Talk:10199 Chariklo

Size

Is the size listed correct as the mean radius? I was thinking this is actually the object diameter and not its radius. Sethhater123 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Sethhater123

Good catch! The old Minor Planet box used "dimensions=" and did not make it clear that it was referring to radius. -- Kheider (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The image still uses a radius of 258 km (at least the text on it says so). Maybe someone can change it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is listing the correct 258km diameter. I rv'ed someone's Minor Planet edit back on July 26th.. The old Minor Planet Box is suppose to use diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me: I'm referring to Image:Comparechariklo2, which notes a "mean radius" of 225 km.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roentgenium111 (talk • contribs)

Rings

The European Southern Observatory is going to announce that Chariklo has rings this afternoon. They have embargoed this information until their press confrance but there was a brief leak this morning. We should probably not update the article until after the official announcement.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wral.com%2Fdiscovery-an-asteroid-with-rings%2F13510966%2F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.245.65 (talk • contribs)

we are not bound by any press embargoes that others may or may not have imposed on information or may or may not have agreed to or feel ethically bound to follow. we are only bound by WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a sin against the principles of Wikipedia not to go ahead and adjust the article. IT IS PUBLISHED IN NATURE TODAY! That's already been printed, and mailed. People are getting it this morning in their mailboxes presumably. I'm sure Vladimir Putin would love for us to embargo all the news on his doings, too? Frankly, the ESO folks are trying to play up for undeserved press. I've seen all sorts of wild speculation about a much-larger-than-Pluto-or-Eris object found. Or some other bizarre object. Rings have been predicted for quite a while around KBO's. Pluto's potential rings are a serious hazard for the NH mission. Somebody should go ahead an start the editorial revision to include the ring notice, and stop trying to hide reality, to build false press speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.163.179 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

other links:http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1410/ http://www.eso.org/public/announcements/ann14022/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUoNtEKaAsk Cesarakg (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ESO Embargo

Copied from User talk:Modest Genius

Greetings,

While we could discuss for a while whether or not Wikipedia is bound by ESO (or other) embargoes, the news item about asteroid Chariklo was NOT public and was NOT cited. The source, WRAL.com, had removed the news from their website (at the demand of the ESO from what I gleaned).

Anyhow, there seems to be an edit war on the page about Chariklo, to which I will not contribute as I am at work. I do not like it when embargoes are broken, as they do exist for a reason. And no, I do not work for the ESO or any affiliated organization — I am an amateur journalist who does respect the embargo, and one reason why I don't like when they are broken is that all of us journalists (amateur and professional) lose the "scoop" on the news when it pops up somewhere by an embargo breach...

My two cents...

Best regards, CielProfond (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not WRAL broke the embargo is not our concern. Wikipedia did not sign up for ESO's embargo system and is not bound by it. The archived version of WRAL's page is a matter of public record. It's not a great source, because as you note the original has now been hidden (which is why I tagged it), but it's a source nonetheless. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant - the threshold is whether content is verifiable, not some moral judgement about whether it should be public or not. I'm going to copy this discussion to the article talk page, which is a better location for it. Modest Genius ^talk 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_is_Wikipedia.27s_policy_in_regard_to_news_embargos.3F . The matters for concern for us are WP:V and WP:RS. As a matter of default we accept major TV stations as valid sources and we accept third party archive pages as meeting WP:V. so unless WRAL has officially retracted the material as factually inaccurate, it is appropriately sourced.

if you can provide evidence that WRAL story is factually wrong, then we have something to discuss.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I must agree, it's a typical site Wikipedia uses to cite something. Although the main version has gone offline, we have a way to cite it when it was still online. The reason that it has gone offline is relevant. If it is actually this ESO embargo, I'd say its rather credible, because they wouldn't make such an embargo if some site posts wrong information, but rather because there is something interesting that don't want to have public yet. And Wikipedia is certainly not obliged to obey such embargos. --JorisvS (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly reverted anonymous IP users (from ESO and Obs. Paris locations) removing this material without explanation or discussion. However, that takes me up to my three reverts. Could someone else keep an eye on this please? Modest Genius ^talk 15:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#10199_Chariklo_and_embargoed_press_releases. Modest Genius ^talk 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There's another news article about this discovery: 20 Seconds that changed our understanding of the Solar System. Surprise discovery of double-ring system around asteroid-like body (my 2 cents) Cesarakg (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the link. --JorisvS (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added it as a reference in the article. Modest Genius ^talk 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this your discovery ? I don't think so ! Maybe the discovers don't want it published before the end of embargo ! But you obviously did not have enough respect for them ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.238.168.3 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You can place your respect where you want to. You cannot continue to edit war to remove information that meets Wikipedia content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Since when are caches of unpublished articles a reliable source, and since when do we need to publish news before it's officially news? I mean sure we have WP:NOTCENSORED but, my god, we might as well put WP:NOTNEWS up at MfD if we're scooping major media outlets.... Tempted to raise the issue at RSN, but it will probably be moot in a few hours anyway... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed this source as I was unable to verify that it was a reliable source. It looks like it's just some random blog, not a news website and the domain is registered to a random house in the UK. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's more detailed than the other source. I don't see the unreliableness. Being a blog doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. --JorisvS (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLOGS. Blogs can be reliable sources, but those are an exception, rather than the rule. Generally they aren't considered acceptable sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask again: What makes this one specifically unreliable? --JorisvS (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The onus on blogs is to demonstrate them as reliable. By default they are presumed unreliable. However, given that the domain for this one is registered to a residential address in the UK, that would strongly imply that this blog is not run by an expert nor a wp:NEWSBLOG. Ergo, I have demonstrated that it is not a reliable source even though the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's reliable. Given that you have a lot more edits than I do, I'm a bit surprised you haven't run into this practice before. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have run into the blog thing before. Looking at the information there, it appeared rather on the reliable side to me, and I was curious about your assessment. How did you determine where it is registered? --JorisvS (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WHOIS lookup on firetrench.com. Also looks like it might be a site for automatically reposting press-releases if you look at the other articles. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. a) Cached versions are fine as sources, see WP:DEADLINK. b) The embargo is over now anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree on b (which is why I didn't feel it was worth removing), but disagree on a.) I don't think removal of articles which were released too early was one of the intended uses of caching in the linkrot policy.... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Shape determined by ESO?!

The ESO press release states that "By comparing what was seen from different sites the team could reconstruct [not only] the shape and size of the object itself", but they do not go on to state the observed shape. It'd be very interesting to know if Chariklo is round or not, is this reported somewhere else? (ESO's footnote [1] on SSSB's might suggest it's been found to be a SSSB, i.e. not in hydr. equilibrium, but that's very indirect, OR reasoning.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you'll have to wait for the Nature paper... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just seen that the (complete?) Nature paper is actually already linked to by ESO. Strangely, it claims the opposite: "Chariklo’s shape is not known" (p. 6), apparently because they only have two independent occultation chords. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Name History from Greek Mythology

Just a quick note about a small conflict on the identity of Chariclo the nymph for whom the asteroid is named. The article states that "Chariklo is named after the nymph Chariclo (Χαρικλώ), the wife of Chiron and the daughter of Apollo."

The linked article on Chariclo the nymph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariclo) does not list Apollo in her lineage.

I will leave the corrections to the professionals here, but just wanted to point out the inconsistency.

Thanks!

Susarie (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Rings invisible in real photo = phantom rings

All is in the title, Pluto about 10x larger (and 2x farther) and it appears almost featureless when pictured by Earth scopes (incl Hubble). Show us a single real pic where the rings are visible, or give some sort of explanation why no such pic is available. 102.164.96.77 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Shepherd Moon binding the rings

A recent study published in The Planetary Science Journal indicates the possibility that the moon is responsible for the formation and retention of the 10199 Chariklo rings. The team used an N-body simulation, simulating the motion of millions of particles that make up the rings. According to the results of the study, the moon in orbit of Chariklo should have a diameter of about 6 km. Its gravitational influence may be a key element holding the rings in a delicate shape, as planetary rings tend to dissipate over time.

---

Jamplevia (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)