Talk:Classical Kuiper belt object

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Solar System Portal This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Could somebody please explain the origin of this name?? I've been looking and haven't found it. (I thought this was a joke at first. :-) )

Source for the name http://ghettobox.dhs.org/pucklist/dance/varuna/TNO

And it would be nice to have an indication how to pronounce it.
The link doesn't work, by the way.
Alex 14:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Classical or cubewano? 2 Captions 3 Redirecting this article, losing its entire content 4 Rename? 5 pronunciation

[edit] Classical or cubewano?

This article uses the terms 'cubewano' and 'classical KBO' interchangeably. It would be better if just one term were used throughout (while acknowledging the other in the introduction). Does anyone know which is more commonly used (or more appropriate)? Do we need to change the article title? The Singing Badger 11:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the recent literature (as far as I can judge), classical object completely outnumbers cubewano. However, cubewano is used on countless popular Internet sites… Eurocommuter 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should change the title? We should be using the scientific term, not the popular one, I think. The Singing Badger 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the reason but maybe we should not bother for now. The TNO terminology (orbital sub-categories, colour classes etc.) is still 'emerging' IMHO. The authors often start with the specific definition they will use. A good example is Elliot 2006 I quote on scattered disk#references. And, with all this fuss about the definition of the planet I feel some effort should go into what it is, how it is, how it come to be rather than how we call it. Having said that, a short section writing-up the terminology used so far would be nice. Eurocommuter 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to contradict myself and change all uses to 'cubewano'. It's shorter, it's unmistakeable for anything else, and it would fit with the article title. Please revert if this seems wrong. The Singing Badger 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I should have said that before, sorry; I’ve never encountered cold/hot cubewanos (only classical is used with adjectives!); same for core/halo used by Elliot. Maybe the mixed use in the article is a happier choice. Eurocommuter 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, reverted my change; as you said, let's wait until they figure out fully consistent terms. The Singing Badger 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Either my browser cache was playing with me or you reverted ‘too deep’. I reverted again to your last edition before the replacement of terms. Should be ok now but the browser’s cache already played the tricks on me in the past and I finished with something very different from what I intended. Thanks Eurocommuter 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I don't actually understand what happened there!The Singing Badger 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Once I had written the last comment and started to add refs and Definition section to the article, the version with classical replaced by cubewanos has magically returned . Must be late and I've mixed something up, my apologies in this case, or I’m being played with by the cached content somewhere. The good thing is that your edits are not lost as far as I can tell. We’ll sort it out tomorrow. Eurocommuter 01:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

I understand your logic to put the image-related text in the caption but I have a feeling that in this article it went a bit too far. In my opinion, this approach pushed a bit too far gives the article a look of a popular science magazine, with standalone inserts tackling each a single topic. I do not have the impression that this style is common on the wikipedia so why TNO-relate articles should be different? The topic of this section is precisely the orbits, so a standalone inserts with full text do not seem necessary.

I would suggest to re-distribute slightly the text you put into captions

• Core explanations to be kept in caption
• Details, including small technical stuff into the description of the image (on commons, once the reader clicks on the image), including footnotes.
• The main points back to the main text.

I’m not a presentation expert of course, so I’m just giving my feeling and would like to hear what other people think. This article is rarely visited by editors (see article’s history, my old text survived months!), so maybe we should move this discussion to a more visible place to get more feedback? Eurocommuter 10:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right, it does look weird. I'll play around with it and see what happens. The Singing Badger 11:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, you were right, it was ridiculous of me to cram the entire description into the caption. You're right that if anyone wants to see the graph in detail they will have to click on it, and so the detailed explanations belong on the image page, not in the caption. But I do still believe that it's important not to directly refer to images in the text, because of the potential for disruption by later edits. So...

• The captions now just summarize briefly the contents of the diagram (i.e. they tell the interested reader what goodies are on offer, to encourage them to click on the image).
• The footnotes have been moved to the image page.
• The analysis of the images is back in the main text, but written in neutral language that doesn't say 'this diagram shows...' but instead says 'comparing the orbits this way shows...'
• The layout now looks more sensible. Indeed, it looks very tidy on my browser (but of course everybody's is different).

Thanks for being polite about my occasional mistakes as I work on these pages. I am increasingly impressed by these diagrams as I learn how to read them, and I'm trying to make the pages more accessible and appealing so that other non-specialists will be encouraged to take the time to 'read' them too. But I don't want to remove the technical details either; if I've accidentally deleted anything, please replace it. And yes, it would be good for others to look; perhaps list it at peer review? The Singing Badger 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the overhaul of the article! I believe that making the pages more accessible and appealing is an essential part of the editorial effort. The captions are great and together with the extensions of the image descriptions (on commons) improve significantly the readability. The layout on my browser has a minor problem leaving a few orphan words stuck between the white graph on the left and the (bottom) of the second black graph but with a modest extra content the problem will disappear. As for the peer review, I would like to do some extra work on it first: refresh the references and potentially do some additions/updates. The graphs could also be refreshed with the updated data but this won’t result in any visible changes to the distribution.

I find your overhaul so good that maybe you could have a look on irregular satellites I've created recently (and some moons e.g. Sycorax where I’m experimenting with new diagrams) and review it? Thanks! Eurocommuter 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I will continue until I get bored. :) The Singing Badger 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting this article, losing its entire content

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twotino. Uncle G 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning! You do not mean that cubewano is also listed, do you? Eurocommuter 08:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

I think that this article should be renamed to Classical Kuiper Belt object? That name gets over 1000 hits on Google Scholar, while "cubewano" only gets 13. Additionally, "cubewano" gets 13,000 normal Google hits, while classical Kuiper Belt Object gets 155,000. So it seems that the scientific term wins out on both accounts. Mike Peel 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To get a good comparison you have to search for "exact expression" rather than all of those words - for example the above search will equally well find some article which has "... belt ... object ... classical ... Kuiper ..." in that order (which is not relevant). I get only 5 hits for "classical kuiper belt object", and 13 for cubewano as you had. On normal Google, I get 72 for "classical kuiper belt object", 284 for "classical KBO", and the same 38,000 for cubewano (which seems strangely high, actually). Deuar 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh - but then again "classical KBO" scores 36 on Google Scholar, so it turns out that your rename suggestion still in the lead! (Not as huge as initially supposed, though − only about Pi to one). Deuar 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did originally search for the specific phrases, but found it was missing quite a few so switched to the general words. For example, try adding "s" to the end; "classical kuiper belt objects" gets 538 ghits and 56 on Google Scholar. It is odd that cubewano gets such a high number of hits on normal google. A fair few of the top-rated ones seem to be wikipedia and its various mirrors, though. I guess that, to the public, it sounds more memorable than the proper title. Mike Peel 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Lack of wildcards is a pain. Indeed, classical KBO seems to be markedly more common. (I also got 103 for "classical KBOs" and 36 for "cubewanos" on Google Scholar). It'll be a shame to replace a nice one-worder with a whole expression in the title, but these surveys seems to indicate it. Deuar 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a unique name. Suggest to keep cubewano redirect page. BTW, it would be useful to review/update the whole terminology related to TNOs... Eurocommuter 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

Anyone know where the stress goes? I put it on the bee, because that's what the IPA suggested, but don't actually know. kwami (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)