee any controversy. (We could call them 'ellipsoidal bodies', I guess, but then the question is why? Equilibrium feeds into the DP def., whereas ellipsoidal appears arbitrary except through its connection to equilibrium.) As for Proteus, I disagree. This isn't a list of bodies over a certain size, but of bodies that fit a certain physical description, and Proteus doesn't fit. It is of course important to mention Proteus in the text... Unless we want this to be a 'list of bodies larger than Mimas'. kwami (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're being a bit pedantic; obviously "spherical" does not mean spherical, because true spheres don't exist. When someone uses the term "spherical" it means "as close to a sphere as is reasonably expected." I don't think anyone looking at those moons would describe them as "ellipsoid". Serendipodous 08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't as close as can be reasonably expected. It's not just that there are ridges and craters, but that the ideal hydrostatic shape itself is not spherical or even spheroidal. I don't think that we should give three significantly different diameters for a scalene body and then say it's a "sphere". (You say 'obviously "spherical" does not mean spherical', but I expect many of our readers would be surprised by that.) Your term "round" is fine, though, because it's vague. kwami (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

# of known moons

should be "0" not "?" since the number is actually zero. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a difference between having no moons and having no known moons. Venus and Mercury have no moons, so they get 0. However, others have no KNOWN moons, so they should get some other signifier, otherwise people might think they have no moons. Serendipodous 12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What remains

This article is almost finished, but three issues remain.

  • The axial tilts of the natural satellites need to be verified.
  • Nergaal's calculation for the surface area of Haumea needs to be certified and worked out
Weirdly, when I used another formula in the web I got about 4.9 mil sqkm instead of 6.8. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The surface temperatures of the dwarf planets and satellites need to be checked (Eris and Makemake are unlikely to have exactly the same surface temp., and Haumea really could use a better temperature estimate than the one it has)

Unfortunately, I am not qualified to do any of those things, so I will have to rely on the generosity of others to complete this article. So, in advance, may I thank you all for your kind assistance. Serendipodous 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Temperatures of Eris and Makemake are differently defined. For Makemake it is the current temperature at the distance 52 AU from the Sun. For the Eris it is the average temperature (at the distance equal to the semi-major axis—67 AU). Also Eris reflects more light than Makemake. So, I think, it is reasonable to specify the intervals of min-max temperature. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the note labels need to be fixed. In the bottom section there are 3 a's for example. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The notes are OK in the edit window, but because they are divided into three sections they repeat themselves on the page. Serendipodous 20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
There IS an easy way to solve this: now you used notes label of the type {{Ref_label|F|'''f'''|none}}. The uncapitalized f is what appears in the text. So if you replace it with say asad, in the text it will appear as "asad". Nergaal (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not the lower case letter that affects what is seen on the screen. If I got rid of all of the note subeadings and simply made the notes a single list instead of a group of lists, then the notes would correspond letter to letter (though they wouldn't be in alphabetical order). The reason the text repeats letters is because the note bot sees each subheading as a new list. I have to say I really don't see what the problem is. I like the subheadings, and each ref goes to the correct note; it doesn't really matter how they're lettered. Serendipodous 14:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This might help determining the moons' axial tilts if I could decipher it. Serendipodous 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclination of the orbit of the Earth

It is unclear to me why the inclination of the orbit of the Earth is not exactly zero. Bo Jacoby (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Well, the citation says zero, I suppose it should say sero. Serendipodous 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)