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

Translation
this is a translation of 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. --Ckatz chat spy  19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 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? --Ckatz chat spy  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? --Ckatz chat spy  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)

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.  Serendi pod ous  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.  Serendi pod ous  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.  Serendi pod ous  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. Serendi pod ous  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)


 *  Serendi pod ous  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?  Serendi pod ous  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. Serendi pod ous  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.  Serendi pod ous  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.  Serendi pod ous  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.  Serendi pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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)

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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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".  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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&mdash;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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There IS an easy way to solve this: now you used notes label of the type . 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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This might help determining the moons' axial tilts if I could decipher it.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  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.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)