Talk:Hiʻiaka (moon)

Article name
Is the name Hi'iaka or Hiʻiaka? The article title gives one form, the text uses the other. Icalanise (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's Hiʻiaka. Wikipedia permits special characters in articles, but encourages ASCII in article titles, so that articles can be saved to hard drives without causing issues (and so they show up right in menu bars, and so on). —Werson (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, is there a citation for that? The list of IAU circulars lists the one that the name is specified in, but unfortunately they are hidden behind a subscription requirement so I can't check it. The press release uses a normal apostrophe. Icalanise (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore the name on Mike Brown's website does not use the okina but a normal apostrophe. Icalanise (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if the IAU used the okina - don't they generally stick with low-bit ASCII? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very unlikely that the IAU will ever use the ʻokina for this name. So a case could be made for using the ASCII character, and I wouldn't object if that's what people decided. But I still think we should use the ʻokina. For example, if there was a name with an apostrophe, we wouldn't consider whether they used a curly or straight apostrophe; we would just use whichever our Manual of Style encouraged. I think that applies in this case as well. No information is lost by using the ʻokina; information is lost by decomposing it to a simpler character. —Werson (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The press release also uses the normal apostrophe for Hawai'i. Presumably, if we're going to use the okina for one, we should use it for the other. kwami (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, it seems the use with the okina is restricted to the Wikipedia (when talking about the dwarf planet moon). I'd say go with what everyone else is using, and use an apostrophe. On a related subject, I have started a proposal about diacritics and other non-ASCII characters in minor planet names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)/Archive 1. Icalanise (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Icalanise, take another look at IAU press release. It is a ʻ. Bendono (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did take another look. Your comment was not helpful because I was using the web version, but fortunately I decided to have a look at the other formats. I see that in the PDF version they've used the ʻokina, but not in the web version. How stupid of me to assume that the IAU might use the correct orthography on their own website. Icalanise (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the web version. Again, please double check it: it is is ʻ. Although I have since checked both the text and word files. All are quite clearly ʻ. Bendono (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that's odd. I definitely checked the web version when I first posted and it was apostrophe. They are now using the okina in both Hiʻiaka and Hawaiʻi, which was not the case before. Icalanise (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if they're watching their Wikipedia coverage and catching up with us :) DenisMoskowitz (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi'iaka's diameter and density
I am not sure what this should mean for the article, but my calculations have revealed that the 195 km figure given for Hi'iaka's diameter results in an object with a density well below 1 (about .58 g/cm^3 specifically), which would be a bit strange for an object that large. Using the 350 km figure still results in a density below 1 (about .81 in this case). Would it be worth mentioning this in the article?
 * The cited value was taken from an article that has taken it from another article, but the latter says ~160 km, so I don't know how they got to 195 km. I've changed that. Using that radius, and the mass estimate nicely gives a density of around ~1 g/cm3. Even if it wouldn't, it would be original research to make such a note, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:OR). It could simply have been an error in the mass estimate (something like this actually happened, which also shows why it would be wrong to make such a note: there was an error in the radius; when it was fixed, there was nothing left to note). In all, thank you very much for noting the discrepancy; thanks to it we have found an error. --JorisvS (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh...OK. Thankx.