90482 Orcus 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. Review: September 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
The contents of the Vanth (moon) page were merged into 90482 Orcus. 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. (12 January 2017) |
On 14 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Orcus (dwarf planet). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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 |
Added missing "." in Mass listing on table. Abyssoft 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
From “IAU's Planet Definition” Questions & Answers Sheet: [1]
(90482) Orcus 1000±200 km [Brown, Binzel, private communication (2006)]
It may be much smaller than thought.-- JyriL talk 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So what's up with the listed dimensions for Orcus?: "946.3+74.1-72.3 km.", it looks like it could be formatted better. I'll leave the correction for someone who knows better. HunterTruth ( talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In the intro: "The diameter of Orcus is estimated to be 761 or 807 km and the diameter of Vanth 378 or 267 km respectively, depending on their relative albedos."
In the info-box: "Dimensions 917±25 km"
In the section, "Size and magnitude": "If the albedos of both bodies are the same at 0.23 then the size of Orcus is about 917±25 km, and the size of Vanth is about 276±17 km."
There's a big inconsistency between the intro and the Size&Mag section, and given the various estimates of albedo, the ±25 km in the info-box doesn't actually show the full error-range.
Additionally, the info-box should specify what the 917km actually refers to; diameter, radius, major axis, etc, not just "Dimensions". -- PaulxSA ( talk) 06:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that we should use proposals as references. After all, if an astronomer wants to get a grant/telescope time etc. he could mention the possibility that the object is … inhabited. I feel we should keep with the usual sources. Let Mr Brown publish first. Eurocommuter 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The discovery of a satellite for Orcus has been published in IAUC 8812, but I haven't actually seen the circular, so I have no details. RandomCritic 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
this change in the Albedo does not make sense. It is way too high' and I could not find any sources for it. I am changing back to the 0.09 value. Chagai 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Mike Brown just named Orcus's moon. But it's not official until he clears it with the IAU. So should we start making the changes now, to make things easier, or should we wait until it's confirmed beyond doubt? Serendi pod ous 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, if anyone wants to have a look at it, I went looking and found the discovery image of Orcus + moon here in the HST archive (Aladin Java applet will load). Iridia ( talk) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The following paper:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)suggests that the ~10h periodic variability may be caused by the orbit of the satellite and hence the rotation of Orcus might be much faster. For what it's worth.— RJH ( talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The related Category:Orcus has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
To move the article without prior consensus is a complete mystery to me. The given rationale is not good enough and will cause an administrative nightmare. Guess this opens the door to endless discussions about which TNO is or is not a DP. It's crazy... -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 22:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 90482 Orcus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
On 1 April 2015, the category Category:90482 Orcus has been created and added to the article's categories. Although I don't think this category makes much sense, there might be a rationale I'm missing. Can its creator, Solomonfromfinland, or anyone else help me understand? Rfassbind – talk 23:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The Kuiper belt object 90482 Orcus is named after Orcus. This was because Orcus was sometimes considered to be another name for Pluto, and also because Pluto and 90482 Orcus are both plutinos.
For the moon, see Vanth (moon).
Btw, the correct date is April 2017, not April 2015. (I'm not offended by said mistake; I just wanted to point it out politely.)-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 17:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 90482 Orcus. 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:
When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 ( talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rrelv96nCQ
I am not a believer in the Nibiru cataclysm, so what is in that final image? 103.38.21.38 ( talk) 05:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Will there be a mission to orcus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
How long will a flyby mission to Orcus will take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:90377 Sedna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I tagged this sentence as failed verification: Orcus had been accepted by many astronomers as a dwarf planet, though as of 2024 that consensus has changed. [2]
@ Double sharp: responded: See below - they argue that Sedna, Gonggong, Quaoar differ from "all smaller TNOs" (which would include Orcus) in ways that imply they have undergone chemical evolution while the smaller ones have not, which is the point of the DP category
I read the paper before I tagged it for failed verification, I assume you were talking about this sentence: We suggest that these three bodies have undergone internal melting and geochemical evolution similar to the larger dwarf planets and distinct from all smaller KBOs. To nitpick, the underlined part doesn't logically imply that all smaller KBOs are definitely not dwarf planets. The rest of the text more or less puts Sedna, Gonggong and Quaoar in a third group different from both larger bodies and undiscussed smaller bodies (no evidence of neither methane nor methanol).
Not being listed in a single paper specifically focusing on chemical composition of three unrelated dwarf planet candidates to me isn't enough of a development to belong right in the third sentence for Orcus. Especially since the Dwarf planet article goes on and on about how there's no consensus on which TNOs are dwarf planets (There is no clear definition of what constitutes a dwarf planet, and whether to classify an object as one is up to individual astronomers). IvicaInsomniac ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
90482 Orcus 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. Review: September 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
The contents of the Vanth (moon) page were merged into 90482 Orcus. 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. (12 January 2017) |
On 14 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Orcus (dwarf planet). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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 |
Added missing "." in Mass listing on table. Abyssoft 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
From “IAU's Planet Definition” Questions & Answers Sheet: [1]
(90482) Orcus 1000±200 km [Brown, Binzel, private communication (2006)]
It may be much smaller than thought.-- JyriL talk 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So what's up with the listed dimensions for Orcus?: "946.3+74.1-72.3 km.", it looks like it could be formatted better. I'll leave the correction for someone who knows better. HunterTruth ( talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In the intro: "The diameter of Orcus is estimated to be 761 or 807 km and the diameter of Vanth 378 or 267 km respectively, depending on their relative albedos."
In the info-box: "Dimensions 917±25 km"
In the section, "Size and magnitude": "If the albedos of both bodies are the same at 0.23 then the size of Orcus is about 917±25 km, and the size of Vanth is about 276±17 km."
There's a big inconsistency between the intro and the Size&Mag section, and given the various estimates of albedo, the ±25 km in the info-box doesn't actually show the full error-range.
Additionally, the info-box should specify what the 917km actually refers to; diameter, radius, major axis, etc, not just "Dimensions". -- PaulxSA ( talk) 06:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that we should use proposals as references. After all, if an astronomer wants to get a grant/telescope time etc. he could mention the possibility that the object is … inhabited. I feel we should keep with the usual sources. Let Mr Brown publish first. Eurocommuter 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The discovery of a satellite for Orcus has been published in IAUC 8812, but I haven't actually seen the circular, so I have no details. RandomCritic 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
this change in the Albedo does not make sense. It is way too high' and I could not find any sources for it. I am changing back to the 0.09 value. Chagai 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Mike Brown just named Orcus's moon. But it's not official until he clears it with the IAU. So should we start making the changes now, to make things easier, or should we wait until it's confirmed beyond doubt? Serendi pod ous 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, if anyone wants to have a look at it, I went looking and found the discovery image of Orcus + moon here in the HST archive (Aladin Java applet will load). Iridia ( talk) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The following paper:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)suggests that the ~10h periodic variability may be caused by the orbit of the satellite and hence the rotation of Orcus might be much faster. For what it's worth.— RJH ( talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The related Category:Orcus has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
To move the article without prior consensus is a complete mystery to me. The given rationale is not good enough and will cause an administrative nightmare. Guess this opens the door to endless discussions about which TNO is or is not a DP. It's crazy... -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 22:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 90482 Orcus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
On 1 April 2015, the category Category:90482 Orcus has been created and added to the article's categories. Although I don't think this category makes much sense, there might be a rationale I'm missing. Can its creator, Solomonfromfinland, or anyone else help me understand? Rfassbind – talk 23:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The Kuiper belt object 90482 Orcus is named after Orcus. This was because Orcus was sometimes considered to be another name for Pluto, and also because Pluto and 90482 Orcus are both plutinos.
For the moon, see Vanth (moon).
Btw, the correct date is April 2017, not April 2015. (I'm not offended by said mistake; I just wanted to point it out politely.)-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 17:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 90482 Orcus. 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:
When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 ( talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rrelv96nCQ
I am not a believer in the Nibiru cataclysm, so what is in that final image? 103.38.21.38 ( talk) 05:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Will there be a mission to orcus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
How long will a flyby mission to Orcus will take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:90377 Sedna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I tagged this sentence as failed verification: Orcus had been accepted by many astronomers as a dwarf planet, though as of 2024 that consensus has changed. [2]
@ Double sharp: responded: See below - they argue that Sedna, Gonggong, Quaoar differ from "all smaller TNOs" (which would include Orcus) in ways that imply they have undergone chemical evolution while the smaller ones have not, which is the point of the DP category
I read the paper before I tagged it for failed verification, I assume you were talking about this sentence: We suggest that these three bodies have undergone internal melting and geochemical evolution similar to the larger dwarf planets and distinct from all smaller KBOs. To nitpick, the underlined part doesn't logically imply that all smaller KBOs are definitely not dwarf planets. The rest of the text more or less puts Sedna, Gonggong and Quaoar in a third group different from both larger bodies and undiscussed smaller bodies (no evidence of neither methane nor methanol).
Not being listed in a single paper specifically focusing on chemical composition of three unrelated dwarf planet candidates to me isn't enough of a development to belong right in the third sentence for Orcus. Especially since the Dwarf planet article goes on and on about how there's no consensus on which TNOs are dwarf planets (There is no clear definition of what constitutes a dwarf planet, and whether to classify an object as one is up to individual astronomers). IvicaInsomniac ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)