Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

"Name" section

Could we delete at least some of the embarrassing gossip from the full page long name section? What’s the point of repeating who allegedly said what? For example, what is the purpose of the long quotation from Discoverer’s site (he’s not claming to be an expert of the naming rules, is he?). What is it the encyclopaedic value? There are many popular sites and blogs for Astronomy fans. We’re writing here an encyclopaedia. Regards Eurocommuter 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is too much brown-centred. It should be reviewed. --Pedro 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I was wondering what that long quotation is doing here, especially that the object has an official name now. Orionist 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I pared the section down to what I think is the essential information that it contained.RandomCritic 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Good. But I think it could use a bit more paring. -- MiguelMunoz 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Xena

I do not think that there is any reason to give the nickname "Xena" any particular prominence. It is an historical footnote, a private in-joke and from an encyclopedic perspective best forgotten soon. People looking for "Xena" will be redirected to this article, and if they bother to read (or search) it they will find the relevant note. But the name "Xena" has no particular importance with regard to the object and doesn't need a mention among the basic facts about it. RandomCritic 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Im for this also, but perhaps we should retain it for a limited time (a week or so?) -- Nbound 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a half-dozen words in a lengthy intro, and there are references out there that refer to this object only as "Xena"; it's worth it, for now, to reassure readers they are in the right place. I'm sure there will be an obvious course of action in six months (which may be to remove); what's the rush? Septentrionalis 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was nicknamed Xena at the time it was announced, or shortly thereafter--so it was popularly known as Xena for more than a year. Between the announcement and the what's-a-planet debate, it got considerable media coverage during that year; many of those articles will continue to exist on the Web forever after, referring to the object only as Xena. I don't know why you wouldn't want to help out people who come across those references in years to come by quickly and simply clarifying that "Xena" is Eris. Nareek 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then they will search for Xena, upon coming to the Xena page there is a link up the top to redirect them to Eris already in place -- Nbound 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it really isn't that important, but a mention of the nickname should be included since it is an example of the Brown et al. group having to adapt to the controversy. Because Eris' status was in limbo for so long, and thus an official name could not be assigned, the discovery group publicized the nickname to avoid having to repeat 2003 UB313 in the press, which can be cumbersome. Perhaps the nickname can be mentioned in that context, but I agree, it does need any particular prominence. --Volcanopele 04:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Xena should be mentioned in the article and the disambiguation page. Like it or not, a lot of people called it Xena, and it is our duty to clarify that piece of knowledge to those who are not "in the know". --Exodio 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris name being Xena (although unoficially) is now part of History. Maybe every mention of it can go down to Name section or something less prominent, but it should be keeped.

While reading through the article I noticed that the nickname "Gabrielle" is mentioned for the moon Dysnomia in the discovery section

However that fact seems to come out of the blue as there is no mention in the article above that point as to why mentioning the nickname "Gabrielle" is relevant.

It would seem to me that reference to "Gabrielle" at that point should be deleted if the reference to "Xena" at the start of the article is deleted and the name "Gabrielle" only mentioned in the section of the article explaining the "Xena" name Garda40 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Featured Article Shot?

I came to this article because of its mention on Front Page News. When I read it, I immetiately thought it was of or near FA quality, so I came to the Talk page to find out if it was one. The objections from the prior nomination appear to have been largely satisfied. After the post-front-page-mention editing frenzy calms down, it should be ready for a final cleanup in preparation for another FA nomination. The graphics do need to be rearranged. By the way, the proposed new name is a better one for an FA (yes I voted). NOTE: I have NOT worked on this article ever. If a serious FA effort is made, I would be willing to help with some copy editing and the like (I'm not good with graphics, though). Finell (Talk) 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Portuguese version is a Featured Article; I think we could take some tips from them. --Merovingian - Talk 07:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't nominate it yet. Naming disputes etc. must be resolved first. The article is still too volatile.--JyriL ^talk 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think some of the arguments still lingering are grounds to delist it for GA, but I'm hesitant to do so unilaterally. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that. If you think this article should be delisted, be bold and go ahead but give good reasons why you came up with that decision.--JyriL ^talk 11:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A requirement for FA is the article be stable. With current news and protection of the article, the article is far from stable. True FA articles are under the radar. Electrawn 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, hold it until everything settles down, give it a few weeks. Tuvas 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's let it get stable again, then seek to have the article relisted. Hopefully I'll be wrong and everything will be peaceful. Kyaa the Catlord 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that we can edit the article again, I'm actually noticing alot of little things. I think the article should be re-GAed, then peer reviewed, and finally nominated for FA. But I'd have to vote against it right now, even if it was stable... Tuvas 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Removal

Image:2003 UB313 distance comparison.jpg

Comparing the distances of the planets to the dwarf planets Pluto and Eris

I think that this image must be removed from the article. It doesn't give an obvious representation of the distances and it's not to scale for that matter. It only gives you a distorted idea about the solar system, and adds nothing to the already-image-cluttered article. Moreover, it has some copyright issue (click on it) and maybe deleted. If no one gives a good reason why this should stay, i'm going to remove it. Orionist 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It says that it is to scale. The planets and orbits are just at different scales. The fact that it shows the orbits in one ddimension rather than 2 or 3 is a minus, of course. And any copyvio should certainly be removed. Eluchil404 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, and it just doesn't seem to fit, I've been playing around with it without much luck. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Tuvas 06:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

mis-use of the term "Kuiper belt"

There is no way that (136199) Eris can be considered part of a belt, so this mention should be removed from the initial paragraph. Eris is in an odd, highly inclined orbit that is not similar to any other known object. If the term "Kuiper belt" is used at all, it should be used only to refer to the cubewanos (i.e., the main belt of transneptunian objects, much closer to Neptune than is Eris).

After studying the issue a bit, I agree. The correct term is "Scattered Disk". The largest KBO is truly Pluto, at least, the largest known. Most of the other objects approaching Pluto's side are actually in this scattered disk region. So, I agree with the assesment that any reference to Kuiper Belt Object should be changed to Scattered Disk. Tuvas 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Like Pluto, the new dwarf planet is a member of the Kuiper belt, a swarm of icy bodies beyond Neptune in orbit around the sun. Until this discovery Pluto was frequently described as "the largest Kuiper belt object" in addition to being a dwarf planet. Pluto is now the second largest Kuiper belt object, while this is the largest currently known. -- Michael Brown

We should avoid original research. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we not leave Dr Brown’s site alone? One page is maybe updated, another maybe it is not. Please read some normal peer-reviewed TNO papers and you’ll discover the following a) the terminology is vague and the first formal classification attempt comes from Deep Ecliptic Survey (see Elliot 2006 ref in the articles). b) The terminology has been evolving over the last few years so it is natural to find different terms in older sources. Consequently, I believe the best thing to do is to quote different terms/classification with sources (like I just did for Sedna in TNO article). Again, I feel we should really stop this ‘Brown said’; Dr. Brown has published more than few papers, please read them and quote them. Eurocommuter 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Example: from the introduction of the famous article about the sise (2nd ref in the article, The Astrophysical Journal, 643: L61–L63, (2006 May 20) The planetary-sized scattered Kuiper belt object 2003 UB313 was discovered..'. I hope it illustrates my point about spurious terminology skirmishes. Eurocommuter 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eurocommuter, please assume good faith. I think that you and I both agree that such definitions, when vague, should be treated as such and that reliable sources should be cited. The above posters were placing their own assessments on the definitions, which is original research. I may not be reading peer-reviewed journals all day, but I do know that barring a formal definition of the term, Wikipedia policy requires us to use sources and that Mike Brown's site does qualify. If at a later time the KBO/SDO are properly defined as separate, Brown will probably go along. Something like "Eris, which Brown classified as a Kuiper Belt object blah blah blah.... Other astronomers separate the Kuiper Belt from the objects in the scattered disk, and classify Eris among them." It's not like he's a backyard amateur, after all. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dhartung, it seems you misunderstood my comment, or my comment went beyond my intentions. Of course, I do assume good faith. My point was about the evolving terminology. This is a potential source of confusion for our readers, I believe and should probably be handled in the TNO article, actually. In a nutshell, but this is a simplification, some authors do not feel comfortable with the notion ‘’Kuiper Belt’’ and prefer to use ‘’trans-Neptunian objects’’. Others, do not make the distinction between them so you have ‘scattered Kuiper Belt’ in the quotation. Recent DES I quoted before puts Scattered-Near and Scattered-Extended as formally defined categories of KBO, because KBO=other authors trans-Neptunian in this paper (i.e. the term trans-Neptunian is never mentioned). Our articles do not yet represent sufficiently this trend.

Of course, we fully agree on the need for referencing. I would simply try to avoid putting so much stress on the terminology thinking precisely about the reader who came to the article following the news.

Finally, I’m not sure why you did you put your remark about "backyard amateur". My point was simply to make the difference between the authors’ (not only Dr Brown's) papers and their popular sites. Many others (Jewitt, Sheppard) are also making an excellent job making new discoveries available to the wide public. However, these sites are not necessarily intended (I presume) as a scientific reference (they provide links to the actual references). On this, my point was simple, whenever possible, as an encyclopaedia, let’s use (peer-reviewed) sources rather than popular sites. Regards Eurocommuter 21:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I looked at the pictures, and moved them around a bit, and removed one that didn't seem to convey useful info. Do these changes seem alright? Tuvas 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was doing the same thing, i think i may have edited over your changes, we probably made the same moves but :P -- Nbound 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It just looks too crowded, I think we should trim a few of the pictures. I do think the still lapse picture of Eris needs to be removed, as well as a few of the pictures near the bottom, at least one of them... Personally, I'd choose the Distribution of trans-Neptunian Objects. I added Eris because there just isn't a picture in that part of the article, but I think we could do to remove a few others, in the more crowded places.Tuvas 06:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose:

remove timelapse
possibly move TNO distribution to classification section
remove comparing distance pic

comments/critcisms? -- Nbound

I went ahead and removed ones with issues, either there was too many pictures, copyright issues, or other such things, and I think it looks better actually. I'm going to stop now though, I don't want to break the 3RR rule by accident... Tuvas 06:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

u'll only break it if your reverting possibly useful edits, we are cleaning up the article, all will be fine :) -- Nbound

Image:2003 UB313 NASA illustration 3.jpg

90px

I hate to open this can of worms again, but is the mythological picture necessary here? It is in the Eris (mythology) article, right up front, and the image of the mythological figure doesn't really illustrate anything about the celestial body. --Volcanopele 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As a replacement for that image, is there a nice artist rendering of the Eris (Erisian?) system? --Volcanopele 06:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Eris is more relevant in the name section, than a random rendering of the Erisian system -- Nbound 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what was present before the cleanup - perhaps it should be restored. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are gonna use a pic, the one from Dysnomia (moon)'s info box would be much better -- Nbound

I do agree, it's probably not nessicary, but, well, I just wanted something to break up the name section a bit, and I couldn't think of anything else that was relevant... If you have a better idea, I'd gladly take it, but I'd like to see something at least relevant to the naming... Tuvas 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I looked at the portuguese article, which is an FA, and you will also see the exact same picture on there, so, unless they copied us... Not to say that that should be the ultimate reference, but, I thought I'd mention it. Tuvas 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I have never seen an article on a solar system body with a picture of its namesake in the article. We've usually just left it to the article on the namesake to take of that. A picture of Eris isn't exactly relevant to the discussion of the celestial body Eris. Now, I understand that a random rendering of the Erisian system isn't relevant to that section (though might be useful elsewhere in the article, perhaps down in the Moon section), but I don't see the need for the Eris goddess picture. --Volcanopele 20:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely -- that's why we have hypertext. Readers interested in the goddess can follow the wikilink. It is not, however, directly relevant to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for GA again?

The article seems to fulfill the GA requirements and is looking better than ever, what do you guys think? -- Nbound 06:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Im going to post it up for GA -- Nbound

ipa

If we're going to use IPA, then it should be in a form that's internationally viewable. Please format so that the average joe on a public computer with an American, German, Korean, etc. keyboard can read the symbols with-out having to know how to do some sort of complicated stuff with the computer (that might not even be possible with-out admin rights). Kdammers 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

it reads fine for me, try changing your character encoding to unicode perhaps? (should be in view menu of browser) -- Nbound 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[ˈiɹɪs] should be transliterated <ee-ris>, not <eye-ris>, which would be [ˈaɪɹɪs], like the flower or the colored part of the eye. BirdValiant 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, somebody got rid of that already. Thanks. BirdValiant 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planet naming discussion started

This recent renaming has solved nothing! Even many of the supporters of this move wanted Pluto and 1 Ceres to conform to it. However, the Pluto page is now move-protected and the editors there seem dead-set against any move at this time. Also, 1 Ceres has not yet been moved. To deal with this issue, I have started the page Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming, so that all interest parties can discuss this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No surprises there! RandomCritic 02:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I delete...

Let me just ask: Why is there a Small Solar System Body footer on this page? The entire category of SSSBs just exists as something that Eris is not a part of. RandomCritic 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i beleive it is a remnant from pre-August 24th -- Nbound

On the adjectival form of Eris

For future reference: If the astronomical adjective meaning "of or related to the dwarf planet Eris" is formed in the same way as that of other astronomical objects with Latin and Greek names, it will be Eridian and not Erisian. This is because most such astronomical adjectives are formed by adding the suffix -ian to the noun stem, the basic meaning-bearing part of the word which comes before any inflectional endings. In Latin and Greek, it is very often different - sometimes strikingly so - from the nominative singular form which is usually quoted. It can be determined by looking at the genitive singular of the noun declension, which in Latin often ends in -is and in Greek in -os. Examples are shown below; the noun stem is the part before the dash.

Nominative	Genitive	English adjective
Mars	Mart-is	Martian
Jupiter	Jov-is	Jovian
Pluto	Pluton-is	Plutonian
Juno	Junon-is	Junonian
Pallas	Pallad-os	Palladian
Eris	Erid-os	Eridian (presumably)

Anyway, that's why I've been using Eridian instead of "Erisian" or something like that; to me, "Erisian" sounds like saying "Marsian" or "Jupiterian". RandomCritic 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Erisian has a history of being used for things related to Eris. Erisian mystery, Erisian movement, Erisian discordianism, these all have google hits while Eridian has not been used in this manner. Kyaa the Catlord 05:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all those refer to Eris (mythology) -- frequently the discordian Eris. Having a distinct adjective for the astronomical object is normal and from the point of view of clarity is a good thing -- nobody uses "Martian" to mean "related to the god Mars", and so there is no confusion.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned you can personally use what you like. I am just pointing out what the precedents are. Modern astronomers are sometimes not quite as linguistically keen as those of the past (who frequently wrote in Latin); so I have no idea what to expect them to come up with when they start looking for an adjective.RandomCritic 05:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Making up a new word would be silly, imho. Then again, it really isn't our decision. Kyaa the Catlord 06:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As RandomCritic says, being able to distinguish "Eridian moon" (Dysnomia) vs. "Erisian moon" (showing someone your butt with the Sacred Chao painted on it) is a good thing. DenisMoskowitz 12:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it was a mistype on the satellite footer as s and d are next to each other, but yeah your way would be correct. -- Nbound

Due to WP:NOT and WP:NOR, shouldn't new adjectives be kept off Wikipedia? --Kjoonlee 12:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the IAU's Committee for Small Body Nomenclature to ask what they recommended for an adjectival form of Eris. Their answer is that they are only responsible for the name of the object, and they do not prescribe adjectival forms: their specialty is astronomy, not linguistics. There is therefore no "official" adjectival formation, and one may do as one pleases; eventually there will be a linguistic consensus based on usage. Of the two astronomers on the Committee that I contacted, one suggested simply using "of Eris" in place of an adjective; the other remarked that there is an adjective "eristic" related to the Greek word eris. Neither of these was presented as an official statement by the committee, but as the views of the individuals concerned. As for Wikipedia, I expect it will conform to whatever terms appear in the scientific literature, if and when such terms are used. At present there would seem to be nothing, as the name is only four days old. RandomCritic 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with original research. That's a linguistic issue. Please someone confirm if it is "eridian" or "erisian" in mythology books concerning Eris. It would be very useful for other languages also. thx. --Pedro 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like OR to me. Someone else should do the confirming, and we should only add that if it comes from reliable sources. --Kjoonlee 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Eris" still wrong

The name itself is wrong, and both pronunciations are ridiculose. In Latin, it's Èris, and in English, it's Errees. That anyone would say ee-ris shows that one is a deaf and dim shithead—confer the Cockney. (see Talk:Untranslatability#disputed) -lysdexia 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

the one that most people seem to be using is "airris" -- Nbound 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The air sound at the front is surely because of a US accent. I'd have thought most British people would pronounce it similar to the pronunciation of "ferris" i.e. in ferris wheel - it's effecitvely the same way of speaking the word Eris, just with different accents. Richard B 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats the exact sound i meant airris and (f)erris sound exactly the same in AU english... (not US english! ='( ) -- Nbound 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to (a) comment on the pointlessness of this section, and (b) point out how ridiculous our angry friend's spelling is. It amuses me that one can be so pedantic about the pronunciation of obscure words when they are unable to spell common words. aLii 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to point that this should not be confused with Iris - goddess of rainbow (in which honour named element Iridium).--Nixer 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet footer

Why don't we have the standard minor planet footer on this page (i.e. the one that would link to minor planets 136198 and 136200)? Since Eris has a minor planet number, it is a minor planet thus we should have the footer. Chaos syndrome 11:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, adding now -- Nbound 11:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Symbol for Eris

There is a debate: [1] and a petition http://www.petitiononline.com/ffhoeris/petition.html and an astrological site [2] all working right now to develop an 'official' symbol (to be adopted by whomever wants to use it) for the dwarf planet Eris. Right now, we all seem to agree on the Five Fingered Hand of Eris as the best symbol to use, since it is somewhat in line with the other astrological/planetary symbols. I mention and do not add this information to the page because it is still undecided. But then again, you're dealing with Discordians. --Travlr23 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decides this sort of thing, anyway? Is the IAU responsible for that, as well? In other words, how will we know when there's a official decision? Is it even important enough to warrant official decision, or will other people (astrologers) come up with some consensus?

Anyway, I think it is reasonable to assume this five fingered hand symbol as a serious contender, since it seems to be pretty much the only candidate, discordian or not.

Orbit

The text in the orbit section states that Eris does not cross the orbit of Neptune. However, the illustration in that section seems to show it crossing Neptunes orbit. Which is correct? Kaldari 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't cross Neptune's orbit. The periastron is further out than the apastron of Neptune. The issue with the image is a projection issue - the orbit has been projected down into the plane of Neptune's orbit, and since Eris is in an inclined orbit, it appears to cross Neptune. Chaos syndrome 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Centralized Discussion at Dwarf Planet/Naming

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming

How many arcsecs?

I know nothing about astronomy, but after reading this sentence: -

the team's automatic image-searching software excluded all objects moving at less than 1.5 arcseconds per hour to reduce the number of false positives returned. When 90377 Sedna was discovered, it was moving at 1.75 arcsec/h, and in light of that the team reanalyzed their old data,

my question is how many arcsec/h was Eris appear to be moving across the sky? It the sentance would be more meaningful if this info was added. Parasite 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

GA On hold

Hey... I put the Good Article nom. on hold because there is currently a small dispute going on and a naming dispute so in my opinion that should be clarified before going further. Except that, I think the article fullfills the GA criteria and if it would be me, it would be GA. --Deenoe 10:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rundown of current disputes:

Eridian vs Erisian (probably going to last until the IAU says what to use)

See above. The IAU is not going to say what to use. In any case neither form appears in the text and the current version of our infobox doesn't require it. So no dispute. RandomCritic 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You just love to argue with me, don't you? :P If the IAU isn't going to make a ruling on this, I agree that we need to wait on whatever other scientific consensus comes out with the correct answer to Eris/dian. Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

naming dispute for dwarf planets

These are the two I've seen. There's some minor issues with the lead, but those don't seem to be too important. Kyaa the Catlord 10:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In Russian it's Erida, Ceres is Cerera, Pallas is Pallada and Venus is Venera.--Nixer 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay for Russian. There is already a "of Eris" word available. Creating a new neologism is silly. Not that I don't fully foresee this being done, but that's because, in large part, scientists are silly too. Kyaa the Catlord 14:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyhows, when the disputes will be resolved, it would be my pleasure (or anyone) to give it the Good Article status. --Deenoe 00:58, 20 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)

Pronunciation

so, if I understand the first line correctly, the dwarf planet can be called either "eh-ris" or "ee-ris"? 128.12.103.11 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

sounds right... basically one emphasises the 'E' and the other doesnt... read the IPA page if u havent already :) - Nbound 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

link to naming convention being removed

Ryulong has been removing the wikilink to the appropriate section on astronomical naming conventions, claiming, completely without any cogent argument, that such linking is "ridiculous".

I have added the link back. I am now asking Ryulong for his direct argument why this link to another article that explains the naming system in use by the IAU and directly relevant to this article, is in some way "ridiculous". Lacking such, to any rational reader and writer of these articles, a reference to an "official designation" can tolerate a wikilink to the corresponding article that explains as much. mdf 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion began some time ago, when Paul_venter was continually adding these links in the lead. I felt that the links - initially, just to a long list of numerical asteroid designations - were inappropriate and confusing. He and I discussed it at some length, and we weren't able to agree. I stopped removing the links because I didn't want to get into an edit war with him. However, there are now several editors disagreeing with putting such links at that point in the article. Therefore, I think the onus is now for you and Paul to convince the others as to why it should be added - rather than for us to convince you why it shouldn't. (Just my two cents.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit in question makes no reference to any of the above details: it simply strips the informational wikilink around the phrase "official designation", dismissing it as "ridiculous". The phrase was wikilinked for exactly the same reason that I recently wikilinked the word "acetaldehyde": the referenced page is directly relevant. Is that sufficient explanation? Note that I find it hard to go on further, simply because to do so will just insult most people's intelligence. Isn't this, like, obvious? mdf 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the "naming" page as a link (I think I originally created it to try ty accomodate Paul_venter), I don't know if it is needed in the lead. However, that's something for the group to decide. What are your thoughts on linking the number to a long list of asteroids, as Paul seems to want to do? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. Well, that is just needlessly gratuitous. As for the it being "needed in the lead", no opinion on that, except that I'll say that wherever that "136199 Eris" makes it's first or second appearance, I think it makes a great deal of sense that a link to the naming scheme be nearby. mdf 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Move

How can this page be moved while it is still marked as protected? Maybe the admin who moved it and the admin who protected it could have had a chat before jerking this article around one more time? RandomCritic 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You know full well who moved this page and why. You even added an immediate request for the page to be moved back on WP:RM before posting here. This page was moved partly because of majority vote, and partly — I suspect — because it was the right thing to do. The article should stay in its current location unless a good argument can be made to move it to Eris and move the disambiguation page elsewhere. aLii 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it should be moved to Eris and disambiguation should be moved elsewhere for the sake of having one style with Pluto and Ceres. Eris should not be discriminated! TestPilot 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we just let things rest for a month ro so? I would like to see a consensus to give "dwarf planets" the same status and planets before we do that. However, I cannot see that "dwarf planets" being permanently on that footing. There most likely will soon be over a dozen of these objects, and they will fade from people's consciousness over time. The only thing that makes them more noteworthy now (if they are) is the recent media attention over their designation. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why the hell was Ceres moved? Ryūlóng 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That move was done by an over-enthusiastic admin who figured that 1 Ceres being a "dwarf planet" meant that it automatically trumped the godess Ceres for naming priority. The page move was done without notice or debate, and after I protested at talk:1 Ceres (which was at [[talk:Ceres]] at that time), the move was reversed. --EMS | Talk 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ceres was moved from 1 Ceres because a newbie moved the goddess' page to Ceres (mythology), and he then performed a copy-paste move to move 1 Ceres to Ceres, which was then histmerged. Ryūlóng 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even all the planets proper get preferred non-disambiguated status. Mercury, anyone? Discordianism makes Eris far more notable than a dwarf planet. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercury is disambiguated due to the element of the same name, and as far as I am aware no other element is disambiguated. Atomic1609 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 05:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Pass

Has I said before, I put on hold the GA to wait until naming and other disputes has been resolved. I now passed the GA because the article is stable, it conforms to all the criterias and the disputes has been resolved. Good job to everyone who worked on the article, even if they only changed or added a word. --Deenoe 01:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New poll on naming dispute

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discordian naming campaign

The text has been removed (again) - this was decided upon quite some time ago as not being appropriate for the article, but it continues to resurface again and again. Yes, there's a link, but that only serves to suggest that the campaign existed. It certainly doesn't warrant including speculative text in an encyclopedia article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it was noted that neither Mike or the IAU have mentioned the Discordian's actions in official statements. Based on talking with Mike, the naming was entirely due to Eris' being the goddess of discord (and the terrible pun of Dysnomia). This is not an official statement, however. Michaelbusch 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives