Talk:2003 UB313/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Albedo range?

As albedo=1.0 is essentially impossible, what can we say about it? That is, what range of albedo do other TNOs have? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

From David Jewitt's webpage [1]:
name         albedo
---------------------
Pluto        0.6
Charon       0.4
Sedna        0.2?
Orcus        0.04/0.12
Quaoar       0.12
Ixion        0.09
2002 AW197   0.1
Varuna       0.07+/-0.02
Except for Pluto and Charon (probably because of Pluto's atmosphere) most KBOs are rather dark. Though it seems that KBOs are brighter than originally thought (the larger ones at least).--Jyril 22:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The reason I asked is I was going to propose a change from "As this is improbable, it is most likely somewhat larger than the planet" to something like "As most TNOs have albedo of less than X, it is most likely somewhat larger than the planet". But your mention of Pluto's atmosphere gives me pause - if Pluto can have a nontrivial atmosphere, so can '313. So it's probably rash to make that addition. I do think the above table would be very valuable in the TNO article, however. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that this new planet could have an atmosphere. Pluto only has an atmosphere during its closest passes to the sun; during the rest of its orbit the atmosphere is frozen. I doubt that UB313 ever comes close enough to the sun to have an atmosphere of any significance. bob rulz 03:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
If Pluto can have an atmosphere at ~30 AU, what's to stop this new object from having an atmosphere at ~35 AU (believed to be this object's closest approach to the Sun, as mentioned in the article)?--Firsfron 06:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Pluto at perihelion is apparently fairly close to the limit where it can have a significant atmosphere. It has an atmosphere now, but as it moves away from the Sun in the next few decades, it will probably freeze again. Part of the reason why New Horizons is being sent there soon was to get a probe out to Pluto before 2020 to investigate the atmosphere while it still was around; if we waited too much longer, even though Pluto would only move out a few AU, that would be enough for it to freeze. Also, if 2003UB313 has a higher albedo than Pluto, then at a given distance from the Sun, it will be even colder. (Similarly, if its darker than Pluto, then it would be warmer at a given distance.) The Reflection 20:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that a more relevant data point is the fact that Pluto and Chiron show significant methane in the spectra. It seems that no other TNOs are know for this, except for 2003 UB313. So there is good reason to believe the this object may have an albedo which is more comparable to Pluto's than to that of the other TNOs. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I saw link to this file [2] on the Kuiper belt page. It lists some measured albedos. From the 17 listed asteroids four have albedos larger than 0.2 and one near 0.4 (error bars are large, though, and some have only minimum albedos). So generally they are rather dark, although not uniformly so.--Jyril 11:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Planet Lila?

The Caltech web page says "We have proposed a name to the IAU and will announce it when that name is accepted." Thus it is amusing to see that the title of the page is "Planet Lila", and the image on the page is named "lila.JPG". A hint? KSmrq 01:35, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that, and added it to the article. The URL also strongly suggests the same thing, but maybe they're trying to put everyone off the scent of what the real name will be..! Worldtraveller 01:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the page has been updated, and here is a comment written on it: "For those speculating that the name proposed is "Lila" based on the web site name I must warn you that that is really just a sentimental dad's early morning naming of a web site for his three week old daughter and one should not take it too seriously!" DarthVader 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
A piece on the radio just now said that some researchers have nicknamed it "Xena"; I added a brief mention (along with the caveat that this is just a possibility) to the Xena entry. DS 12:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Subscript

Where can i find info why it's official written with 313

See the provisional designation article. Urhixidur 15:27, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Merger

  • I think it would be wrong to merge this article with Planet X. This is about a specific object, the latter is about a general concept which this object is only partly related to. I think it makes very good sense to have two separate articles so I oppose the move. Worldtraveller 12:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose. Planet X is about a variety of hypothetical planets, UB313 is about a specific planet. It's only dumb journalists that apply the former term to the latter. Merging these two is like merging El Dorado (myth) with Tenochtitlan. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose. Planet X is much more general term, and refers to a body that never really existed (it was inferred from anomalies in Neptune's and Uranus' orbits that have been explained already). It is also far from certain that this new object should be called a planet. It is very likely that there are number of bodies this size or even larger bodies to be found in the Kuiper belt.--Jyril 12:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose All of the above are excellent reasons why this article should not be merged with Planet X. A mention of 2002 UB313 on the Planet X page (as has already been added) is appropriate, but a merger is not. Caerwine 12:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose. For the reasons already cited. Mr. Brownstone 13:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Evercat 13:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Urhixidur 15:28, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. I just rewrote the Planet X article, including the removal of a bunch of extraneous stuff on the myth of Nibiru. UB313 is relevant to the issue of Planet X and the search for it, but is no more Planet X than Pluto was for the reasons given by Jyril. --EMS | Talk 19:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose for the reasons listed above and additionally because NASA is now identifying this object as a "new planet", not Planet X.--Firsfron 20:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I also oppose merging with Planet X (though a link there to here would be good) but wonder when it has it's final name will this writeup simply change to or be linked to the new name?
    • This article will be renamed, although the old name 2003 UB313 will continue to work (it'll redirect to the new name). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that this vote has a strong consensus "oppose" (Evercat having removed the merge tag several hours ago). I'm not saying no-one else can vote, but I think the matter seems to be decided. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • oppose Planet X was supposed to be a giant planet which was supposed to be found out by gravitational anomalities on other bodies of the solar system. Since proven that there is no such unknown body in the solar system that can influence the orbits of bodies such as comets or Neptune, a Planet X is a thing that cannot be. --SuperBleda 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no more need to vote. The merge tag was removed on 30 July. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Orbital data

As of today, nothing in AstOrb.dat yet. Will fix the data as soon as it shows up. Urhixidur 15:28, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

See the discovery MPEC.--Jyril 16:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Naming

Any idea when the name will be known? Brown's site should be updated after the weekend, but I guess it's up to the IAU... Djadek 16:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You're correct, it must not be published before it is accepted by the IAU; there was some controversy in Sedna's naming because Mike Brown announced it prematurely. If this object is named as other asteroids, it must receive a permanent numbering first (and before that, its orbit must be measured properly so it can be rediscovered -- hardly a problem with this one). After that, it can be named. I'm remembering that they are changing their policy in situations like this.--Jyril 16:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the explanation. Let's hope they give this special case some priority. :) Djadek 17:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct page name

The correct name for this page is 2003_UB%E2%82%83%E2%82%81%E2%82%83. (The %-s identify hexidecimal code which is used to create the subscripted characters.) However, some well meaning anonymous editor has created a redirect from that title to this one.

I am putting in a request to move this page. Please comment on it here. --EMS | Talk 19:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • oppose. For technical reasons, correct != smart in this case. Those unicode characters don't render on plenty of modern browsers (read IE on WinXP), don't work on screen readers, and I'm pretty sure will confuse Google and other search engines no end. This has already been discussed at Talk:2003_EL61#.E2.82.86.E2.82.81_characters_.3F, which was originally named with the unicode characters. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose. See also my talk page, we've discussed this before. Readibility is more important than look, and I'm not sure how "official" subscripting the numbers is. Lack of Unicode support is not good reason to avoid diacriticals or non-Latin letters, but in this case they are just counter-productive. Googling was good point, I didn't even thought about that.--Jyril 19:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I uplodaded this image to prove my point.--Jyril 19:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose I can't read those characters on my computer, even though my browser's been updated with Unicode patches. If I want to read a bunch of boxes, I can go to the Chinese Wikipedia. ;) --Firsfron 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose Djadek 20:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose for above reasons. Let me take this opportunity to plug Template:Minplan. -The Tom 21:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose It'll have to be moved to its real name anyway--hopefully soon. —wwoods 23:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I was not expecting this consensus. Suffice it to say that there are then some minor planets that need to be moved in the opposite fashion. In the meantime I will remove this request. Thanks to everyone. --EMS | Talk 03:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

complicated outer solar system

I haven't seen a good summary of outer solar system issues and links - I can think of Pioneer (and it's anomaly,) Voyager (and the heliosphere/pause/terminal shock), TNO's and now a (reasonable) 10th planet among hundreds of KBO's, Uranus on it's side spinning, termination of the Kuiper Belt and possible cause from early interaction with another star system (which brings up destinguishing introduced planetismals) vs comets coming from Oort cloud, seeding oour planetary disk early on with supernova remnants, close brushes with a set of stars passing through Scorpio that had several supernova over the last millions of years, local interstellar medium, closest stars, stars coming by, a black hole coming by (not to close), the solar system oscillating through the galaxy disk.... Bunches of topics that are begining to interact I think.

Image lifted from BBC web site

This image which was used in the article is taken from here. I can't honestly see how fair use could apply when the entirety of the work has been used, and it would be quite straightforward to create a freely distributable version of this image. Therefore, I've commented it out. Worldtraveller 00:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Plz upload public domain pic to commons

Please upload public domain pictures to commons, so every wikipedia can use it. Thanks.--Pedro 00:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Suspect that term "scattered disc object" will change due to public misconception

Please keep an eye out for alternate terms. I am sure that thousands of uninformed enthusiasts might believe that "scattered disc object" refers to a noncohesive fleet of flying saucers just waiting for a signal from some distant star system. I can only imagine the hysteria. :)

What if they're actually MMORPG designers?

Xena

There have been rumours that 2003 UB313 might be named after Xena. They're just rumours, originated from Mike Brown's joke. Xena is not acceptable name for a Kuiper belt object (even less for a possible planet).--Jyril 11:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

would you prefer Gabrielle? Why is the name not acceptable? Is there a specific astronomical standard that would be broken if it was named Xena?? Eclipsed 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in fact there is. The International Astronomical Union has a set of standards -- naming conventions -- which has a longstanding policy that notable minor planets receive the names of "gods and deities of creation, or the underworld" -- hence the names of Sedna and Quaoar. (If it were just an asteroid, though, there's almost no limit to what suggested name they'll approve.) Xena fans are going to be disappointed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
There's already a 355 Gabriella (there's even a second one, 33532 Gabriellacoli). Urhixidur 15:58, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Would 595 Polyxena count? Urhixidur 15:59, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Polyxena = many Xenas?--Jyril 19:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I hope it's a rumor; Xena is a terrible name. What a stupid idea without any historical and/or mythological antecedents -- not to mention a possible copyvio. Planets are named for Roman Gods, so to me Janus, as the god of doors, beginnings and endings, is a far more worthy name. Alcarillo 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the Xena copyright owners would oppose ;). But really, Xena is just a codename, probably as Planet X -> Planet Xena. I simply don't understand the fuss about the name. Even calling it the planet Lila would have been much better.--Jyril 19:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Janus, already taken. Moon of Saturn.--Wronkiew 20:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Copy right violation? What, are the producers of the TV Show Xena gonna sue the planet? --68.144.211.103 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Meh, they should just call it Rupert--82.203.139.40 13:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Terminus is available, though.--Firsfron 15:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Terminus would be a sorta silly name once a planetoid was discovered further out, though. :) =The Tom 15:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Artist's impression"

I consider Image:2003_UB313_artist's_impression.jpg to be one of the worst examples of "artist's impressions" used to illustarte astronomical articles. 0% information, 30% speculation (planet's surface), 70% redundancy (oh yeah, we see stars and a dim sun). Any objections to removing it? --Pjacobi 11:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's better than nothing.--Jyril 12:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Better showing what? That there are stars visible? Also we have two pictures with content for this article. --Pjacobi 12:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any major reason to remove it - it's not misleading and it makes the article look better. Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, surely. Worldtraveller 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep the image, until such time as the artistic impression on the image become Obviously Outdated. The only reason to remove the image currently is if the displayed size of the sun was obviously wrong (ie: if the image suggested a distance different then what is currently known.) Eclipsed 14:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Titling Policy Strawman

Let's get a few things clear, and hopefully reach a consensus. The technically correct title (see provisional designation) is 2003 UB313 with the 313 as a subscript; in Unicode this is rendered 2003 UB₃₁₃ (the only form you can actually type in the Search box or address bar), and that is therefore what the wrongtitle template should point to. Now, we've all seen that these Unicode subscripts are a) frequently not locally rendered because the user does not have fonts with enough Unicode support, and b) frequently rendered so smallish they're not legible. This is why the <sub> form is preferable within an article: 2003 UB313. Finally, to allow the article to be reachable from a search engine, it is preferable to list all three forms at the article's outset. To sum up:

  1. The article title should be subscript-less.
  2. A redirect should be in place from the Unicode-subscript form.
  3. The article's wrongtitle should use the Unicode-subscript form.
  4. Within the article, the <sub> form should be used.
  5. The article should begin with « <sub>-form (Unicode-subcript form, also written subscript-less form) ».

Discussion?

Urhixidur 14:54, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

How subscripting of the numbers is acheived is surely not particularly important, just as long as we note that they should be subscripted. Maximum visibility is the most important thing, and so if using unicode is going to result in a significant number of readers not seeing the intended result, <sub> is surely the way to go. Having both ways of subscripting listed in the opening paragraph just seems unnecessarily duplicative and confusing to me. So, I agree with your points 1, 2 and 4 but think that point 3 introduces unnecessary visibility problems while point 5 just introduces redundant extra text. Point 2 sorts out the searchability aspect. Worldtraveller 15:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The use of the Unicode subscript digits is discouraged by UNICODE. They are only included in the standard for backward compatibility. They are especially discouraged for use with markup, see TR20. --Pjacobi 15:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
They don't quite discourage it, but I read it as saying "don't use these in HTML unless you really have a good reason for it". Given the other problems, sticking with <sub>313</sub> is definitely preferable, even if it means a minor visual glitch in the page title from not using either. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Worldtraveller - 1, 2 and 4 are valid points, but 3 and 5 aren't. Further to Pjacobi's point, Unicode subscipts should be shunned altogether, the only exception being redirects to deal with existing mislinked articles. Indeed, I think some sort of wikiwide bot-job to purge unicode subscripts from minor planet links should be undertaken—List of noteworthy asteroids, for instance, has recently been mass-converted over to Unicode subscripts. Template:Minplan eliminates the need to do a lengthy piped link with <sub> tags, and while its still relatively awkward and long, its a slight improvement timewise and makes the markup a lot more decipherable. -The Tom 17:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The unicode '313' (₃₁₃)is very hard to read, indeed. <sub> looks to be much more widely readable. Eclipsed 16:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Unicode Technical Report #20 5.6 essentially says "don't use the super/subscript characters within marked-up text", which is why I originally proposed to confine them to the redirect (2) and the wrongtitle (3). No markup instructions can be put as part of the title, so the only way to distinguish subscripts from straight digits is to use the Unicode subscripts. Having the redirects in place is a way of getting ready for the future, when URls can handle them more easily. At worse, they're useless, not harmful.
Whether wrongtitle should list the string-of-characters-that-should-have-been-used or render the appearance-we-should-strive-for is a matter of wrongtitle's definition. If we go with the latter, it becomes OK to use wrongtitle in combination with <math> expressions, and I shudder as to where this could lead...
If "maximum visibility is the most important thing", then the Unicode-subscript version needs to appear at least once in the text. If we keep the wrongtitle in Unicode-subscript, then there is no need to repeat the Unicode-subscript form in the opening text of the article.
Urhixidur 00:37, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
You seem to imply there is a not-insubstantial number of people out there who would read about a minor planet somewhere, take the number from its designation, look up the Unicode character equivalents, translate them over one by one so as to transcribe out a new string of characters with built-in subscripts, and then copy and paste that string into a search box either here or on Google. That is one scary world. :)
In all seriousness, Google drops subscripts altogether, finding 2003 UB313 purely on the strength of the "2003 UB" part. Wikipedia's search also hates Unicode subscripts, dropping them. I see no earthly reason for those nasty little things to appear anywhere in the body text. I'm all for redirects with them in the namespace so as to collect traffic from old Unicode-subscript-based wikilinks scattered around the 'pedia, but beyond that it seems like this is just promoting a bad way of rendering information simply because it has better nerd cred. Keep in mind that all "official" data releases from the MPC are very intentionally paleolithic —on their site you can read all about how information can only be passed in and out in plaintext 80-column-wide feeds so as to not irritate the science gods. No fancy Unicode or subscripts there. -The Tom 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I would think that the overwhelming majority of searches will ignore the subscripting of 313. Anyway, the browser I'm using right now renders the Unicode as square boxes, which look really bad, and don't enlighten me at all as to what the correct title is —lots of users are in the same situation, and using markup rather than Unicode to do the subscripting therefore helps a lot of people. I can't honestly see any conceivable harm in not using the Unicode characters, so I will remove them for now. Worldtraveller 12:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not denying that current searches are very unlikely to use subscripts. I'm talking about positioning ourselves for the future (where everybody is Unicode and super/subscripts are no trouble at all  :-) ) at a very small cost. On the other hand, if the penalty of seeing square boxes is too much a price to pay...
Worldtraveller, could you test and see if you still get square boxes if we use this form: The correct title is 2003 UB₃₁₃?
Urhixidur 15:54, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
'Fraid that's still boxes for me, with IE 5.5. Unicode works under Mozilla and Firefox but I fear IE is still king out there among the great unwashed :( Worldtraveller 16:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's position ourselves for the future, when the future happens, mmmkay? Right now MediaWiki and many browsers have trouble with this sort of thing, and more importantly, most people don't have a way to type these characters easily, even if they display OK. The astronomers who announced the durn thing use plain-ASCII 2003UB313 on their web page [3], which really says to me that it's good enough for the only people to whom such things really, really matter. --Dhartung | Talk 16:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but some people already use TeX systematically...No matter, how's this for a revised proposed policy?
  1. The article title should be subscript-less.
  2. A redirect should be in place from the Unicode-subscript form.
  3. The article's wrongtitle should use the <sub> form.
  4. Within the article, the <sub> form should be used throughout.
  5. The article should begin with « <sub>-form (also written subscript-less form) ».
Urhixidur 19:27, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
I'm reasonably happy with that. The only one I'm a little unsure about is 5, for the basic reason that it seems a bit odd to have a message at the top that says "2003 UB313 is more correct than 2003 UB313" and then one line lower to put them on a sorta level playing field. Bear in mind that for wikipedia-searching/googling/Ctrl+F/what-have-you purposes, 2003 UB313(displayed with a <sub>) is totally interchangeable-with and equivalent-to 2003 UB313, so there's no absolute need to have the unsubbed version appear anywhere except in the namespace. -The Tom 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Some speculation

Speculation can't do any wrong, can it? The name of the 'new planet' is thus far unknown, but there might be several hints:

  • As the discoverers consider their find a real planet, they'll likely follow the naming conventions for the other planets of the solar system. In other words, they'll choose a major Roman deity.
  • As many objects in the Kuyper belt are named after underworld gods (including their own Sedna), they might want to choose one for this object as well.

That´s why I´d like to predict it will turn out that the name they proposed to the IAU is Proserpina. That´s right, the Roman queen of the Underworld! She fits the criteria mentioned above. Besides, it has been stated 2003 UB313 is quite similar to Pluto in some aspects, so I guess it would make some sense to name it after Pluto's wife...

One other reason, one of the discoverers, Mike Brown, describes himself as a sentimental father loving his three weeks old daughter. He named his site 'Planet Lila' after her. Now we all know Proserpina was the beloved daughter of Ceres, who travelled all over Earth to find her... So wouldn't the mythical beloved daughter be an excellent choice, from Brown's perspective?

And sure I'm quite likely to prove wrong. But I did my best ;) 80.61.232.49 18:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

26 Proserpina means that name has already been taken, surely... - Burwellian 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The minor planet (asteroid) 26 Proserpina and the planet 2003 UB313 may be allow to have that name as the two might be classified differentially (if it is accepted as a planet). Perhaps Persephone as a equivalent name. --BerserkerBen 22:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Try again: 399 Persephone -- Curps 00:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it should be named Apollo, Bacchus, Diana or Minerva. Because these are major Gods, and there are no planets with that names. Or maybe, in last case, Endovelicus, the Lusitanian God (also Roman), who was in the darkness and returns to the sun with healing powers (like this planet does in its orbit). I think Roman names can be repeated, cause using roman names to space rocks (w/ sizes smaller to 360 km) shouldn't be considered as taken. --Pedro 23:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Apollo was a solar god, while the moon was in Diana´s department... So I think they´ve got everything they could wish for ;) 80.61.232.49 23:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All of your proposed names are already taken: 1862 Apollo, 2063 Bacchus, 78 Diana, 93 Minerva. -- Curps 00:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • not all: Endovelicus wasn't. If we are talking about planets, the taken thing doesn't work! A planet is a planet, an asteroid is an asteroid. -Pedro 00:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me guess that 2003 UB313 won't be named after a Greco-Roman deity.--Jyril 23:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • I hope not! -Pedro 23:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe Proserpina should be the best name, cause the orbit of this planet reaches the orbit of pluto. Although I dont like the name proserpina a lot. Maybe Diana... although that's a common women's name. I really hope that the name is from a Roman deity! I don't even want to think the other way arround, that would be a spear in Astronomy's History. -Pedro
I would love it if they called it Rupert - a fine tribute to a great man. Worldtraveller 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The following has appeared today on Mike Brown's website:
When a new object is discoverd the International Astronomical Union (IAU) gives it a temporary designation based on the date it was first seen. Thus 2003 UB313 can be decoded to tell you that the data from which the object was discovered was obtained in the second half of October 2003. Next, the discoverers proposed a permanent name. We have proposed such a name and are eagerly awaiting the ruling from the IAU, which we hope will come soon. Until that time, however, we are obligated to keep our name to ourselves. But we are free to discuss naming philosophies!
As with everything else in this universe, there are official rules whereby a new body in the solar system must be named. Interestingly, it is not entirely clear which rules this new planet falls under, since no one expected to find new planets so no rules actually exist. If the object falls under the rules for other Kuiper belt objects, however, it must be named after some figure in a creation mythology. We have decided to attempt to follow that ruling scheme.
All of the other planets are named for Greek or Roman gods, so an obvious suggestion is to attempt to find such a name for the new planet. Unfortunately, most of the names of Greek or Roman god names (particularly those associated with creation, which tend to be the major gods) were used back when the first asteroids were being discovered. If a name is already taken by an asteroid the IAU would not allow that name to be used again. One such particularly apt name would have been Persephone. In Greek mythology Persephone is the (forcibly abducted) wife of Hades (Roman Pluto) who spends six months each year underground. The mourning of her mother Demeter causes the dead of winter. The new planet is on an orbit that could be described in similar terms; half of the time in the vicinity of Pluto and half of the time much further away. Sadly, the name Persephone was used in 1895 as a name for the 399th known asteroid. The same story can be told for almost any other Greek or Roman god of any consequence. One exception to this depletion is the Roman god Vulcan (Greek Haphaestus), the god of fire. Astronomers have long reserved that term, however, for a once hypothetical (now know to be nonexistent) planet interior to Mercury (god of fire, near the sun, good name). We would not want to use such a name to describe such a cold body!
Luckily, the world is full of mythological and spiritual traditions. In the past we have named Kuiper belt objects after native American, Inuit, and [minor] Roman gods. Our new proposed name expands to different traditions, still. We hope it is accepted by the IAU and hope afterwards that it is embraced by all.
Well, there you have it from the horse's mouth. While Persephone/Proserpina would have been nice for all manner of reasons, the IAU would need to be convinced to strip it away from one of the asteroids, and it sounds like Brown et. al have not asked to do so. Instead, sounds like we're going to a creation deity from mythology that has yet to get a celestial representative. -The Tom 01:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope they wont accept that name. The planet is not their property to give a name that is unrelated with the rest of the planets. It must be a Roman god name like the other 9 planets.--Pedro 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. Uranus isn't Roman. So the precedent has already been set, long ago. Maybe we should call 2003 UB313 Caelus, the Roman equivalent of Uranus?
Urhixidur 02:43, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • Ok, but Uranus is not properly unrelated with the rest, it is still related with a small failure. -Pedro 02:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe Ataegina which is the Lusitanian equivelent of Proserpina. There is no planet or asteroid with Lusitanian god names. Wonder why. This goddess was also worshipped by the Romans. --Pedro 02:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe it will be named after another Inuit god, like Sedna, due to the coldness and distance. But maybe we're all wrong and the IAU will choose Sagan instead. :P -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nope, it's already taken: 2709 Sagan. Urhixidur 15:42, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Loki has a very, very slim chance (i.e., none) of passing, since it is a god of Fire. Urhixidur 15:42, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
    • oh christ. How boring. That gods were used in the Age of Mythology. So boring and dull. Why that mythology (very uninteresting and unnotable) had to do be mixed with the Egyptian and Greek - that are very interesting and rich? Now that in Astronomy, give me a break. --Pedro 12:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm having trouble parsing Pedro, but if he's complaining that Norse mythology is "boring", I beg to differ on a grand scale. Urhixidur 15:42, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
I can't tell, but I think he's talking about the video game Age of Mythology, since obviously that's the only place anyone can get any information about myths. :) Anyway, Loki may well be a god of fire, but it's just a random guess anyway (I haven't played that video game...) (He's also the god of mischief...) :) kmccoy (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry for my honesty, urhixidur. That Mythology seemed a lot out of place in that game and compared with the other two ones, it really seemed boring and uninteresting. it has its interest, I believe it has. Besides I never heard it before, so I didn't like it. While the Greek and the Egypcian ones I've learned it in school, and i've read about it also. Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythologies are universal, while Norse (has you call it, isnt). A planet should have a name that we know (the public) the meaning and should be related with the rest. I don't know who's Sedna... and what that means. The other KBOs i can't even recall their names, just like the new moons of Saturn (these I cant even spell them). Planets of the solar system should all have Roman names without exception, and in other solar systems we should choose one mythology per solar system or constellation, IMO. -Pedro 17:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Roman names would be preferred, but we are rapidly running out of even minor Roman deities, hence the problem. Personally I think Norse names would be a good fit for these cold, distant objects (although even some of those are already taken by various asteroids and minor moons). Particularly the Jotun's (aka Frost Giants of wich Loki is one) would be good, they are associated with frost (and rock) and preferred dark places (little sunlight out there in the Kuiper belt). They also embody "chaos" wich would be appropriate given the "unusual" (compared to the inner planets) orbits of these objects. Anyway as I said I'd prefer a Roman deity, but most of them are already taken by various minor moons and asteroids, so we'll have to broaden the "schope" of planet(oid) naming sooner or later. --Sherool 18:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, 19521 Chaos is a KBO. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I personally think the Norse is just as universal as the Graeco-Roman and Egyptian, but I guess it depends on one's upbringing. Norse mythology is familiar to most anglo-saxons, albeit sometimes indirectly --anyone who has studied (even just slightly) the Vikings, or been exposed to Wagnerian myths will recognise that mythology. Lord of the Rings shares strong affinities with it, too, and I don't need to tell you how popular that is. Even the English names of the week are directly taken from it! I won't mention the Thor comics. Truly, I won't!
Urhixidur 19:24, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

Discovery date for 2003 UB313

I have corrected the discovery date for 2003 UB313 to October 21, 2003, from January 8, 2005. The Minor Planet Center has been very consistent in its approach that the discovery date is the date that the discovery images were acquired, and not the date that the images were first recognized.

What? Are you serious? They might as well go back and change the official date of discovery of Neptune to 1612, Uranus to 1670, and Pluto to 1915 as well. I haven't seen this practice done anywhere else, but then again, i'm not an expert on this... bob rulz 08:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that those were pre-discovery observations. You can see that this practice is followed from the provisional designation 2003 UB313, which denotes the year and half-month of discovery. Someone else might later uncover an image of this thing from decades ago but it was the October 2003 images that were used to discover it, so that's the discovery date. Worldtraveller 09:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate first line

The line

Xena is the tentative name for 2003 UB313 which has been classified as a planet beyond Pluto.

was added as the first descriptive line by AI. I find this to be inappropriate because it is annoucing as fact a rumored name (which apparently is not the real on being proposed anyway), and makes another claim about the classification which simply is not true. These points are covered better and without hype later in the article itself, and so in that respect this line causes confusion. --EMS | Talk 04:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not going to be called Xena

This whole Xena thing seems to be just a nickname. See [link removed], an article which actually says both:

Dr. Brown said they had a name they have proposed for the planet, but did not want to disclose it until it had been formally approved by the International Astronomical Union.

And:

Informally, the astronomers have been calling it Xena after the television series about a Greek warrior princess, which was popular when the astronomers began their systematic sweep of the sky in 2000. "Because we always wanted to name something Xena," Dr. Brown said.

He can hardly say that they're not giving out the name, then talk about the name Xena, unless that isn't really the name they've put forward. Evercat 11:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Just so long as they don't call it Xenu. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Mod parent up. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Telescopes

"The new object is bright enough with an apparent magnitude of about 19 to be visible even in quite modest telescopes."

Just how modest? Perhaps more detail would be good here. User:Rmhermen

Sources differ, but it appears that under ideal conditions you would need something on the order of a 20" aperture, or larger. While such an instrument is out of reach of the average amateur, they are available. A quick search turned up an outfit that at one time sold 30" dobsonians. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Tenth planet -> Planet X link

Even though I did a bunch of work on the Planet X article, I do not like this link. Planet X is a now disproven hypothesis that discrepancies in the oribits of the outer planets indicate the presense of another fairly massive object beyond the orbit of Neptune. There are now no planet X searches ongoing, nor was 2003 UB313 found as a result of such a search. It is therefore totally inappropriate for the words "tenth planet" to be linked to "planet X".

This also impresses me as being an "Easter Egg" link, which you cannot understand until you get there. You also are sent to a page which says that 2003 UB313 is not planet X, which can only be confusing in terms of whether it is the tenth planet.

Note that I am not opposed to an explicit statement in this article that 2003 UB313 is not planet X. That would be an excellent way of making the linkage. --EMS | Talk 17:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To avoid an edit war (since at least two other editors have strong opinions on this), I call for a poll on this issue:

  • oppose - Reasons cited above --EMS | Talk 17:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
"Polls are evil. Don't vote on everything, and if you can help it, don't vote on anything." There is no need for a poll here. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Would you prefer that I just pull the link? --EMS | Talk 18:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

OBE (Overtaken by Events)

This is moot. Someone else saw where and how to make the needed change and make the relationship to Planet X explicit. (I could not quite figure out how I wanted to achieve that.) So "tenth planet" is no longer a link and "Planet X" is now an explicit in-context link to that article. My thanks to whoever. --EMS | Talk 18:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Having been the one who reverted your change, I can accept this as a compromise. The main reason I feel the link remains appropriate is that there's no other article that discusses the cultural role of "Planet X" (or any other "10th planet"), beyond the scientific hypothesis. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
It was not my change, but I was willing to defend it. Hence this thread for the reasons stated. I also ask you to realize that this object may not be designated a planet: Instead it may force the demotion of Pluto. (I will make an edit in the article to describe that, with a link to the relevant article at news @ nature.com.)
Okay, as long as we're fully disclosing ;-), I actually support Pluto's "demotion" to the ... er ... now second-largest KBO. I still think for cultural reasons the link makes sense. --Dhartung | Talk 09:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

other mythology names

How about Egyptian mythology? Is Osiris taken?

Well sort of... See HD 209458b. Although strictly speaking it's not an official designation, and it's not in our solar system, so it still might work. --Sherool 23:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Osiris in not way whatsoever officially, and hardly even inofficially used by astronomers to refer HD 209458 b. However, there are an asteroid 1923 Osiris so the name is reserved.--Jyril 09:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this is a bad joke, how about Tiamat? :) --AI 00:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Who's up for some Sumerian mythology? Ishtar anyone? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
In Babylonian mythology, Ishtar is the goddess of love and war, so it is not acceptable. Tiamat might be.
By the way, Brown have hinted that unlike his earlier namings the name for 2003 UB313 doesn't come from Greco-Roman or Native American/Inuit mythologies.--Jyril 08:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the name Tiamat would conflict with Sumerian mythology/cosmology. --AI 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How so? Tiamat (aside from being a nice needling of the Nibiru rubbish, as was noted above), is a creation goddess, which syncs with other TNOs like Quaoar. Anyway, considering that the entirety of Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, Australia and Polynesia all have rather rich polytheistic mythologies and none have yet contributed a deity's name to a significant celestial body, I think the pool of choices is so big as to make guessing games fairly pointless.
One question I'm a little fuzzy on is where this creation-god thing for TNOs came from—I'm not seeing it at all in what's been named already. Ixion, Orcus and Rhadamanthus aren't creation-related at all, but tie into the Hades myth... that said, they're plutinos, which initially makes sense, but then consider there's also a plutino named after Huya, a South American rain god. The non-plutinos seem to be all over the place—Quaoar is indeed a creator, but Deucalion is a Greek Noah figure, Chaos isn't a god at all, and Varuna is a Hindu sky god. Brown said something about recommending to the IAU that all way-out-there objects be named after the deities of arctic peoples and took the lead with Sedna. -The Tom 20:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I figure, being a "name pusher" as I've been through the years, and having pushed for Chaos and later Orcus, I should speak up here. TNO's originally fell in two categories: Neptune-resonant Plutinos and Planetesimal-leftover Cubewanos (QB1-o's)... Since cubewanos have fairly circular orbits, and are basically left undisturbed "since creation", they get the Creation Myth-related names, many of which crossover with rain, water and flood myths (Think of them as "Re"-creation myths?). Plutinos, since they have been displaced by Neptune (cast out, if you will), they continue getting Underworld and Death related names. As you correctly note, Ixion, Orcus, and Rhadamanthus directly come from underworld myths. But you're off with others, as I've read elsewhere that Huya also has some death connection (alternatively some TNO classifications have been changed when better orbital parameters were established).
Chaos is definitely part of the pantheon, that's clear even in the Wikipedia article. Varuna is also a war and creation god. Deucalion is the son of Prometheus, who created man in some tellings of Greek myth. As to the "looming" name, I have a severe sense of dread. It's B.S. to say there aren't good names left: Cosmos, Oceanus, Erebus and Tartarus are all basic Greco-Roman myth names unused by minor planets, or by planetary satellites. I think these could be used in the same way that Orcus was an excellent name for an object scattered by Neptune in the same manner as Pluto. --Sturmde 15:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Much thanks for clearing that up for me! Nice to have a viewpoint from someone a little closer to the action than us armchair christeners. I've tweaked this article to reflect your clarification on the underworld/creation split, though your clarification on this subject elsewhere on Wikipedia would be much-appreciated as things are a tad lacking in other articles. As far as non-Western god-guesses go, I'm going to throw out Tagaro (also Tangaroa) from Polynesia, who has a inbuilt 10 in his story and a bit of projectile motion that seems fitting for an SKDO. (godchecker.com is a most useful resource) -The Tom 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
How about Ereshkigal? Babylonian goddes of Irkalla, the land of the dead. Haven't been used yet.--Jyril 15:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Sturmde, Roman and Greek names have a big advantage over the other mythologies. Plus, it relates all the planets. Although the Egyptian names are cool. But I would like Egyptian names in exoplanets. Planets have mythical names because for the Greeks and Romans the planets were gods. And it our dutty to names planets of the solar system after their mythology in respect for the origins of our civilization. If they had seen this planets, they would name it after a god of theirs. I don't mind that minor planets gain names from other mythologies. But I honestely don't like these names in planets (no way in here) and in important moons. I think it is fantastic to see how the Galilean moons are related with jupiter, these were Jupiter's greater loves. We should respect the Roman and Greek religions, like we should respect all religions. Respecting the Greco-Roman is giving planets Roman names and to their moons after loved ones or companions. How must god Saturn feels today? Some of His moons have the wierdest names! How can we teach children that names, if even adults can't pronunce them or don't know what they mean. I use to be very proud that I knew all the names of the planets and moons of the solar system and I knew from were their names came from. That is fantastic for children (We had only the problem of the Uranus moons). Today... I think the best we can do is ignoring this new objects. Or maybe the best is some astronomers gathering and rename some objects for some languages. --Pedro 09:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Whoah whoah whoah. "And it our dutty to names planets of the solar system after their mythology in respect for the origins of our civilization." Where'd this our come from? Isn't it more than a tad, uh, arrogant, to presume an immense chunk of ice can only be named in accordance with the beliefs of one puny civilization from one poky little corner of one poky little continent on a rock fifteen billion km away from it? I'm a stickler for consistency in nomenclature myself, but the world has changed a lot since the nineteenth century—remember Uranus and Neptune finally got Greco-Roman names not out of any degree of "respect" for founding mythology, but as a compromise between the English and French who weren't keen on having "George's Star" or "Le Verrrier" kicking around the heavens. The other rich mythological tradtions of this planet are just as deserving of recognition as the Greco-Roman ones, and just because Herschel and his contemporaries would have been loathe to name their discoveries after the gods of "savages" doesn't mean Brown's team should be held to the same standards. I can only presume from your comments below " Astronomy these days... the cubewanos, the KBO's, the TNO... Ijiraq, Suttungr (and these ones I had to open a page with their names), etc. OMG..." that you disagree. -The Tom 20:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. The tradition of naming the planets after deities came from the ancient Mesopotamia, by the way. --Jyril 20:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just make up a god, and name it after that? I propose we declare that the universe was created by Biz Markie as part of a publicity scheme to promote his first album. That way we can name it after the Biz. "Oh baby you... you got what I need...but you say he's justa friend, but you say he's just a friend OH BABY YOU......" Dave 22:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • LOLOL. Now seriously:
  • 1st. The Greeks were the first to notice the planets were different from the other stars and they named it planets. The Mesopotanians saw ordinary stars which they respected as gods.
  • 2nd: The other planets have names with the same origin. it makes Astronomy more interresting to children and to people that are curious. And the quality of Greek mythology is very high, because they saw their gods as having the same problems as humans do, except they were immortals. So, this Mythology is by faar the most interresting, and by faar the most popular and known. So the name will not be a strange one.
  • 3rd: Names in Greek/Roman mythology are translatable to most languages. Can you translate names of Inuit gods? That would be a great thing, because many names are simply umpronouceable in many languages, besides being obscure (even the word Inuit is obscure, although a beautiful name).
  • 4th: the IAU as already said that if it is a planet, they will name it. If it is an asteroid, the discoverers will name it.
  • 5th: The IAU stated that the name will have a Greco-Roman name if it is a planet. So there will be no strange and unrelated name with the rest of the planets, fortunatelly! leave that exotic names to exoplanets, where these names will fit very well. Especially the Egyptian ones, which are also fascinating like the Greek. -Pedro 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, bull-pucky! History only exists as far back as there are written records of a given society. The ravages of time, alternatives to written documentation (such as oral traditions), written records that have been buried and are not yet recovered, languages that we have forgotten how to read, all these things make it very difficult to accurately label who the 'first' people to do anything were. In fact, if we look at the whole time that human beings have been around, and subtract the amount of time our earliest rcords of civilization go back to, we find that the vast majority of the time is before our existing records are able to document. Were the Greeks the first to differentiate between planets and stars? Probably not. We can't know for sure, anyway. Besides, was their concept of planets and stars the same as ours? Anaxagoras thought stars were rocks, and this idea was so blasphemous to those who thought they were gods that they ran him out of Athens. Our modern conception is that they are neither god nor rock, but at least Anaxagoras was closer than his peers. We like to cling to the idea that critical reasoning was born with the Greeks. But that's a very naive assumption, and one that is deeply rooted in a Euro-centric point of view. It denies the possibility that other civilizations were capable of critical thought. Also, why do we cling to the past at all? Why do we think that an idea is so good or romantic just because it's old? Human sacrafice is pretty old. Personally, I don't find it good or romantic. Can we just let go of the past, and move on? Let's name a planet Bob, or Fluffy, or Frank Zappa. Why not, he named his kid Moon-Unit. Dave 23:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that the IAU is currently in the process of auctioning the naming rights to the highest bidder. Apparently the front runner is planet WalMart, although they are facing stiff competition from a Christian consortium who are trying for planet Jesus Saves. --noösfractal 23:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Dave must be from planet 2003 UB313. If not, he is certainly not from this planet or human. Planet Bob is that what you call your planet? Drink less Dave. BTW, I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know what bull-pucky means. Maybe that would be a nice name for it. That supposed euro-centrism is the law of man. In my country there was even writing before the Roman arrived, but most is undecifrable and there isnt a lot or it didnt survive. So most people consider that History started with the Roman conquest. My country is in Europe, so much for euro-centrism. Are they wrong? no, we have no records, if there are not records it is like it didnt exist. Life is for winners, not for loosers. That's the law of the Universe, it isnt in planet Bob? Maybe it was a fly that discovered the planets, they just can tell us. Do you think a star is more a rock than a god? why's that? What's a god and what's a rock? Why do you think he was closer to the truth? You you and someone else tried to reduce the importance of the Greeks and the Romans in human History? What is History? lets forget it! Let us be monkeys again. Uga! Uga! Bob! Bob! Planet Bob! --Pedro 00:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You ever notice how some people resort to personal attacks whenever they find an idea they don't like, either because they're too stupid to figure out a counter-argument or because they grew up in a cave-man culture that teaches them that reason does not matter, and that disputes are best settled through fighting? Odd to see it here though. One assumes that anyone reading these pages has at least a vague notion of science and it's basis in critical reasoning. You can reason, can't you, Pedro? Dave 01:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Dave, yes I can. Sorry if I seem a little offensive. My reasoning is in that 5 points that I wrote. I have to add is that History is part of mankind. It even can be used to define man. I also don't know who's Bob. You seem to admire him a lot. --Pedro 11:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Bob's my cat. And yeah, he's pretty awesome, so I admire him alot. History is like any other tool. It has positive ends and negative ones, depending on who's writing it, and the tone they adopt. You ever read Ceasar's war journals? They don't paint a very nice picture of the gauls. It would be nice if we could get the gaul's point of view, just to get a better picture of them. But we can't. Why? Because their records are lost. Does this mean Ceasar was 100% accurate? Well, he did have his predjudices. And I do believe that predjudices cloud the mind and prevent us from seeing clearly. Likewise, there aremany cultures whose records didn't survive the Inquisition and other book burnings. You're fond of Greece and Rome. Look at what happened to the Library of Alexandria. Are we to assume that the records there were written by inadequate cultures just because some ignorant buffoon decided to burn them? Is a piece of wisdom invalidated if it is burned to ashes?

Fluffy's my other cat. I'd be okay with naming UB313 after her too. Dave 22:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The above conversation has convinced me that you are all utterly insane. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could name it after Paris Hilton. She's a creator deity and an underworld deity. She's created a massive headache and is the physical manifestation of Great Cthulu. Dave 22:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hackers forced discovery

There's a story here about hackers compromising the server containing the discoverey forcing the announcement to be made prematurely.[4] --203.217.54.192 13:40, 1 August 2005

JCY2K writes "According to The Inquirer, hackers gained access to the secure server where the data about the new planet was being held and threatened to reveal it. Evidently the discoverers have been withholding this information from the public since 2003 while they waited for full analysis." - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/01/1846218&tid=160&tid=172&tid=14
How credible is slashdot.org, JCY2K, or The Inquirer? --AI 00:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant. What is relevant is how credible is "The Sunday Independent", which is ultimately the source cited (Slashdot cites The Inquirer, who in turn cites The Sunday Independent). The author Alicia Chang states (without source)

"The briefing was hastily arranged after Brown received word that a secure website containing the discovery had been hacked and the hacker had threatened to release the information."

http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2733660&fSectionId=1041

yeah, I it s now on Brown's website, with instructions on how the "hacker" gained the information he needed. Apparently the hacker didn't really hack, he just used Google, he is another astronomer, and he never told them he was about to steal their discovery. At least that's Brown's account. [5]

I'm annoyed at Brown's assertion that looking at publicly available information and making deductions from it is equivalent to walking into someone's house and stealing from it... Evercat 11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Same here. It s true however that this is not the proper way to do science. Even if someone else had found some essential information in a "left the original in the copier" kind-of-way, that person shouldn't just publish the paper in his name. That's just wrong. 67.161.52.15 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No. It is the same as stealing from an unlocked house. Had they obtained their own observations and "scooped" Brown's team that way, it would have been a blatant theft. About the only thing that I question is the decision of Brown's team to withhold the information. --EMS | Talk 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I've not seen any evidence that anyone was trying to "scoop" anyone. Have you? People do do things out of mere curiousity, you know. Evercat 12:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but he does know who the "hacker" is, probably thanks to the logs of the web server. There are good reasons for Brown to withhold the discovery for a while. 1) He wants to obtain more information on the planet, do some precovery, etc... before he goes public. For instance, he might have preferred to say "it s 5 times bigger than Pluto" rather than "it s at least as big as Pluto". The impact would be bigger. 2) He knows his methods will allow him to find more planets, and is afraid that if he announces the first one, others will use his technique to snatch some in front of him (arguable since the Palomar seems uniquely well adjusted to the task). Anyway, his team already lost one to the Spanish by waiting too long...Paul Dehaye 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

2003UB313 is not Planet X

"2003UB313 is not Planet X." I am under the impression this statement was originally placed into the article just to offset any other contributors who may try to claim that 2003UB313 is Planet X. I think this is unecessary and is "proving a negative." It is not very encyclopedic. I removed the statement that 2003UB313 is not Planet X, yet TheTom restored the statement; so I am offering a discussion here to see what everyone thinks about including a statement to the effect of "2003UB313 is not Planet X" --AI 00:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Common misconceptions about a thing should be addressed. When enough people try to be helpful and say "X is Y" when X is not Y, it becomes necessary to explicitly say "X is not Y, contrary to what you might have heard". Otherwise they will come in, see that the "fact" is missing, and add it again and again. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I can accept it in its current form: Noting and refuting a media misconception. At least the Planet X link is out in the open this way. Someone else liked the idea of having the words "tenth planet" be a link to Planet X, which I strongly oppose. I will admit to being a little ambivalent about the mention of Planet X in this page, however. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
LOL, ok I can accept all this. --AI 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
...and now we have a separate article about the tenth planet. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 ?!?! There should not be a seperate article there, I redirected it here the other day. Until astronomers confirm that 2003UB313 IS a planet, tenth planet should be redirected here, or preferably: deleted. --AI 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the IAU hasn't confirmed 2003UB313 as a planet, we certainly shouldn't be redirecting that article here. I wasn't convinced that there was enough different, separate material for a tenth planet article vs. Planet X, though I did briefly consider creating it, at least as a redirect to Planet X. But it's a valid article on the topic of the hypothetical tenth planet, a cultural meme, and I see no reason to delete it. Put your objections on Talk:Tenth planet or try a VfD if you feel that strongly about it. Also, I tend not to listen to people who make silly redirects to Xena; forewarned is forearmed. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to behave as a troll, but if that is your style and you enjoy it, then act as you wish. What is even more "silly," is to redirect tenth planet to planet X, which it IS NOT. Redirects related to Xena were based on reports from United States national media. --AI 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I regret to inform you that if "United States national media" is the standard, then you're on shaky ground with respect to your "Planet X" position [6], which I may characterize through your sober quote removed link to Planet X, THIS IS NOT PLANET X!!!!. In popular culture terms, it is a Planet X. In scientific terms, if somebody wonders whether it might be Lowell's Planet X, then it's appropriate to send them to that article to find out the history of the term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
For clarification, here is the edit where you retitled 2003 UB313 as Xena [7], and here is the edit where you redirected the tenth planet article to Xena [8]. I really think these edits speak for themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I see no need to defend my actions, I already made my point. Everyone else has responded civilly and intelligently. And if you look you will see it has resulted in my civil response. Your critical tone is unecessary, but if that is your personality you're certainly entitled to be that way. I rest my case and will ignore any further rants you express over this issue. Of course if you disagree with my desicion to disregard your future communication you're perfectly entitled to "persecute" me further :) --AI 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

2003UB313 can be named Persephone or Proserpina

Yes it can. There are a number of moons with the same name as an asteroid. For instance: 52 Europa and Europa (moon). And many others, just like Ganymede (moon) and 1036 Ganymed for the asteroid.

Planets are a classe of their own. And their names should be related..

Alternatives to Roman (there are still many Mythologies related with the Roman, whose major gods havent been used, just like the Lusitanian mythology and others (ok, my POV here) - these dieties were used by the Romans). But there are very notable mythologies, just like: the Egyptian mythology, the Aztec and the Maya. --Pedro 11:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but the relevant policy from the Committee on Small Body Nomenclature, which was adopted in 1985, well after your examples, is
Names proposed for minor planets will not be accepted if, in the opinion of the Minor Planet Names Committee, they are too nearly similar to those of other minor or major planets or natural satellites [9].
Of course, if 2003 UB313 is determined to be a major planet and thus not a small body .... then it is in the hands of the Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature [10]. And I can't find a relevant policy, there. Maybe they don't have to follow the same rule, but it's an IAU rule and they apply the uniqueness standard elsewhere, too. I really don't know why we are arguing this here, though. This is a Talk page for the article, not a peanut gallery. --Dhartung | Talk 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • because there are ppl saying that they cannot repeat names. And I agree with you. It is a major planet, so they are now deciding. Uranus was once called George's star and Ceres also had a name of a king. But the article states that they can not repeat a name, but if it is a major planet and not a minor planet (space rocks included).--Pedro 20:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

Just interested to note that currently a google search for '2003 UB313' brings up our article first, beating discoverer Mike Brown's page into second place :) Worldtraveller 19:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a problem, in my own opinion of course. Try adding "-wikipedia" to your search query. Perhaps you like Wikipedia to have first place? :) --AI 22:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Uh...how is that a problem? bob rulz 22:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ask some "experts" who have stated in the past that Wikipedia is not a credible source of information because "anyone" can edit it. I don't have time to re-search for the claims made more than a year ago and leave it to you, "bob rulz" Seeya, I got more important things to work on than discuss "popularity." :) --AI 22:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there was a collaboration that made the page on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake an excellent source of information on that event even after the press had ceased to follow it closely. A lot depends on the quality and dedication of the people working on certain projects. Overall, I have found that constructive complaints tend to produce results, and that a constructive rewrite will carry itself forward. However, short articles are to be taken with a grain of salt (to say the least), and good pages often link to poor ones as well as vice-versa.
This article is an example of what a group working together can achieve in this format. It is not as good as some other pages, but I think that for people seeking a good sense of what is known about this object, this is a good page to go to. It is also fair that it be prefered to Brown's since Brown is tooting his own horn there, and giving his own take on what is important. That is page is being linked to enough that it has gotten top billing in Google is a complement to this project, and to us editors. --EMS | Talk 03:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a credible source, unless it usually has credible refreances, citations and links, which many articles do meaning wikipedia is more like a place to find great links to credible sources, rather then a source in its self.--BerserkerBen 04:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
AI is given to bizarre logic, I'm finding. He finds it worthy to spend time editing Wikipedia, but would prefer that it not be googlable. Then he expects people to read his mind. Draw your own conclusions. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Most artists are eccentric. Anyway, I think I have made my point that Wikipedia is only as credible as the contributors use credible sources. --AI 08:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
For clarification, here is the edit where you retitled 2003 UB313 as Xena [11], and here is the edit where you redirected the tenth planet article to Xena [12]. I really think these edits speak for themselves, regarding this issue of "credibility" you have raised. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see this page regarded as the best place to come on the web for general coverage of what is known about 2003UB313, and I'm certainly pleased to see it coming up top in google searches. So what can make this page better? There aren't any published papers yet, so that somewhat limits the credibility of the sources we can use. Any thoughts on how to improve? Worldtraveller 09:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There's only one contributor who thinks the article lacks credibility. We have used sources such as the web page of the astronomer who discovered the object; I'm not certain what more credibility someone would seek. --Dhartung | Talk 17:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Who thinks this article lacks credibility? I hope you don't think that's my opinion. I think it is credible, I was only disputing the credibility of the article about the "hacker" who supposedly released info on UB313 too early. --AI 06:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Savvy

I have a diff running on Brown's website, and here are his latest changes:

>   (based on the similarity to Pluto of the spectrum [see below] this is our
>                          best guess as to the size)
<    possibility that exploration will find more and more planets, which is a
<    much more exciting prospect than that suggested by the first possibility.
---
>    possibility that exploration will find a few more planets, which is a much
>    more exciting prospect than that suggested by the first possibility. We
>    don't  think  the number of planets found by the current generation of
>    researchers will be large. Maybe one or two more. But we think that letting
>    future generations still have a shot at planet-finding is nice.
<    discovery credit goes to Ortiz et al. and no one else.
---
>    discovery credit goes to Ortiz et al. and no one else. We are pleased to be
>    joined by the Spanish group in the very exciting quest for new objects in
>    the outer solar system.

Interesting...

There are only eight major planets in the Solar system

So y'all can stop yammering about the name of this minor planet already. Pluto is a minor planet that has a famous name through an accident of history, and our friend 2003 UB313 will show Pluto and Pluto's little buddy Charon to be the trans-Neptunian objects that they are. Major planets orbit within the plane known as the ecliptic, and neither Pluto nor our recently discovered friend do that. See list of Solar system objects by mass. --Eric Forste (Talk) 08:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What if UB313 and UB40 gang up on Pluto and Charon? Who would win? How big of a wager do you want to place? I'll give you 2 to 1 odds that the group that gave us "Red Red Wine" will kick the living shit out of Pluto. Dave 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's your opinion, and Wikipedia prefers to take a non-opinionated view on things...you know, because encyclopedias are for fact, not opinions. bob rulz 09:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
There are not yet a formal definition of a planet (one should be soon available), so currently there are nine planets, Pluto included. Yes, it is tiny, and most likely wouldn't qualify as a planet if discovered today. However, it's been called a planet for 75 years, so it has currently a historical "right" to be called such (unless, of course, it will be demoted). About the orbit, it is somewhat risky to disqualify a planet for having a very eccentric and/or inclined orbit. Most extrasolar planets have orbits very unlike the planets in our Solar System. I have a hunch that Pluto and 2003 UB313 receive planethood with several other giant KBOs and main asteroid belt asteroids, but they won't be "major" planets (probably not "minor" either, since that word refers to normal asteroids). --Jyril 09:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
There are more than ten major planets in the Solar system
  • So y'all can continue yammering about the name of this planet (it must have a related and planet-like name like the rest of the planets). Pluto is a major planet that has a famous name through an event of history, and our friend 2003 UB313 will show Pluto and Pluto's little buddy Charon are trans-Neptunian objects, but they are planets. Major planets orbit the sun, and Pluto and our recently discovered friend do that. See list of Solar system objects by mass. Although I wouldnt like to see Sedna, Varuna or Quaoar as major planets, just because of their names. Quaoar would be a great name for an exo-planet though. Mercury, Venus, Earth, mars, Júpiter, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, Quaoar (????) - bah no way! Plz, try to say the planets without Pluto and see how odd it sounds... -Pedro 11:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for 8. Just because Pluto has historically been called a planet does not make such usage correct, any more than it makes a whale a type of fish... hopefully the ruling bodies will make the correct decision. Why are people so emotionally attached to Pluto being a planet, anyway? Evercat 12:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope we can settle this issue very soon. [13] --Jyril 16:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Mercury's orbit is almost as elliptical as Pluto's, so be careful about demoting planets based on orbital eccentricity. Regardless... If you think any of this needs to be incorporated into the article, then say so. Otherwise, it's all off topic. This page is for discussing the article, not the body itself. --P3d0 16:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I personally tend to agree with you, Eric Forste, but at this point, the IAU continues to classify Pluto as a planet, so it's proper for Wikipedia to report it that way. Additionally, we report that there is controversy about this classification, give the reasons behind the objections, and the counter-arguments. That's really Wikipedia at its best and while there may be some "yammering" in the Talk page (I'm not sure what the point of people suggesting names was, it's not going to have any effect), the article is in pretty good shape at the point. Incidentally, your claim probably belongs on a different page than this one. --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for using the word "yammering"; not only was it a violation of wikiquette, it was also spectacularly bad judgment on my part. I won't go back and edit it out now, because then the rest of the thread would make no sense. (I'm still firmly convinced that if we're going to distinguish between major planets and minor planets, then there are no more than eight of the former. But Dhartung is quite right, and I should probably move this thread to Talk:Definition of planet.) --Eric Forste (Talk) 05:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • that subject is also related with this planet. I think that some people think like you Eric, just because of Geocentrism. Pluto is smaller than Earth, so for you, a planet must be bigger than Earth or Mars (another mythical planet). The fact is, these planets are still very big, The moon's big, you can see that for yourself in the pictures of the 1970's landings. These worlds are unique, you don't know what's out there. See the recent discoveries at a very small world like Enceladus. And if we don't know nothing about them, renews the interrest in Planetology.
  • It is not fair to say, that a planet must have a certain orbit, then Mercury wouldnt be a Planet, nor Venus (Venus rotates differently). You say, that Pluto has a different formation, so: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune aren't also planets, these are balls of Gas. So we are left with the two planets: Earth and Mars. How cool... Maybe Mars isnt a planet, because it is smaller than Earth... so we are left with one. But maybe Earth isnt a planet, because a planet is a wanderer in Earth skies, so we have no planets, de facto.--Pedro 08:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Kepler wouldn't like our orbit diagram

Why isn't the sun at one focus of the body's orbital ellipse? --P3d0 04:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good question, but on examination, I think the answer is that it's a three-quarters (3-dimensional) view -- a screenshot from NASA's Java applet for visualizing the orbit. I think that geometrically it is true that an ellipse from any angle will show the focus correctly, but if the view is not itself centered on the focus, it might appear off-center. In any case, it's a NASA image, so not our fault ... ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess you're right... Foreshortening can make the sun appear as though it's not at a focus, even without perspective effects. --P3d0 20:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

We could possibly do with 2 diagrams, one from above, one from the side. Evercat 16:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Older arguments on planet status

I wonder if there was much argument about Uranus and Neptune being named planets? I doubt very much they had an idea of the sizes then. Or in the days the asteroids were being discovered - I vaguely recall there being some arguments then and everyone agreed to demote?? Alittle research....

See definition of planet. In a nutshell, Uranus and Neptune were easily determined to be sizable objects oribiting the Sun based on their angular size and how they moved with respect to the fixed stars (with the later indicating how far from the Sun the object was). In neither case was there reason to doubt its status as a planet. The asteroid 1 Ceres was initially called a planet, but lost that title quickly as other similar objects came to be found soon thereafter. Pluto was known almost from the start to be on the small side, although until it's moon was dicovered noone knew just how small it really was. (I remember Pluto being thought of as being bigger than Mercury in the 1960s.) However, for over 60 years, nothing else like it was known. Now it is more like Ceres, being the first object discovered out of a population of similar ones. --EMS | Talk 17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The asteroid 1 Ceres was initially called a planet, but lost that title quickly as other similar objects came to be found soon thereafter. Not true. Actually, Ceres and its three smaller sisters were considered planets for nearly 50 years. It wasn't until the discovery of additional objects that Ceres and friends were demoted; textbooks from the early to mid-1800's refer to 11 planets.--Firsfron 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I didnt live in the 1960's but I know people thought Pluto was as big a Earth when it was discovered. Still Pluto has a very considerable size. Jupiter is a failled star, it can be seen as not being a planet also, so as the other three gas giants. As I state earlier, and considering the arguments against Pluto, we would have üany planet in the solar system. If the Romans and the Ancient Greeks saw Pluto and this new one, you can bet they would call it a planet and would name it after one of their gods, possibly even the name that it has now. Unfornutally, this new planet will not have such a name. Astronomy these days... the cubewanos, the KBO's, the TNO's... Ijiraq, Suttungr (and these ones I had to open a page with their names), etc. OMG... --Pedro 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If it was only the two of them, of course they would be named after gods. But what if there are hundreds of them that they can see. Then what? Perhaps they would give names to the brightest ones, and leave the rest to legend. (After all, that is what the ancients did to the stars.)
We will see soon enough what the name is and whether the IAU wants to designate this as a planet. Let's stop the speculation and see what actually happens. --EMS | Talk 21:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes... let's wait.... I think they will add a minimum size for a planet... --Pedro 21:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
They already have one of sorts, actually. The Extrasolar working group came up with 13 Jovian masses as the Brown dwarf/planet diving line a few years ago. (As the Jupiter article notes, its a bit of an overestimation to call it a "failed star," as (Arthur C. Clarke aside) Jupiter is still a loong way away from being remotely ignitable.) More than a little tellingly, that group also made the dramatic ruling that the low cutoff for extrasolar planets would be as follows: "The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System". Perhaps astronomers should go into diplomacy. :) [14] -The Tom 22:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey there folks. I would like to add a bit into this debate. I read in Astronomy magazine a long time ago about what defines a planet. The expert who answered that question said that it would be "politically incorrect" (I swear that is a quote from the author) to refer to Pluto as a "minor" planet and other planets as "major" planets. He and someone decided that objects like Pluto be considered unter-planets and bigger planets as über-planets. If I remember right, the minimum qualifications they set for a planet were 1) the object goes around a star and 2) the object is big enough so that its gravity pulls it into a roughly round shape. This includes what we consider the nine classical planets, and many larger asteroids and KBOs. The cut-off point for über-planets was that the object needed to "be large enough to clear their neighborhoods of small objects." Objects that couldn't and were still in a "swarm of small objects" are unter-planets. So Pluto and many asteroids and KBOs become planets, but would be considered unter-planets. However, there is the problem of "going around a star." Since Charon doesn't technically orbit Pluto, but the pair rotate around a point lying in between them, Charon should probably be considered a planet. Also, a similar problem happens here on Earth, because of the moon's orbit (coming from the Definition of Planet article). The article said "the Moon is primarily going around the Sun, and Earth is a small perturbation on that motion. Another way of expressing this is that the Sun's gravitational pull on the Moon is nearly twice that of Earth's." So they said the Moon should therefore be considered a planet. (If you want, I can get a better cite for anyone if they ask) Mred64 07:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Many people have tried coming up with definitions. However, the IAU still has no official definition of "planet" (the IAU is as official as it gets with astronomy). -- Cyrius|✎ 09:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Cyrius is correct. Wikipedia does not make the definition of a planet, among many things Wikipedia is not. We're wasting pixels debating it here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Dhartung, you are welcome to this debate, but plz don't make assumptions out of it. There are currently several definitions of a planet by different astronomers. What I see in the talk page is a very healthy conversation, so plz don't destroy it. It is good for the article if we discuss these things. I support a theory from some astronomers that consider a planet objects with size bigger than 360km (more or less that size - when an object becomes round). I didn't invent this 360 km thing from my head... I just agree with it. And I consider Titan a planet. As many others also do. The IAU will just make an official definition to end the debate; they'll maybe come with a 2000 km diameter. Hey Mred24, that Earth-moon thing is very interesting! The Earth-Moon system and the Pluto-Charon one are defined as Double Planets. Currently, only Pluto is classified as such in wikipedia. I like their notice about this situation, and they will not come with a name until they get to know if this is a planet or not: this also solves the problem of the name. Maybe the discoverers would come up with a name like the names of the new moons of Saturn, that a lot ppl (inc. me) can't pronounce. --Pedro 23:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/Talk%7E2003_UB313_Archive_1_e30d.html"