Talk:Oblate spheroid

message: Disclaimer moved out of page:
Disclaimer: I calculated the equation myself for a homework assignment making some approximations but it seems to remain the same.
Charles Matthews 06:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: Why do oblate spheroids get their own article, but prolate ones are simply redirected to spheroid (which discusses both forms...)?   Is a merge in order here?  Or are oblate spheroids more interesting that prolate ones? Jamie 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because planets (including Earth) are oblate.  ~Kaimbridge~ 10:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True.  But tidal forces cause our oceans to be prolate... Jamie 19:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is oblate special? 

message: There is currently a section in the article that looks rather awkward to me. It is written in the third person, but I think it flows better when it is written in the second person.
This is what I have in mind:
 To get a feel for the type of equilibrium that is involved, you can can take place in a swivel chair, with weights in your hands, and someone brings the chair into rotation. If you pull the weights closer to yourself, their your rotation rate goes up (by conservation of angular momentum), which means that additional contraction requires a stronger force than before.
--Cleonis | Talk 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial style: third person or second person 

message: I propose that the physics content of the current oblate article be moved, and merged with the contents of the equatorial bulge article.
This article, the article about oblate, would then be limited to just the geometrical properties. --Cleonis | Talk 11:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: move the physics to the 'equatorial bulge' article 

message: It seems to me that this should be moved to oblate spheroid, as having an article about an adjective is peculiar.  Thoughts? ENeville 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. But before one of us moves the article, lets wait for other users to put notes in this discussion. Kamope 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I happened to notice the above posting, as this article is on my watchlist. Currently the 'oblate spheroid' article is a redirect to the 'oblate' article. I agree that it would be better to move the content to 'oblate spheroid', which is what the content is about, and either to change the 'oblate' article into a redirect to 'oblate spheroid' or to put up a request for deletion of the 'oblate' article. --Cleonis | Talk 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Oblate spheroid"? 

message: We do have them in the UK, you know :) If you want a more "British" example, use Smarties.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.237.203 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  M&Ms 

message: As confirmed just above, in the U.S. Smarties are a hard candy that have the distinct shape of a short cylinder with concave ends. I suggest Smarties be replaced with something universally correct, such as Mentos. Thinktank33 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know why Smarties in the US are cylinders while Smarties elsewhere are some other shape?  I thought the idea of Smarties shape was that they would stack nicely in a roll package..  Oblate spheroids wouldn't do that. Jimw338 (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smarties problem