This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2 Pallas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2 Pallas 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
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Per the OED, the adjectival form is Palladian (pa-lay'-dee-un). kwami 06:37, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Was there originally a photo on this page? There appears to have been one at some point, because there's still a caption...-- Firsfron 6 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Yes, there was a montage of the four largest asteroids, using the Ceres and Vesta images, and silhouettes for Pallas and Hygiea. But there was a copyright violation decided for the Ceres image, so it is now gone. I intend to redo the image some time... Urhixidur 2005 July 6 12:37 (UTC)
Can we use an image like: Shape of (2) Pallas (Source: shape model deduced from lightcurve) Kheider 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Similarly to what I waffled on about in Talk:Ceres, discrepancies in mass estimates appear for Pallas as well as Ceres and Vesta, due to using different models/methods. The recent ones, apart from Hilton (which appears to be an aberration) hover between 1.0 and 1.2×10-10 solar masses, so I've just taken the average of this, and referenced the two relatively recent papers which gave the most characteristic estimates. Deuar 21:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
This last edit made the claim that there are irregular TNOs larger than Pallas, giving 2003 EL61 as an example. However, we don't know that 2003 EL61 is irregular, only that its lightcurve varies significantly. Unless there are other TNOs that are somehow known to be irregular, the "possibly" should be restored.
Also, the article claims that Pallas is irregular because its gravitational field never collapsed it into an obate [sic] spheroid. I don't know that that is true either: do we have evidence that Pallas is primordially irregular, rather than an originally spheroidal body with chunks knocked off it like Vesta? kwami 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There were a few sentences in the article, and comments here, claiming that "Pallas is the largest irregular object in the solar system, with the possible exception KBOs such as 2003 EL61". EL61 is elongated, not irregular, so that comparion is meaningless. The available data suggests that Pallas is only marginally more irregular than Vesta, so the entire statement is meaningless. I therefore removed it. Michaelbusch 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
HST observations put Vesta at 578x560x458 km in size, while Pallas has a (rough) best estimate of 570x525x500 km. Older estimates tended to imply Vesta was the smaller. The present best size estimates are about the same, making it hard to decide who would be number two. However, Vesta is much more massive, which may make it the better candidate "overall" in some sense. Deuar 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet...
Regarding the Celestial Lat and Long (RA and Dec), the text indicates that the pole points towards ecliptic coordinates (β, λ) = (-12°, 35°)... I am used to seeing the RA in hours, minutes, seconds, followed by the Declination in degrees. Is the text here indicating the Declination first? And then the RA (but in degrees instead of hours-minutes-seconds)? If so, is my assumption correct that Pallas' RA is 2 hours, 20 minutes (corresponding to the 35° reference)? I noticed this layout on other asteroids as well (e.g., 3 Juno), so I want to make sure of my interpretation. Others (1 Ceres, 4 Vesta, etc.) use the layout that I am more familiar with: RA hrs-min-sec followed by the Dec (degrees). Thanks for all this great info on the asteroid pages. Wonderful stuff.----Tesseract501, March 24, 2006.
But which system to choose? Personally I prefer the ecliptic system because the ecliptic has some physical relevance for the asteroids, whereas the earth's orientation has none. Also, this site, which contains the most comprehensive up-to date pole data uses the ecliptic coordinates. However, the equatorial system is obviously more widely known. The conversion is actually nontrivial, and is given in the ecliptic coordinates article. Usually λ=α approximately. In this case α=2h28m, δ=+2° it turns out. I wonder whether I should update Ceres and Vesta to the more common coordinates. Deuar 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely there is an image of pallas, gosh, It's the second most main asteroid, I'm going to find one -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Not even 1!!! -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
An ephemeris ("aspects") of this asteroid was introduced by anonymous user 85.74.29.233 on July 7, 2005. Judging by the contributions, it looks like this user did the same for other asteroids. My feeling on this is that an ephemerides doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Since I can't find a suitable reference I'm thinking of removing it from this page. Does anybody have an objection to this, or a good alternative? Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Link to Astronomical Objects talk page. -- Kheider 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
All in all, it's a good article and almost ready for GA status. A few specific comments:
I'll put the nomination on hold until at least this last issue is resolved. -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a few more superficial changes, but it looks good. If you find a better reference for the dwarf planet thing, that would be good, but I think it qualifies for GA status as it stands now. Congratulations! -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As in the above section, I'd recommend you find a reliable source the describes exactly how 2 Pallas is classified. It seems that the rejected resolution asserts that it may not be in hydrostatic equilib, while the passed resolution (at bottom) gives the accepted definition of dwarf planet but doesn't mention Pallas. (The former also intimates that one may call dwarf planets "planets.") -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Hubble observations of Pallas may have been planned for September 3, 2007. [4] — RJH ( talk) 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
With regards to a visit by the Dawn mission, rumor has it that Pallas will cross the descending node in December, 2018 (but we'd need an accurate ephemeris to check). So it will be crossing the orbital plane of Ceres and a fly-by mission may be conceivable. Dawn just wouldn't have the fuel to enter into orbit. — RJH ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Another way to put it: Dawn might have enough fuel to leave Ceres on a trajectory for Pallas, but once it nears Pallas it would not have enough fuel for proper orbit insertion. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Using orbit pole coordinates (β, λ) = (55°, 83°), I calculate respective obliquities of 78° or 65° for the rotational poles having ecliptic coordinates (β, λ) = (-12°, 35°) or (43°, 193°) instead of 57° or 65°, respectively. Bassesq ( talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2 Pallas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some minor issues that may need to be addressed.
I am placing the reassessment on hold for one week to allow for these changes to be made and/or discussed. If work is still being done at the end of the week, the hold can be extended. Please get in touch here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There was an unref'd conversion of the ecliptic coordinates of the pole to axial tilt, and under GA review this was deleted. Can anyone do the conversion, so that we know what the most recent solutions represent in layman's terms? kwami ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the new size estimates from the Hubble images, perhaps we should recalculate the surface gravity & escape velocity. kwami ( talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As I was visiting this site, I read the above section and my immediate response was "and WHO CARES...?" With a (journeyman level) background in astronomy, it is somewhat obvious to me that you would be able to see solar transits of the inner planets from Pallas - IF YOU LIVED THERE. However I am wondering why this information is 1) listed at all and 2) with such detail that someone actually entered the transit years for the planets as if this trivial information wasn't already esoteria to the nth degree to begin with. The linked page says zero about transits, Pallas, or anything else beyond how the program works. I have found this identical info on other asteroid sites (such as Ceres), so it appears to be a systematic edit - although oddly started. Therefore my suggestion is that this section be deleted as trivia and as a somewhat obvious advertisement. Ckruschke ( talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
In the lede it is claimed that Pallas appears the largest irregularly shaped body in the Solar System. This is not supported by any citation. A while ago I removed the only 'citation' for this because it didn't actually claim Pallas to be irregular. Also, given the low resolution of the best images we have and that its maximum and minimum dimensions differ significantly less than those of Vesta (which is regularly claimed to be regular), I suspect that it cannot be said with such certainty. Thoughts? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The 2009 Science article says in the abstract that "Pallas's shape is an ellipsoid with radii of 291 (+/-9), 278 (+/-9), and 250 (+/-9) kilometers". Ellipsoid for modeling, that is: an equilibrium object wouldn't be scalene unless it were rotating quite rapidly. I don't think 8 hrs is gonna do it: Ceres is 9 hrs, and Haumea is 20× as massive and rotating twice as fast.
"Pallas is big enough and round enough that it's very possible that its interior started to separate out," Ms Schmidt told BBC News. "Ceres is perfectly round and so there's a really good chance that that happened. For Pallas, it may be just that this process got started but never finished."
Also, what about our physical parameters? The density of ≈2.8 is dated to the 2008 paper, but disagrees with the 2009 Science article by the same authors, which give the same size but a density of 2.40±0.25. Have we recalculated the density and failed to replace the ref? — kwami ( talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any hypotheses about why Pallas has such a high-inclination orbit? -- JorisvS ( talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for a source for temperature data present in the article. Yesterday I found that Johnston at al. may be a good source for the mean temperature value. Johnston at al. (p. 1598) indeed furnishes 165 K as the equilibrium temperature value for a rapid rotating body at the mean distance of 2 Pallas from the Sun. However, I haven't found any source for the maximum temperature value. Do you have any? Thanks. -- Harlock81 ( talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Put bluntly, it is misleading to suggest Pallas is a dwarf planet. -- Kheider ( talk) 06:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You will need a reliable and recent source to claim Pallas is still an accepted dp candidate. Looking at Vesta and Ceres, I do not see how anyone can still expect less massive Pallas to make the dp cut. Resembling a sphere does not make an asteroid a dp. -- Kheider ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3NLLj8hQHXoC
Page 4 says that Pallas is close to HE, and says the same for Ceres. There's a recent source. It's a 50/50 chance that Pallas is in HE, considering that not all asteroids that COULD be hit were hit. DN-boards1 ( talk) 23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, the infobox now has the best size and mass estimates available. The density I calculate from this is 3.0±0.5 kg/dm3. However, the article with the mass estimate uses an older, less precise size estimate to calculate the density, and the article with the size estimate uses an older, less precise mass estimate to calculate the density, so that neither has this value. It is a rather simple calculation, but it does feel like WP:SYNTH to me. Yet, if we don't, we unavoidably end up listing a density inconsistent with the listed size and mass (or using a less precise size or mass than is currently available). What should we do? -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
All articles about minor planets use the template {{ Infobox planet}} which has an optional "background" (or bgcolour) parameter to set a bgcolor for the subheadings or section titles within the infobx. In most cases, this is the standard color, while 2 Pallas and 4 Vesta have different ones. I also encountered some articles with another or no background color at all. (PS: comets using the {{ Infobox Comet}} template use a hardcoded, yellow background (e.g. 81P/Wild), while several others, such as Tempel 1 and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko use the {{ Infobox planet}} template instead and without any defined color for the subheadings).
Question: Is there a concept behind the choice for these colors (and the different templates used for comets)? If not, wouldn't it be a good idea to define a consistent color scheme that corresponds to a given classification? For example: main-belt asteroids, dwarf planets (and candidates) KBOs, comets, centaurs, trojans, NEOs. For such a color-classification scheme, a few simple rules would suffice to resolve any ambiguity. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 14:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Asteroids (default) |
TNOs (default) |
Planets (no color) |
Can we get some of the images from that paper on Pallas's properties uploaded and into the infobox? They are FAR more useful than that grainy Hubble image. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm an educated person, with advanced degrees though not in the sciences or mathematics.
The use of metric measurements without imperial (U S.) measurements makes this article utterly incomprehensible and almost utterly meaningless.
Such articles should all provide equivalents in a system that 315 million potential American readers might read, and I'm not particularly inclined to resort to opening a Google page in another window to constantly have to go back and forth between this and that just to be able to read what SHOULD be CLEARLY written in an article that any reader of English can comprehend.
That is, if Wikipedia wants to be taken the slightest bit seriously as being minimallyinformational by most of the population of North America. 2600:1700:4FD0:5AD0:AC91:CC5B:8FE1:69D2 ( talk) 07:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2 Pallas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2 Pallas 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
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Per the OED, the adjectival form is Palladian (pa-lay'-dee-un). kwami 06:37, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Was there originally a photo on this page? There appears to have been one at some point, because there's still a caption...-- Firsfron 6 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Yes, there was a montage of the four largest asteroids, using the Ceres and Vesta images, and silhouettes for Pallas and Hygiea. But there was a copyright violation decided for the Ceres image, so it is now gone. I intend to redo the image some time... Urhixidur 2005 July 6 12:37 (UTC)
Can we use an image like: Shape of (2) Pallas (Source: shape model deduced from lightcurve) Kheider 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Similarly to what I waffled on about in Talk:Ceres, discrepancies in mass estimates appear for Pallas as well as Ceres and Vesta, due to using different models/methods. The recent ones, apart from Hilton (which appears to be an aberration) hover between 1.0 and 1.2×10-10 solar masses, so I've just taken the average of this, and referenced the two relatively recent papers which gave the most characteristic estimates. Deuar 21:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
This last edit made the claim that there are irregular TNOs larger than Pallas, giving 2003 EL61 as an example. However, we don't know that 2003 EL61 is irregular, only that its lightcurve varies significantly. Unless there are other TNOs that are somehow known to be irregular, the "possibly" should be restored.
Also, the article claims that Pallas is irregular because its gravitational field never collapsed it into an obate [sic] spheroid. I don't know that that is true either: do we have evidence that Pallas is primordially irregular, rather than an originally spheroidal body with chunks knocked off it like Vesta? kwami 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There were a few sentences in the article, and comments here, claiming that "Pallas is the largest irregular object in the solar system, with the possible exception KBOs such as 2003 EL61". EL61 is elongated, not irregular, so that comparion is meaningless. The available data suggests that Pallas is only marginally more irregular than Vesta, so the entire statement is meaningless. I therefore removed it. Michaelbusch 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
HST observations put Vesta at 578x560x458 km in size, while Pallas has a (rough) best estimate of 570x525x500 km. Older estimates tended to imply Vesta was the smaller. The present best size estimates are about the same, making it hard to decide who would be number two. However, Vesta is much more massive, which may make it the better candidate "overall" in some sense. Deuar 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet...
Regarding the Celestial Lat and Long (RA and Dec), the text indicates that the pole points towards ecliptic coordinates (β, λ) = (-12°, 35°)... I am used to seeing the RA in hours, minutes, seconds, followed by the Declination in degrees. Is the text here indicating the Declination first? And then the RA (but in degrees instead of hours-minutes-seconds)? If so, is my assumption correct that Pallas' RA is 2 hours, 20 minutes (corresponding to the 35° reference)? I noticed this layout on other asteroids as well (e.g., 3 Juno), so I want to make sure of my interpretation. Others (1 Ceres, 4 Vesta, etc.) use the layout that I am more familiar with: RA hrs-min-sec followed by the Dec (degrees). Thanks for all this great info on the asteroid pages. Wonderful stuff.----Tesseract501, March 24, 2006.
But which system to choose? Personally I prefer the ecliptic system because the ecliptic has some physical relevance for the asteroids, whereas the earth's orientation has none. Also, this site, which contains the most comprehensive up-to date pole data uses the ecliptic coordinates. However, the equatorial system is obviously more widely known. The conversion is actually nontrivial, and is given in the ecliptic coordinates article. Usually λ=α approximately. In this case α=2h28m, δ=+2° it turns out. I wonder whether I should update Ceres and Vesta to the more common coordinates. Deuar 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely there is an image of pallas, gosh, It's the second most main asteroid, I'm going to find one -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Not even 1!!! -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
An ephemeris ("aspects") of this asteroid was introduced by anonymous user 85.74.29.233 on July 7, 2005. Judging by the contributions, it looks like this user did the same for other asteroids. My feeling on this is that an ephemerides doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Since I can't find a suitable reference I'm thinking of removing it from this page. Does anybody have an objection to this, or a good alternative? Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Link to Astronomical Objects talk page. -- Kheider 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
All in all, it's a good article and almost ready for GA status. A few specific comments:
I'll put the nomination on hold until at least this last issue is resolved. -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a few more superficial changes, but it looks good. If you find a better reference for the dwarf planet thing, that would be good, but I think it qualifies for GA status as it stands now. Congratulations! -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As in the above section, I'd recommend you find a reliable source the describes exactly how 2 Pallas is classified. It seems that the rejected resolution asserts that it may not be in hydrostatic equilib, while the passed resolution (at bottom) gives the accepted definition of dwarf planet but doesn't mention Pallas. (The former also intimates that one may call dwarf planets "planets.") -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Hubble observations of Pallas may have been planned for September 3, 2007. [4] — RJH ( talk) 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
With regards to a visit by the Dawn mission, rumor has it that Pallas will cross the descending node in December, 2018 (but we'd need an accurate ephemeris to check). So it will be crossing the orbital plane of Ceres and a fly-by mission may be conceivable. Dawn just wouldn't have the fuel to enter into orbit. — RJH ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Another way to put it: Dawn might have enough fuel to leave Ceres on a trajectory for Pallas, but once it nears Pallas it would not have enough fuel for proper orbit insertion. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Using orbit pole coordinates (β, λ) = (55°, 83°), I calculate respective obliquities of 78° or 65° for the rotational poles having ecliptic coordinates (β, λ) = (-12°, 35°) or (43°, 193°) instead of 57° or 65°, respectively. Bassesq ( talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2 Pallas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some minor issues that may need to be addressed.
I am placing the reassessment on hold for one week to allow for these changes to be made and/or discussed. If work is still being done at the end of the week, the hold can be extended. Please get in touch here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There was an unref'd conversion of the ecliptic coordinates of the pole to axial tilt, and under GA review this was deleted. Can anyone do the conversion, so that we know what the most recent solutions represent in layman's terms? kwami ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the new size estimates from the Hubble images, perhaps we should recalculate the surface gravity & escape velocity. kwami ( talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As I was visiting this site, I read the above section and my immediate response was "and WHO CARES...?" With a (journeyman level) background in astronomy, it is somewhat obvious to me that you would be able to see solar transits of the inner planets from Pallas - IF YOU LIVED THERE. However I am wondering why this information is 1) listed at all and 2) with such detail that someone actually entered the transit years for the planets as if this trivial information wasn't already esoteria to the nth degree to begin with. The linked page says zero about transits, Pallas, or anything else beyond how the program works. I have found this identical info on other asteroid sites (such as Ceres), so it appears to be a systematic edit - although oddly started. Therefore my suggestion is that this section be deleted as trivia and as a somewhat obvious advertisement. Ckruschke ( talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
In the lede it is claimed that Pallas appears the largest irregularly shaped body in the Solar System. This is not supported by any citation. A while ago I removed the only 'citation' for this because it didn't actually claim Pallas to be irregular. Also, given the low resolution of the best images we have and that its maximum and minimum dimensions differ significantly less than those of Vesta (which is regularly claimed to be regular), I suspect that it cannot be said with such certainty. Thoughts? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The 2009 Science article says in the abstract that "Pallas's shape is an ellipsoid with radii of 291 (+/-9), 278 (+/-9), and 250 (+/-9) kilometers". Ellipsoid for modeling, that is: an equilibrium object wouldn't be scalene unless it were rotating quite rapidly. I don't think 8 hrs is gonna do it: Ceres is 9 hrs, and Haumea is 20× as massive and rotating twice as fast.
"Pallas is big enough and round enough that it's very possible that its interior started to separate out," Ms Schmidt told BBC News. "Ceres is perfectly round and so there's a really good chance that that happened. For Pallas, it may be just that this process got started but never finished."
Also, what about our physical parameters? The density of ≈2.8 is dated to the 2008 paper, but disagrees with the 2009 Science article by the same authors, which give the same size but a density of 2.40±0.25. Have we recalculated the density and failed to replace the ref? — kwami ( talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any hypotheses about why Pallas has such a high-inclination orbit? -- JorisvS ( talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for a source for temperature data present in the article. Yesterday I found that Johnston at al. may be a good source for the mean temperature value. Johnston at al. (p. 1598) indeed furnishes 165 K as the equilibrium temperature value for a rapid rotating body at the mean distance of 2 Pallas from the Sun. However, I haven't found any source for the maximum temperature value. Do you have any? Thanks. -- Harlock81 ( talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Put bluntly, it is misleading to suggest Pallas is a dwarf planet. -- Kheider ( talk) 06:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You will need a reliable and recent source to claim Pallas is still an accepted dp candidate. Looking at Vesta and Ceres, I do not see how anyone can still expect less massive Pallas to make the dp cut. Resembling a sphere does not make an asteroid a dp. -- Kheider ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3NLLj8hQHXoC
Page 4 says that Pallas is close to HE, and says the same for Ceres. There's a recent source. It's a 50/50 chance that Pallas is in HE, considering that not all asteroids that COULD be hit were hit. DN-boards1 ( talk) 23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, the infobox now has the best size and mass estimates available. The density I calculate from this is 3.0±0.5 kg/dm3. However, the article with the mass estimate uses an older, less precise size estimate to calculate the density, and the article with the size estimate uses an older, less precise mass estimate to calculate the density, so that neither has this value. It is a rather simple calculation, but it does feel like WP:SYNTH to me. Yet, if we don't, we unavoidably end up listing a density inconsistent with the listed size and mass (or using a less precise size or mass than is currently available). What should we do? -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
All articles about minor planets use the template {{ Infobox planet}} which has an optional "background" (or bgcolour) parameter to set a bgcolor for the subheadings or section titles within the infobx. In most cases, this is the standard color, while 2 Pallas and 4 Vesta have different ones. I also encountered some articles with another or no background color at all. (PS: comets using the {{ Infobox Comet}} template use a hardcoded, yellow background (e.g. 81P/Wild), while several others, such as Tempel 1 and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko use the {{ Infobox planet}} template instead and without any defined color for the subheadings).
Question: Is there a concept behind the choice for these colors (and the different templates used for comets)? If not, wouldn't it be a good idea to define a consistent color scheme that corresponds to a given classification? For example: main-belt asteroids, dwarf planets (and candidates) KBOs, comets, centaurs, trojans, NEOs. For such a color-classification scheme, a few simple rules would suffice to resolve any ambiguity. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 14:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Asteroids (default) |
TNOs (default) |
Planets (no color) |
Can we get some of the images from that paper on Pallas's properties uploaded and into the infobox? They are FAR more useful than that grainy Hubble image. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm an educated person, with advanced degrees though not in the sciences or mathematics.
The use of metric measurements without imperial (U S.) measurements makes this article utterly incomprehensible and almost utterly meaningless.
Such articles should all provide equivalents in a system that 315 million potential American readers might read, and I'm not particularly inclined to resort to opening a Google page in another window to constantly have to go back and forth between this and that just to be able to read what SHOULD be CLEARLY written in an article that any reader of English can comprehend.
That is, if Wikipedia wants to be taken the slightest bit seriously as being minimallyinformational by most of the population of North America. 2600:1700:4FD0:5AD0:AC91:CC5B:8FE1:69D2 ( talk) 07:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)