Talk:Mesoplanet

Image:Mesoplanets2.png

Regarding the replies on my user talk page, I think the discussion would be better held here. My thoughts on the matter:

1. It's not really my image. Nicholas Shanks created the original, and I merely edited one of the labels. I have no way to produce a more accurate version.
2. It also shows TC302 incorrectly large, and probably other errors.
3. Image:2006-16-d-print.jpg has excellent detail of those 6 KBOs, but it doesn't have Orcus, TC302, Varuna, etc.
4. If someone redoes the image entirely, it should include Mercury and Ceres.

Frankie

potato

As far as I know, a potato is NOT even spheroid and therefore there is at least one object which can be considered as a mesoplanet while NOT being a dwarf planet 82.224.88.52 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

lol potato shaped. It's gives us at least two sub-planets not both mesoplanets and dwarf ones: I mean Ceres and Haumea. ONaNcle (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That Wikinews article incorrectly claims that Haumea is potato-shaped, whereas in fact it is the shape of a scalene ellipsoid. --JorisvS (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My lol above meant that we were both thinking that potato is obviously not an appropriate scientific term but I keep on saying Haumea is not even spheroid and even not geoid as the better known Vesta. If 4 Vesta is classified as irregular, how Haumea has managed not to be classified irregular ?

Vesta's only problem is the huge crater at its southern pole, Rheasilvia. Without it, it would be an ellipsoid. Haumea deviates from a sphere only because of its very small rotation period of ~4 hours, which deforms it into a scalene ellipsoid. --JorisvS (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

History

Pluto was unique in its kind for decades and decades, and Mesoplanet has been a mere formulation before becoming a true class of objects and I disagree with yesterday edit keeping the title without the final s but using are.

Btw, from the strict historical point of view, the comparison between dwarf planets and mesoplanets doesn't suit me: the famous 2006 vote didn't include Haumea among the initial dwarf planets and the actual paragraph is missing the fact that, during few years, Haumea was not a dwarf planet but only a meso one. ONaNcle (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Haumea has been a dwarf planet for at least a billion years and the proto-Haumea before the impact that formed the Haumea collisional family ever since the formation of the Solar System. The mere lack of the concept in science doesn't magically make it not a dwarf planet, nor makes the lack of inclusion the object not dwarf planet. --JorisvS (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

lol magically; me too I could start a sentence saying: Pluto has been a dwarf planet for at least... ONaNcle (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pluto has never been a planet, although it was considered to be a 'planet' for 76 years. Ceres has never been a planet, although it was considered to be a 'planet' for about half a century. --JorisvS (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Exoplanet

It's imho an original work to include mesoplanets among exoplanets. Unless the author of this recent diff gives secondary sources of this new classication, I'll remove it after several few days. ONaNcle (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have specific sources for it; Asimov's quote didn't seem to explicitly exclude exoplanets, but if you think he does only consider the Solar System feel free to remove the exoplanet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)