![]() | Moons of Haumea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Hiʻiaka (moon) page were merged into Moons of Haumea. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (13 January 2017) |
![]() | The contents of the Namaka (moon) page were merged into Moons of Haumea. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (13 January 2017) |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments regarding the article. — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
— Mattisse ( Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
— Mattisse ( Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
Good job. Congratulations!
— Mattisse ( Talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Found Namaka 6 hrs later than it is supposed to be. But it is transiting across the face of Haumea. Also found Namaka a 2nd night. Also 6 hrs late. -- (2010 Aug 19 Mike Brown and Emily Schaller at Nordic Optical Telescope in the Canary Islands) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheider ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
The category hierarchy is:
The problem is that Moons of Haumea were discovered in 2005, not 2004. What's the standard procedure for fixing something like this, if it's worth fixing? I'll post this at WP:ASTRO in a few days, if no response here. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moons of Haumea. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7BDC1A2D7A-1E8E-4C58-A2AB-F0FA8673515C%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08600/08636.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
In different places in the article, Hi'aka is stated as having either a 310km, 320km, or 350km diameter (or 160km radius), and I don't see much that implies any of those figures being more reliable than the others; indeed few if any are even cited, so where did they come from? It is after all a nearly 13% (so, more than 1/8th) variation from smallest to largest, which is fairly significant, and which one you end up thinking it is could depend entirely on what bit of the article you randomly skim. Which of them should we standardise on, if indeed we shouldn't instead go with "330km +/- 20km"? Note that this would also seem to affect the size of Namaka given that most of its stated dimensions are simply derived from an educated guess that it's "about 1/10th the mass" of Hi'aka and about the same density... 51.7.16.171 ( talk) 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Moons of Haumea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Hiʻiaka (moon) page were merged into Moons of Haumea. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (13 January 2017) |
![]() | The contents of the Namaka (moon) page were merged into Moons of Haumea. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (13 January 2017) |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments regarding the article. — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
— Mattisse ( Talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
— Mattisse ( Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
Good job. Congratulations!
— Mattisse ( Talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Found Namaka 6 hrs later than it is supposed to be. But it is transiting across the face of Haumea. Also found Namaka a 2nd night. Also 6 hrs late. -- (2010 Aug 19 Mike Brown and Emily Schaller at Nordic Optical Telescope in the Canary Islands) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheider ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
The category hierarchy is:
The problem is that Moons of Haumea were discovered in 2005, not 2004. What's the standard procedure for fixing something like this, if it's worth fixing? I'll post this at WP:ASTRO in a few days, if no response here. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moons of Haumea. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7BDC1A2D7A-1E8E-4C58-A2AB-F0FA8673515C%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08600/08636.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
In different places in the article, Hi'aka is stated as having either a 310km, 320km, or 350km diameter (or 160km radius), and I don't see much that implies any of those figures being more reliable than the others; indeed few if any are even cited, so where did they come from? It is after all a nearly 13% (so, more than 1/8th) variation from smallest to largest, which is fairly significant, and which one you end up thinking it is could depend entirely on what bit of the article you randomly skim. Which of them should we standardise on, if indeed we shouldn't instead go with "330km +/- 20km"? Note that this would also seem to affect the size of Namaka given that most of its stated dimensions are simply derived from an educated guess that it's "about 1/10th the mass" of Hi'aka and about the same density... 51.7.16.171 ( talk) 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)