# Talk:Weywot

Do we really want to start using false images that suggest we known far more about any object than we do? A small asteroid/moon is a small asteroid/moon unless we have a real photo of it like we do for Phobos (moon) and Phoebe (moon).  And if we are going to use false advertising we should at least limit them to 180px. -- Kheider (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. I almost didn't respond to your edit summary because I didn't imagine it would be this bad. Do we even know if the albedo is right? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
As is common with small bodies, the albedo and density are assumed. -- Kheider (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I figured. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Myself, Kwamikagami, and Icalanise seems to believe that these fake images can easily mislead the general public.

Given that these keep getting restored, I uploaded a note of 'this image is not yet available' at the name here, to override the transclusion from Commons. — kwami (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, does it really make any sense to assume a density similar to the primary? Quaoar, if the numbers are right, is about the densest thing in the Kuiper Belt; Weywot is suspected to be a collisional fragment (consisting mostly of ice, and therefore a low density object). Not that Weywot's density is currently a major issue in this article (and the reference really does make this assumption...) Sideways713 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)