Talk:(208996) 2003 AZ84

message: The discovery of a satellite for 2003 AZ 84 has been published in IAUC 8812.RandomCritic 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post from 2007 

message: Why the 2-sig figure for the mass in the info box if the mass is unknown? Is that calc'd from the orbit of the satellite, and the text hasn't been updated? — kwami (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass 

message: Dwarf Planet & Plutoid Headquarters = Yes? -- Kheider (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uruguayo 

message: Known for more than ten years. Have any names been proposed/considered yet? Steinbach (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Mike Brown will name it before he confirms the satellite does NOT exist. Maybe he should name it Nibiru since the satellite is now invisible. -- Kheider (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: The study on 2003 AZ84's ellipsoidal shape is quite interesting yet it isn't mentioned as much in the article. I've added a bit of information on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.28.247 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 AZ84's physical properties 

message: (Disclaimer. I realise that the following may in part be original research. I believe it is still relevant to how the sources are presented/used in the article.)
I believe that the sources used in this article contradict each other. That itself isn't a problem (reaching scientific consensus often includes opposing views), but here the situation is different, because those conflicting sources heavily rely on each other, by cherry-picking results from the other papers without realising the apparent contradictions.
This Wikipedia article cites the paper (Dias-Oliveira, 2017) as its source for the derived density of  g/cm³. That paper finds that the shape of  is highly elongated, and derives a density based on an assumed shape (an assumption that is equivalent to hydrostatic equilibrium - a strong assumption, as mentioned in the article), but also based on the rotation period.
In the article lead, this Wikipedia article also cites (Tangredi, 2008), which lists  as a "Case II - Sphere or MacLaurin ellipsoid with small albedo spots". If taken at face value, (Tangredi, 2008) means that the period determination by (Sheppard, 2003) is only consistent with the double-peak solution of 13.4 hours, not the single-peaked 6.7 h. (Compare page 2 of the Sheppard paper.) That's also the value that the Lightcurve Database prefers.
There are two problems with this:
1. (Dias-Oliveira, 2017) assumes the period from the single-peaked solution. They cite (Thirouin, 2010) as their main source, which, citing (Sheppard, 2003), states that the possible double-peaked solution is "apparently no more likely" than a single peak. However, that conclusion is no longer valid in light of the findings from (Dias-Oliveira, 2017) itself, namely its highly elongated shape, as explained in (Sheppard, 2003). Consequently, the density derived in (Dias-Oliveira, 2017) is based on a value for the rotation period that is inconsistent with the findings of that very paper.
2. If the density derivation was correct, and the lightcurve was single-peaked, then (Sheppard, 2003) concludes that it must be caused by albedo spots, in contradiction with (Tangredi, 2008). That paper's classification of  was doubtful to begin with (note the "?"), so a contradiction is not surprising. This doesn't resolve problem #1 though, since the density and assumed shape from (Dias-Oliveira, 2017) imply that  is a "Case III – Jacobi ellipsoid with reasonable density". In any case, (Tangredi, 2008) is outdated and probably shouldn't be used as the sole support for a claim in the article lead. Renerpho (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I added question marks before all values that assume HE, since the resulting density of <1 suggests it's not in HE. Removing the "volumetric" values as OR, since the underlying assumptions conflict and you can't derive one from the other. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sources contradict each other