Talk:1 Ceres/Archive 3

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

Symbols on 1 Ceres

Osgoodelawyer started this discussion on my talk page, but I thought it was more appropriate here. The question is should all variants of the symbol for 1 Ceres be listed in this article or should only the most commonly used symbol be listed. I reverted his removal of the alternate symbols because I felt they should all be listed in the interest of trying to be comprehensive. --Aranae 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The variants add no real information to the article (they're all very similar), and they look bad all together like that. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with moving them from the infobox to being discussed in the text, but I do think they belong in the article. Someone coming across an archaic reference to one of the variants should have some hope of tracking it down. --Aranae 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better image by hst (color too!)

Here is a much better image taken by hubble in 2005: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/27/image/d

The resolution of this image is no better than the one in the article now. It has merely been processed to smooth out the appearance of the surface.Michaelbusch 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but I must admit it looks better.--JyriL talk 10:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
But is it copyrighted? -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
doubt it... it would fall under nasa public domain stuff wouldnt it -- Nbound 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a NASA image and not copyrighted.--JyriL talk 10:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That pic makes it look like another picture of Mars. The coloring is similar.70.177.71.206 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
VERY MUCH FOR that picture. That picture makes a much better case for Dwarf-planethood than the pixeliated asteroid pic we got right now. Hopquick 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Be WP:Bold! Hopquick 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
and add it to commons, plz. --Pedro 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ceres in colour uploaded to commons-Pedro 19:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ceres in colour uploaded to commons-Pedro 19:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...Having a nice picture of it is proof it's a dwarf planet? Still, it DOES look a lot better. Adam Cuerden talk 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look - more nice colour pictures: http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005/27/images/e/formats/web_print.jpg http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/27/image/e I think black and white in the middle of the article should be updated - but not sure. TestPilot 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistent nomenclature

Why does 1 Ceres, have it's minor planet number in its title and Pluto does not? Shouldn't the titling be consistent? Aren't they now equally dwarf planets? Hopquick 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres is in the numbered objects catalogue, Pluto isn't. Deuar 22:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Pluto's in it now; it just recieved number 134340. See Pluto. If people had gone along with it back when the Minor Planet people had first proposed it Pluto could have had the nice round number of 100000, but oh well. :) Bryan 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea of moving the Pluto article has been discussed. Current consensus is to keep the simplest, most common name as per Wikipedia convention. Pluto's number, however, is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox. --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, how about that? Shame about the 1×105. What an indignity − not only to get a number, but for it to be a monster like 134340 ;-). So, anyway, in this case, I am uncertain regarding the better name for the Ceres article. Deuar 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Numbers are assigned in sequence, so that there are no duplicates. A few months ago, there was a proposal to demote Pluto immediately, to give it the number 100000. Michaelbusch 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, this sort of thing was already done for e.g. 50000 Quaoar. Wonder why they didn't wait a bit until a more round number came up this time. Deuar 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It would have been cool for it to be 0 Pluto. Lol70.177.71.206 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I suspect it would have stuffed up all the database programs people have; and wouldn't have been in time order since Ceres and a whole pile were discovered earlier. :-) Deuar 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Brian G. Marsden, MPC offered a nice cool number for Pluto a long time ago; he was met with an outrage… Now Pluto is stuck with 134?, sorry, I forgot the entry for Pluto already... Eurocommuter 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think this should drop the 1. It's generally called Ceres within the article. But let's wait and see what happens. -- Beardo 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There is already an article at Ceres. The 1 at the front usefully disambiguates the article from the goddess. Richard B 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also say this article should lose the number and be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet). —Nightstallion (?) 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We should have all the dwarf planets consistent. Let's see what eventuates over at Talk:Eris (hopefully rename to [[... (dwarf planet)]] in my opinion) and then whatever it is, be consistent. Deuar 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say we should simply state that Ceres and Pluto will follow the nomenclature of Eris. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jupiter and Ceres

Does anyone take a stand on Ceres' prospects of growing through accretion or getting shredded by Jupiter? I've been searching for this, but haven't found any research or reports. Hopquick 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres' orbit is stable over the age of the solar system. The timescale for accretionary growth is now many of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the solar system (it was much less ~4.56 Gyr ago).Michaelbusch 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if it accreted the entire asteroid belt it would be much less massive than our moon (though would be classed a fully fledged planet as it would have cleared the neighbourhood.) -- Nbound 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Jupiter already did most of the work for her...

Naming

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. As Ceres is not now classified as a "dwarf planet", some policy is needed for naming the articles of this new class of solar system objects as a whole. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction - Ceres is classified as a dwarf planet. It is on the minor planets list because of it's prior designation as an asteroid (dating back to the 1850's). --Ckatzchatspy 03:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

All dwarf planets retain their previous classifications as well -- Nbound 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all--Nixer 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Asteroids remain asteroids, and KBO's remain KBO's, and SDO's remain SDO's -- Nbound

Well, I think he's nitpicking at the fact that Pluto which was once a planet is no longer a planet. Ryūlóng 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


New Template for dwarf planet names

(from Talk:Dwarf planet)

You can now enter {{dp|Name}} and it will automatically bring up the correct minor planet number without you needing to look it up, but it will display only as the name. E.g. {{dp|Ceres}} will give Ceres i.e. [[1 Ceres|Ceres]].

These can be used mid-article to provide links to the correct article titles, without using redirects and saving time writing minor planet numbers in.

Only covers the dwarf planets - {{dp|Pluto}} will link to [[134340 Pluto|Pluto]] at the moment - just in case it ever changes - but you wouldn't need to currently use the template for links to the Pluto article - it's just at Pluto

The template can of course be amended if the naming convention changes e.g. if the IAU issues a new dwarf planet catalogue system - meaning that no links would have to be changed - just the template. Richard B 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

This is a total mess. The Ceres dab page tells you to go to "Ceres" to find the page about the goddess. Where is the page about the goddess now?

Look at the "what links here" page. All of the links that formerly connected to the goddess page are now going to the asteroid page. Where's the sense in that? RandomCritic 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New poll on naming dispute

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

mass

I have amended the mass estimate and given an uncertainty. The value 9.46±0.04×1019kg takes into account the two most recent mass determinations, which are based on different methods, and hence presumably an independent check. That of Pitjeva: 9.454±0.014×1019, based on perturbations by Ceres on the detailed motion of Mars; and those of Standish and Drummond: 9.472±0.030×1019, based on perturbations of smaller asteroids. Deuar 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)