Talk:(136108) 2003 EL61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Language.

Can someone please check if this article is in correct English, because my (the creator of the article) first language is not English.

[edit] References.

[edit] ₆₁ characters ?

What are the last two characters of "2003 EL₆₁", as it appears in the article title. I'm concerned that someone has been very clever and found a couple of characters that look like a little 6 and 1, but are infact weird things from some turkic language or soemthing. The reason this can be a problem is that it confuses screen-readers no end, and entirely flumoxes google. Perhaps this article should just be called 2003 EL61. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

These are the actual unicode values for subscript 6 and 1. However, for me only the 1 displays. I think it should probably be moved back. Morwen - Talk 16:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#Subs/Supers and the samples at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#Subs/Supers. I was also involved in a discussion about this a while ago (which I cannot find right now — it was about {{sub}} IIRC), where it ended up finding out (from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong):
  • It depends on the font, browser and operating system
  • 1-3, 4 and 5-9 tended to act differently (either by having different appearances or some groups not showing at all)
  • 1-3 are mostly safe
  • <sub> always works, so it's better to keep using it
--cesarb 17:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Found it: [1]. --cesarb 17:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Finlay. Subscripts in the title are a nice try, but it doesn't really work - they were illegible on the main page just now. My browser is managing to render them but at normal font sizes they are too small to read. Few people are going to go to the trouble of getting the link right, so it might as well be at 2003 EL61. -- Solipsist 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
You're right. They're illegibly too small, and sometimes they appear just squares. Not much useful.--Jyril 21:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

For those of you who just see little squares, what do you get if you use a browser and fonts that support unicode? And more importantly, why the heck are you still in the computing dark ages?! Nicholas

Well, Unicode subscripts and superscripts... Clever little things, but they are rendered too small in Firefox, and aren't rendered at all in MSIE; while MSIE is perhaps not a top-of-the-line browser, it doesn't exactly belong to dark age. It also seems that Firefox can't find those characters in a page if one just types "61"; maybe this is by design, but it is not very convenient. It appears someone went through Category:Trans-Neptunian objects today and changed all back to <sub></sub>, which is just as well, I think. The time has not come yet... GregorB 21:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:2003 UB313 for a draft policy regarding proper rendering of asteroid name notation.
Urhixidur 03:04, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

[edit] 10th Planet?

I realise this is why people are interested in this discovery, but is it a safe claim. A couple of other articles I looked at appear to avoid making the claim that it is a 10th planet. The latest news is that it is ~70% of the size of Pluto and my impression was that current astronomical thinking was that Pluto shouldn't really be classed as a planet, but it is too late to try and revise general public opinion. -- Solipsist 18:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not larger than Pluto, but another body announced today (July 29th) designated as 2003 UB313 is.--Jyril 20:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Type / Subtype of TNO

Not a plutino, eh? According to Ortiz' and other sites e.g. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O36.html this orbit has a= roughly 43 so it is not a "plutino" since these will have a= roughly 39. I did see one post on MPML list suggesting it was in a different resonance with Neptune besides the 2:3 which Pluto & plutinos have.

I've made the change, after waiting a few days for someone else to weigh in or make it.

==Vandalism== someone managed to write "YO, Y'ALL YO MOMMA IS TOTALLY GAY!" but when you edit the article, all the stuff is still there.

[edit] Yet another giant KBO

Looks like there are third huge Kuiper belt object discovery announcement today. The discovery MPEC [2] gives 2005 FY9 an absolute magnitude of 0.1. 2003 EL61's magnitude is 0.4, so this one may be be larger than 2003 EL61 unless it is more light-colored.--Jyril 22:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Is there some reason these are all coming today? :-) Evercat 13:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually yes. After the Spanish team managed to announce the discovery of 2003 EL61 first the Brown team decided to publish their announcements now. Also, because the observation logs are available on the Internet so there were a possibility that someone could use them to claim the discovery. --Jyril 13:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moon's name?

Dactyl's designation is S/1993 (243) 1, meaning first (1) satellite (S) found around (243) in (1993). So 2003 EL61's moon should be...S/2005 (2003 EL61) 1? Urhixidur 03:02, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has yet acquired that designation. It is not mentioned on the MPC's astronomical headlines page. IAU Circular #8577 may mention it, but we non-subscribers can't read it. (Interestingly, the page has a lapsus: Satellite of the large transneptunian minor planet 2003 UB313 IAUC 8577 (2005 July 29).) --Jyril 13:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nope. Text of IAUC 8577. Urhixidur 03:53, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Controvery

Should there be something about the thwarted controversy on who discovered the planet? see last paragraph in [3]

Given the contenuous nature of his discovery controversy, and the fact that I just edited the text on it because felt it provided a suggestively worded highly pro-Brown biased account, I suggest this page being flagged as "controversial/content disputed"

LaMa 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've calculated some of the missing data

I've calculated the object's density, surface gravity and escape velocity from its mass and diameter, using the formulae at User:Pt/Formulae. — Pt (T) 13:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The name of the moon

In this edit, 63.193.153.109 (talk · contribs) changed the name of the moon from "Little Helper" to "Rudolph". As 63.193.153.109 seems like a knowledgeable fellow, I've not reverted this. Was the moon originally called Little Helper? Is it now called Rudolph? Was it changed, and if so why? (I guess Santa's Little Helper is trademarked) ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'd even linked to here through a disambiguation page at Little Helper... I'd like to know so that that page can be accurate too - JVG 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery controversy, no more... (YES MORE)

According to this article Español birla planeta a través de Google (Spanish Spaniard (–kwami) steals planet through Google, in Spanish) at the Deutsche Welle, the Germany's international broadcaster; Jose-Luis Ortiz recognized he found out all about the planet investigation details on the Internet, and that Brown and his team are the legitimate discoverers of the whole thing. So, no more controversy any longer dudes. [anon]

Here's the gist of the article, in case it goes off line:
Finalmente Ortiz reconoció ante el diario Los Angeles Times que bajó la información referente al planeta un día antes de darlo a conocer. Brown exigió posteriormente que se le niegue el descubrimiento a Ortiz y su grupo de investigadores. Ortiz defendió su accionar recalcando, "si alguien utiliza Google para buscar información al alcance de todos y Google lo lleva a páginas de Internet oficiales, ello es legítimo".
El Dr. Ortiz reconoció finalmente que Brown y su equipo fueron los primeros en descubrir el planeta, por lo que la disputa no pasó a mayores.
Which in my broken Spanish comes out to,
Ultimately Ortiz admitted to the LA Times newspaper that he downloaded the information referring to the planet one day before he made it known. Brown demanded afterwards that Ortiz and his team disown the discovery. Ortiz defended his motives, stressing, "if someone uses Google to search for information accessible to everyone, and Google takes it from authorized internet pages, that's legitimate."
In the end, in order to avoid escalating the dispute, Dr Ortiz acknowledged that Brown and his team were the first to discover the planet.
kwami 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I AM AFRAID THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JOURNAL IS WRONG. Ortiz, us all the astronomers, recognized that the first that observed 2003 EL61 were Brown et al., but they didn't follow the proper report procedure to the MPCs.

note: the above comment seems to be made by someone from within the Spanish team. If in fact Brown et al observed this object first, then Brown et al should be the rightful discoveres. Now, in regards to 'not following proper procedure': clearly, if an abstract had been made, then Brown et al were preparing for an announcement...in other words, they WERE following proper procedures. Spying on others in order to pre-emptively go public with a competing claim is NOT following proper procedure.Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


According to Ortiz in the Minor Planet Mailing list forum (the only public version of Ortiz) they noticed that Brown et al. observed the same object they discovered by accesing the PUBLIC information on the web, BUT they didn't used it for its own discovery or orbit determination. In this case Ortiz et al. followed the correct procedures, reported the observations of 2003 EL61 to the MPCs, and computed, using old public images, the orbit of the TNO. Noticed that Ortiz et al. DIDN'T accesed Brown images (as wrongly stated in several journals), they only accesed the log of their observations were the pointing position of the telescope (not the astrometric position of the object, needed

to compute an orbit) is written.

But this is science, and the important thing is not to be the first in observing something, is to be the first in make public the discovery. So the discoverers are Ortiz et al. who did all in the correct way.

Aside from your poor English, such a claim is fallacious. Naming rights is EGO, not science. Neither did Ortiz et al do things the correct way, so by your logic they should not be the discoveres. It's like a 'false start' in track and field. Leaving the starting gate too soon doesn't make you the champ, it makes you disqualified.Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Brown claim that Ortiz should mention that it is the same object they already know, but how to make public something the wanted to keep secret?

Obviously they weren't going to keep it secret much longer if they had an abstract online!Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The report of minor planet discoveries is thru the Minor Planet Center, and that is the way we all proceed. No matter how many articles in the USA press appear, this dispute is a scientific dispute and journals are not the place to solve this matters.

If I steal money from someone's house and get to the teller first, the fact that the bank is a legal place doesn't make me the owner of the money. If I take someone else's check and forge a signature, and the bank cashes it, that is still fraud.Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So the article is incorrect, and the discovery of 2003 EL61 is wrongly attributed to Brown et al., should be attributed to Ortiz et al.

The article never says that Ortiz downloaded any images.
Does Ortiz still claim the discovery? 66.27.205.12 12:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But this is science, and the important thing is not to be the first in observing something, is to be the first in make public the discovery. So the discoverers are Ortiz et al. who did all in the correct way.

If they discovered the object independently, they had all rights for the discovery (Brown acknowledged this at first). But it proved not to be the case, as they started to search the object after its existence was hinted in the Brown group's abstract and found it using their observation logs. If they didn't claim the discovery, I think this is much ado of nothing (however, it would have been kind to inform Brown et al.; pre-publication secrecy is practically the norm in science, minor body astronomy is unusual in this). On the other hand, if they did, that would be scientfically unethical. When they published the object, why didn't they mention how they actually discovered it?--Jyril 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"But it proved not to be the case, as they started to search the object after its existence was hinted in the Brown group's abstract and found it using their observation logs" ---> Please, none of this is substantiated in any way!

Please note that there are protocols about who gets discovery credit for minor solar system bodies. Its who follows those protocols, which counts. Ortiz et al did, Brown et al. did not. Also note that simultanious discovery happens very oftten in his field of science. Both groups were deliberately searching for TNO's, not unlikely at all then that you bummp into the same objects.

The MPC Discovery circumstances page currently gives formal discovery credit to Ortiz et al and hence they should be mentioned as the discoverers, as the MPC is authoritive in this. LaMa 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ortiz et al should be ashamed....rushing to publish data taken others in order to claim 'discovery' just isn't right.Ryoung122 09:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] second satellite

Sturmde, can you copy the relevant specs here (distance, period, eccentricity, magnitude, etc.), for those of us who don't have a Harvard account? Thanks, kwami 09:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

See Mike Brown's 2003 EL61 page and discovery paper. Some values: a = 39300 km, p = 34.1 days, satellite fractional brightness 1.5 ± 0.5% of the primary.--Jyril 12:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A negative of the image published in the EL61 pdf looks decent and shows both satellites. I don't know about licencing, though. Are public images available?

Image:EL61 and satellites.jpg

(Satellites are at 12 and 5 o'clock.) kwami 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table of sattelites

Should we place here the table of sattelites just like in the Pluto's natural satellites article and articles about other planets?--Nixer 11:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete way to visualize the speed of rotation...

I am curious, if 2003 EL61 were hollow, how much Artificial gravity would one experience in the extreme points of the planetary body? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artist's impressions of the moons

Where do these two 'artists impressions' come from? They seem designed to look like blurry telescopic photographs, which I find somewhat misleading since the shapes of the moons are completely unknown. Who is the artist? And what are his/her qualifications? The Singing Badger 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The images are from the bigger one in the infobox. I don't know why Acom likes to upload such images.--JyriL talk 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the original source link shown on the image description page indicates that they are from NASA's Hubble site. The illustrator being A. Feild of STScI; so I'd expect their credentials are pretty good. However the original illustration was intended just to show the relative sizes of known Kuiper Belt objects. Whether it makes any sense to separate them and show them out of context is another matter. -- Solipsist 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the way artist's paintings seem to have been processed to look grainy and out-of-focus. I think it makes them look misleadingly like photographs, which the original images do not. Does anyone agree? The Singing Badger 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. It's better to remove them.--Nixer 06:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. They don't have any informative content.--JyriL talk 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor planet number

2003 EL61's minor planet number is 136108.[4]--JyriL talk 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to (136108) 2003 EL61, as per naming of other unnamed objects with minor planet numbers Richard B 00:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I wonder whether this renaming adds any readability for the wider public. I believe we could wait for the name to add the number. My concerns:

  • Unlike 2000 Varuna for example, making the difference between a god and a TNO, the number adds no value for the provisional designation
  • There are tons of links in TNO articles; not only creating redirection and fixing the links represents an effort but forces future editors to look-up these numbers any time they link!

I believe that simple politeness would require such massive moves to be first announced and discussed on talk pages (or Project talk pages). Regards Eurocommuter 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just consistency with other unnamed TNOs which have received numbers. I've not moved 2003 UB313, or Pluto as both are dwarf planets, and maybe we want to treat them differently - but until the IAU decides on 2003 EL61, and 2005 FY9 - these two objects are just large un-named numbered minor planets. I didn't think their moving would be controversial - and I was just following WP:BOLD. There are about 50 pages total to correct if we want to avoid redirects (for correcting both 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 links). Richard B 08:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It’s ok; I do not know whether the move proves controversial after all, I simply gave my personal opinion to find out what other editors think. The necessity to look up the numbers (while linking) in the future edits is (from my experience) a bit of a pain. Sorry for my a bit too strong comment. Eurocommuter 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose future edits don't need to include the number if they don't want to as long as the redirect stands. Writing 2003 EL61 would probably be better for many purposes than dropping in nightmarish stuff like (136108) 2003 EL61 in the middle of a sentence. Deuar 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's likely that 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 will become dwarf planets; we could move them back if that happens.--JyriL talk 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name speculation

The announcement circular[5] mentions "two other new potential dwarf-planet candidates". It is now confirmed (if anyone doubted) that 2003 EL61 is one of them and 2005 FY9 is the other. Eris is a deity from Greco-Roman mythology and not an underworld nor a creation deity, it is likely that these objects will be named in a similar fashion. In addition, the name was accepted only nine days after it was submitted, so it is highly possible that these objects receive permanent names soon (not to mention that they may be classified as dwarf planets). Obviously 2003 EL61 is not round, but it still is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the prime criterion.--JyriL talk 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not in hydrostatic equilibrium.--Nixer 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nixer is mistaken. The shape of EL61, derived assuming hydrostatisticy, gives the observed lightcurve amplitude. EL61 is in hydrostatic equilibrium.Michaelbusch 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

From Mike Brown's webpage:

When will 2003 EL61 get a real name like Eris and Sedna and Quaoar?
We don't know. We submitted a name to the International Astronomical Union in mid September 2006 for 2003 EL61 and both of its satellites. The name were based in Hawaiian mythology to pay homage to the place where the satellites were discovered.

Since it seems that Ortiz et al. are still considered as the discoverers by the IAU, I wonder how the naming will proceed.--JyriL talk 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing. If they're sticking with the Kuiper belt = creation deities pattern, that might suggest Kāne. And then Kanaloa and Haumea for the moons? The Tom 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the naming is not urgent since it remains still unnamed in the latest batch of new names. Maybe they're going to promote it and 2005 FY9 to dwarf planets before announcing the names. All the currently recognized dwarf planets are named after Greco-Roman deities, so perhaps the naming committee is not sure if 2003 EL61 should be named accordingly...--JyriL talk 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think most are expecting Sedna and Quaoar to get promoted, too, though, and they're non-Greco-Roman. I agree with Deuar that the Ortiz thing is probably a factor, and the IAU would presumably be wary of getting into a repeat situation of the US-Russian pissing matches that used to be a big issue with naming new heavy elements. That said, there's no controversy over 2005 FY9, and it remains similarly stalled. The Tom 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suspect the "discovery controversy", and resulting uncertainty over who gets to name it, may be a factor in the holdup. Deuar 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that we not debate this further here. Mike isn't talking, the IAU isn't talking, so anything on the subject is original research. Michaelbusch 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it even up for promotion (lol it's kinda like a office)?, whether it does or doesnt have hydrostatic equilibrium is irrelevent to the fact that it cannot hold a spherical shape. at least I thought it was... this is confusing.Arkkeeper (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Spherical shape" is just a dumbed-down substitute for "hydrostatic equilibrium". Usually it doesn't make much difference which term is used, but here and w Vesta it can be a source of confusion. kwami (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

THX for clearing that up. Arkkeeper (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure.
Jyril, you said above that "It is now confirmed (if anyone doubted) that 2003 EL61 is one of [the dwarf-planet candidates] and 2005 FY9 is the other." Do you have a reference for that? kwami (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Controversy Weirdness

I am reading this page and notice that the discovery controversy issue seems awfully like the one that Mike Brown says happened with Eris, apparently involving the same players and specifics. Here is a ref to Mike's page. Can anyone help clarify?

87.65.138.154 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Eric Francis, Brussels, Belgium

To wit:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

According to our web server logs, these observing logs were accessed on July 26, 2005 by a computer at the Instituto de Astrofisica in Spain. Less than two days after this computer accessed the observing logs, the same computer was used to send email officially claiming the discovery by P. Santos-Sanz and J.-L. Ortiz at the Instituto de Astrofisica (see detailed timeline here http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz).

At the time of the announcement we truly believed that they had no prior knowledge that we had been observing the object, and we truly believed that they had not used our data to make the announcement of the discovery, but other people found the coincidence suspicious. Shortly after their announcement, however, we realized that all of our observing records -- including those about what is now known as 2003 UB313, the tenth planet -- were unexpectedly public, and made the decision to prematurely announce the discovery of 2003 UB313 that same afternoon by a press conference. We were unhappy about having to forgo normal scientific protocol and announce the discovery with no corresponding scientific paper, but under the circumstances we felt we had no choice.

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

The text from Brown's website describes the circumstances surrounding the discovery of 2003 EL61 in order to explain why the discovery of 2003 UB313 (now known as Eris) was announced earlier than the Caltech group would have liked. 213.211.211.217 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Becoming a Comet'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6268799.stm This article on the BBC website suggests 2003 EL61 (which it refers to as a dwarf planet, though I don't think that has been made official yet) could become a short period comet when it passes close to Neptune. Is it worth including something about this in the article? PGingell 10:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added it at the end of the article, but if such additions are first supposed to be discussed here, I apologize. I should have checked this page first, perhaps. But anyway...its there...if its not appropriate, feel free to move or remove it. Eendrani 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article is very badly garbled. I checked, and what Mike really said is the following:

  • EL61's orbit is slowly evolving to higher eccentricity.
  • Sometime in the next few hundred million years, the eccentricity will become so high that EL61 will interact strongly with Neptune.
  • The most likely outcome of this interaction is that EL61 will become a scattered disc object.
  • EL61 is rock with a thin coating of ice. We infer that it was disrupted by a large collision, which produced a family of small KBOs that are almost pure ice (being the mantle of the pre-EL61). Similar objects will have been produced by other collisions.
  • Some of these near-pure ice objects will have become comets, in accordance with observations of comets with very little dust. The minimum timescale for transport onto comet-like orbits is ~2 million years.

EL61 will not become a comet. Little pieces broken off of it maybe. The above may be added to the article if consensus deems it sufficiently interesting and understandable. Michaelbusch 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


I support adding this, if properly sourced. Trapolator 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. Eendrani 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collisional Family

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070314_kuiper_family.html

Article published in the March 15th edition of the journal Nature states that 2003 EL61 has been found to be the parent body of the first collisional family discovered with its origins in the Kuiper belt.

Would anyone feel that this is important to add to this article? I think it is very interesting. Eaglesight 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is both important and interesting, and it has already been added to the article. The collisional family could be described in more detail, though.--JyriL talk 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Added core stuff. The idea appears less straightforward than it seems but Brown explains away major difficulties. Publications by competition to follow with interest...Eurocommuter 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

Is this animation of any value? I can speed it up if desired, the speed is set by my existing codes, which were written for asteroid animations. WilyD 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations are always welcome. It's so slow that I didn't realize it was an animation until I read that it was. On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing to make it slow - especially if the other animated orbits are proportional. That would give a nice comparison to the length of the local year. kwami (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still vexed at the speed of animation issue - asteroids with semi-major axis below ~2 tend to be too jumpy to boot. WilyD 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Officially submitted name

I contacted Michael Brown via e-mail last November and he revealed (though I did not ask him directly) that the names submitted by Caltech for "Santa" and its moons are --REDACTED-- and "her two daughters" though --REDACTED-- had more than two according to the Wikipedia article. Also, Brown describes --REDACTED-- as the goddess of stone; but according to the article, --REDACTED-- was the goddess of --REDACTED--. This is an important discrepancy, because apparently the whole point for choosing this name was because "Santa" has a high density level (i.e lots of rock). But that's what the man said and since he and his group are the one's that found the friggin' thing, I added it to the article. However, clearly something is amiss here. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Two quick thoughts
  • One, mentioning these names in personal communications is one thing, but "publicizing" a potential name prior to adoption is very much not kosher per IAU rules. By including the name in the article, or indeed, even on this talk page, HurricaneEric, we actually raise the possibility of that name getting ruled out as a potential option. Obviously, Mike wouldn't intend for that to happen, nor, I'm going to assume, you. :)
  • Secondly, in terms of Wikipedia policy on original research, we actually can't include stuff that you collected via email exchange. It needs citation on another verifiable source. Obviously, Brown et al. have done what they can to ensure that that name isn't presently viewable on such a source, for the above reasons. So even if it was ok to publicize the name, we couldn't do it just on the strength of your personal emailings.
(Finally, yes, I know that it's sorta hard to memory-hole this information out of the editing history, but I think that intent matters most in these things.) The Tom (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since Brown does not have naming rights for the primary, which was the only name mentioned, isn't this concern irrelevant? kwami (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Brown's still appealing the crediting of Ortiz et. al. as discoverers, as far as I know. The whole metapolitics of science are notoriously slow-moving in that they still haven't conclusively rejected his claim to it, leaving alone the naming issue, which follows from that. The second point stands, mind you. It's unverifiable to include that in Wikipedia's article space without, say, a citation link to Brown's blog where he says "I submitted [insert she-who-must-not-be-named here] to the IAU." Indeed, the fact that he's still explicitly going out of his way to respect the IAU's hush rule as recently as two weeks ago in public contexts suggests to me, anyway, that he still feels that the prospect of getting She-who-must-not-be-named approved as EL61's real moniker hinges on not publicizing it. The Tom (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have one question. If it's that important to keep secret, why whould he trust me with that information? It's not like I'm some highly respected astronomical scientist. I'm just some dude with a curiosity about the subject. If the acceptance of his group's submission hung on keeping it out of the press, I find it hard to believe that he would include it in an e-mail reply to someone he'd never heard of in his entire life. Mike Brown is too smart for that. Based on that, blacking out stuff on a talk page sounds pretty silly to me. The second point is much more reasonable; there may not be a way to source a direct communication and if that's true then I'm SOL as far as the article goes. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Who knows, he may be used to using it with his colleagues, and was tired & slipped. It's a reasonable precaution. Meanwhile I've asked him explicitly if it's an issue, and also for the moon names. kwami (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We're all lucky he's such a nice guy. I wonder how many emails on this he gets in a week. Serendipodous 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard back. That may simply mean that he was out of town or backlogged, but in the absence of confirmation, I say we err on the side of caution. kwami (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)