Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] One last (please oh please) poll

Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. Because an important option was left out of the last poll. Adam Cuerden talk 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Ceres move

Following the discussion and supermajority/consensus established on Talk: Dwarf planet/Naming there is a proposed move for 1 Ceres to be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet) on the Talk: 1 Ceres page. Those Eris editors who wish for a policy one way or another on the overall naming scheme for dwarf planets should participate there. Thanks. The Enlightened 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical_objects). Now, I'm not saying we necessarily SHOULD use this - it's a proposed guideline, after all. But we probably should discuss it, since we are going against it. It seems to make a clear case for Pluto staying where it is. What about Ceres (one of its examples, though before the reorginisation) and Eris? Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006 archive

Older discussions have been moved to the September 2006 archive, up top. RandomCritic 06:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

isn't it time to re-nominate this article to Featured Article status? Orionist 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed symbols

The one proposed in september 2005 in Poland . Plase list here the other proposed symbols. Anika 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- svg format. GrzegorzWu 08:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is most unlikely that the IAU will nominate a symbol for the object. Such additions would be unfounded speculation. Michaelbusch 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.zanestein.com/Trans-pluto.htm#UB313 - it would be nice if the IAU officially recognized symbols for the various planets and dwarf planets. Ofcourse, not that the IAU need do it... astologers invented on for Pluto they're quite happy with, ignoring the PL symbol. But, as IAUPAC gives symbols for elements, IAU should give a symbol to Eris. 132.205.44.128
If a symbol (or many symbols) become generally associated, we should probably mention it here. 132.205.44.128 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's unlikely to happen for a few decades: The symbols just aren't used much anymore, so there's no strong push to get one. Adam Cuerden talk 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Astrologers are the only ones who routinely insert Eris into their charts, so they were in need for handy symbol. And so far only minority of them is doing this at all. GrzegorzWu 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Erisian/Discordian community has been pushing for "The Five Fingered Hand Of Eris" to become the official symbol of the planet Eris. Assorted online petitions have been started and the 'historical' symbol of the Erisian movement seems to be far more appropriate than the glyph referenced above from the Polish source. http://www.moldred.org/images/designs017.JPG shows the symbol as shown in The Principia Discordia. --Razmear 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Apple of Eris/Apple of Discord" symbol is, likewise (and unsurprisingly) advocated by Discordians and Erisians as a possible glyph for the dwarf planet. A completely unofficial variant of the apple-glyph can be found here: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/astrology/eris-glyph.php 24.21.201.230 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


The official symbol candidate is: http://www.suberic.net/~dmm/graphics/astro/img/big/Eris.png I attempted to upload the public domain image, but got errors. http://www.suberic.net/~dmm/graphics/moons/ shows the proposed symbols for both Eris and Dysnomia. --Razmear 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the IAU will not assign symbols to additional objects. Michaelbusch 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Those are the images I created. I'm not sure my Dysnomia symbol is proposed by anyone but me. Obviously none of these are worth adding to the article unless using Eris in astrology becomes much more widespread, and even then it would probably end up in a section of Astrology rather than here. As for the Polish symbol, I've seen that symbol used to mean Earth, so it would be strange to have it suddenly refer to Eris. DenisMoskowitz 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. BTW, Razmear, the proposed "Five Fingered Hand of Eris" and another proposed symbol, the "Eye of Providence", have already been uploaded in nice SVG format: and . └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The current stable of symbols is:

Shouldn't we omit the symbol from 2060 Chiron as well, then? Urhixidur 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should. They are not being used by anyone, and have no historical significance. Michaelbusch 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, that is not true. They are used by astrologers --and only by astrologers. A paragraph in the text (rather than an infobox entry) is warranted, methinks. Urhixidur 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not know the level of usage of the symbols by astrologers, but unless they are widespread, I think Wikipedia:Notability needs to be considered. If the proposed symbols have simply been proposed and don't have widespread usage or significant history, then they are not notable. Michaelbusch 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Although these symbols are not used by astronomers, they do continue to be used by astrologers. Astrologers were the original astronomers...I don't see a problem with a small sub-section or paragraph alluding to the symbol. Probable placement would be in name section as a symbol is a suitable substitution for a name (pictoglyphs are an example of this.) Abyssoft 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why the Chiron symbol is a topic of discussion on the Eris page, but: use of the Chiron symbol is pretty much universal among astrologers who use Chiron at all, which is many of them. It's certainly popular enough to be notable. Use of Eris in astrology is much, much less common, and there's no consensus among astrologers as to what symbol to use for it - so my opinion would be that including a symbol is inappropriate for Eris at this time, but appropriate for Chiron. 67.158.73.188 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the crux of the matter: 'continue to be used'. The astrologers only started cooking up symbols for the thing last year. There is no long-term history of use. That is why I worry about notability. Michaelbusch 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On 6 June 2007 CharliTa added a symbol to the infobox again. As we've discussed, this doesn't appear to have any official endorsement, certainly not among the IAU, and so does not belong in the infobox. As astrologers don't seem to agree among themselves what if any symbol this newly discovered body should have, I also question the notability and whether this isn't a form of original research, or at least promotion of a "favorite" symbol. Either way it doesn't seeme to go in the infobox. Plus it was huge. Thoughts?Derek Balsam(talk) 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What you did was clearly the right thing - no symbol is widely used enough to appear on this article. (That symbol and others already appear in the astrological symbols page.) DenisMoskowitz 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - it isn't Wikipedia's role to "assign" a symbol. --Ckatzchatspy 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to change image to this

Image:Erisplanet.jpg

Far better than current image. Zazaban 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an image of Eris. It is a copy of a map of Pluto. While the two may look similar, we can't misrepresent one as the other. There is no map of Eris yet because to make such a map requires a lot of data and post-processing. Michaelbusch 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spelling, pronunciation wrong

Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 4#"Eris" still wrong: This is not English, and neither is mest of what English-speakkrs speak. They don't know how to spell or speak. ("unable" hah! un-ebùl?? You mean deabil? ungainsly? The world doesn't know a thing about English.) -lysdexia 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Hèris, by the way. That's Herrese in English. -lysdexia

[edit] Request for comment

I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep any comments on this issue on Talk:Pluto Bluap 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of Eris

This is in response to User:Sturmde's comment "εr- pronunciation is predominant and that of the discoverers, and is correct as the Greek has initial epsilon rather than an initial eta.". First, I know of no survey that would demonstrate that the "erris" pronunciation is more prevalent than the "eeris" pronunciation; or that the latter is "chiefly British". Second, the "erris" pronunciation is not "correct" in terms of Sturmde's reasoning; the quantity of the Greek (or Latin) vowel has nothing to do with the traditional English pronunciation of classical names. Venus: short e in Latin, long in English. Ceres: short e in Latin, long in English. Rhea: epsilon in Greek, long e in English. Themis: epsilon in Greek, long e in English. Thetis: epsilon in Greek, long e in English. English vowel qualities depend upon stress and position, not the values of original Greek or Latin vowels. "Erris" will be "correct" when English-speakers start saying "Vennus" (or "wennoose") for "Venus". RandomCritic 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As a UK person, I say "erris", not "eeris" Bluap 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I get what RandomCritic was arguing (that the "correct" pronunciation isn't that of Greek?), but I'm Canadian, and I pronounce it air-is. And while there may be no survey, I'm guessing that that's the more common pronunciation in English. Lexicon (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RandomCritic is correct about vowel length in English Greco-Latinate words. But while the rules generally hold for polysyllabic words, they have more exceptions with shorter words. There aren't many words ending in stressed -eris in English: in fact, the OED has just four. The longer words, "iberis" and "meliceris", have long vowels, IPA: /aɪˈbɪərɪs, ˈmɛlɪˈsɪərɪs/ (but note plural "melicerides" /mɛlɪˈsɛrɪdiːz/); "pteris" has both, IPA: /ˈptɛrɪs, ˈtɪərɪs/ (this shows that /ɪər/ is more anglicized); while "meris" has only a short e, IPA: /ˈmɛrɪs/. Likewise, words in stressed -era, -ero are generally long when Greco-Latin, but occasionally short when the word is short. The American Heritage dictionary has both IPA: /ˈɪərɪs/ and IPA: /ˈɛrəs/ for Eris, whereas Encyclopedia Mythica has only the more anglicized IPA: /ˈɪərəs/. E.M., by the way, is the source the IAU cites for the pronunciation[1]; note however that the IAU does not issue pronunciation guidelines, and is simply using the same sources we are to give a recommendation; it's not likely astronomers refer to it for such matters. My guess is that people will generally pronounce Eris the way they do era, but maybe Bluap doesn't? kwami 08:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just realised Eris is a character on a current TV cartoon series. From the title of the episode To Eris is Human, it would seem the pronunciation they use is IPA: /ˈɛr.ɨs/. If this show is at all influential, it might influence the pronunciation of people born after c. 1990. kwami 08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. You're right. Youtube is your friend. Eris also appears in Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, and, at least according to Brad Pitt, her name is pronounced IPA: /ˈɛr.ɨs/. An episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a character named Eris, whose name was meant to homage the Greek goddess. It was pronounced IPA: /ˈɛr.ɨs/ then. Also according to Youtube, Robert Anton Wilson, a practicing Discordian, pronounced her name IPA: /ˈɛr.iːs/ ("err-eece", with the accent on the second syllable), which is probably close to how the Greeks originally pronounced it. So in a way RandomCritic is right; we English speakers have found our own way to pronounce it. Serendipodous 05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temperature

The info box says that Eris has a surface temperature of -30 Kelvin. The Kelvin scale doesn't go below zero, so this is wrong. Probably it's supposed to be -30C or ~243K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.161.125 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

No, it says ~30. The ~ denotes approximate. The surface temperature is indeed roughly 30 K. -30 C would be completely absurd. Michaelbusch 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
So it does - sorry, misread that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.161.125 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Speaking of temperature, did anyone else notice that in the Thermal measurement segment, it implies that the temperature of the side facing us (presumable the warmer side) is (currently) somewhere between 23 and 27 K, but that in the Surface and atmosphere section it states that the temperature varies between 30 and 56 K? I don't understand the apparent contradiction here. (I understand that Eris is near its perihelion and so will be warmer, but that doesn't explain the gap between 23-27 and 30. Also, why are those numbers reversed in the Surface and atmosphere section? I.e., why does it say between 56 and 30 K instead of vice-versa? It just seems odd.) Benhocking 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moons?

Hi. I know Eris has one confirmed moon, but I wanted to ask, what are those two blothces in the main image? One is to the upper left of the Eris, and appeares faint and round. The other one appeares below the Eris, and appeares faint and elongated. Can someone tell me what they are? Are they moons, stars, comets, gas, galaxies, illusions, gravitational lensing, other KBOs, or something else? Could someone identify them, and should they be in the main article? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the upper left is a background star, the lower right a background galaxy. The non-circularity of Eris' image is due to artifacts of the adaptive optics. This really isn't notable, because the background will be different in every image of the object. Michaelbusch 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Or they could be image flares. With pictures like this, you sometimes get odd lights, rflecting off objects, bending round strong magnetic or gravitational fields. Or as you say, they could be stars/galaxies. In all honesty, they're probably stars, but the flares are a possibility. NIN 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun pic

why does the main picture make eris look like a sun? plz explain on the main article in the caption thank you

This is caused by flare artifacts, (a type of image proccessing leftover) when images are proccess it leaves these defects in many cases. Abyssoft 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) As Abyssoft said, it's to do with the image processing. It is a slightly *dodgy* picture but of course pictures of Eris are limited. NIN 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 UB313

User:The Tom's recent edit raises a good point about the name 2003 UB313. Given that it is now close to a year since the name "Eris" was given, is it time to remove "2003 UB313" from the lead? (It is already well-documented in the "Name" section.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It hadn't been there for a good few months, and I don't really think it absolutely needs to be there, but the point was made by someone over on the Featured article nomination that it should be included there.
Just pondering it now, and one thought that crossed my mind is that the object did get a fair bit of press under its provisional designation, so theoretically a reader might be researching TNOs in assorted sources elsewhere and could benefit from the immediate clarification via this article that this "Eris" object they've come across and this "2003 UB313" object they've also read about are one and the same. Other than that sort of circumstance, I think we're pretty well covered with the nomenclature section and in the sidebar, so the lead might be overkill. The Tom 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pluto larger???

Should pluto be considered larger, becuase since pluto is considered a binary planet (pluto and charon orbit each other)and pluto plus charons size/mass exceeds eris's. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.--Cbennett0811 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Even with a 2400 km diameter, Eris's volumn and mass is no less than that of Pluto and Charon combined. Besides, the recent analysis of Spitzer data indicates 2400 km is actually the lowest possible figure, with Eris most likely being considerably larger. J P 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)J P

thanks for your response --Cbennett0811 21:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furthest Known object in the solar system?

It may be the furthest known planet (including dwarf); but what about the comets they are definately "objects" and most of their orbits I believe would take them out much further for most of the time. Do they not count as many known comets come in closer on their orbits? But Eris too comes closer than Neptune. What counts as an object (presumably anything including comets). What counts as the Solar System? (I thought comets were incuded, the comet and solar system system articles say they are) What counts as furthest out for an eccentric orbit? mean distance? maximum distance? Is the statement wrong or maybe needs re-wording?

Carlwev 03:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll add "large". Serendipodous 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Comets never been seen at such distance. They only estimated to have orbits there.--Dojarca 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sedna is further out in any case.

Does this statement need editing. Sedna must count as being a further out TNO. --Overpet 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Eris is currently much farther. From JPL HORIZONS, on 31 August 2007, Sun-Sedna range = 88.38 AU, Sun-Eris range = 96.81 AU. Deuar 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

So it's named Eris, is it discordant? - 2-16 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. But it did cause discord. Serendipodous 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pluto's naming

Pluto was NOT named after the cartoon dog, as the article suggests (even though it is a quote.) I am writing: '...INCORRECTLY stated: Pluto was named after a cartoon, right?' just letting you know to make sure it's not vandalism. NIN 23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, well in case you do decide to do that, let me put in my humble opinion that Mike Brown was, well, joking, as evidenced by his subsequent comment that "this part is actually true." Serendipodous 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight Change

I changed "stimulated the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term "planet" more accurately" to read, "stimulated the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term "planet" more narrowly". I did so because the original quote assumed a previous standard of accuracy that was only created with the actual change in terminology.

agreed. Serendipodous 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Serendipodous, I believe you are the one who changed it further. Just wanted to say that its a good edit, much better wording than what I had come up with.

[edit] Could anyone do the math?

I've been trying but I keep collapsing under the weight of the numbers.

The figures, according to the most recent info are:

Radius of Eris: 1.1 to 1.5 x 10^8 cm according to the measurements by Spitzer (see article)

Assuming Eris is a sphere, which is fair enough, that places limits on Eris's volume as between 5.572 x 10^24 cm^3 and 14.137 x 10^24 cm^3

The mass of Eris is 27 percent greater than Pluto. Pluto's mass is 1.31 x 10^24 g (according to List of solar system objects by mass), which makes Eris's mass 1.6637 x 10^24 g

According to my calculations, this leads to a possible density range of between 0.298582197 and 0.117684091 g/cm^3

But this seems ludicrously low. What have I done wrong? Serendipodous 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Your masses for Pluto are off by a factor of 10. Pluto is of order 10^22 kg . Earth and Venus are of order 10^24 kg. Thus, this translates to a CGS mass of 1.66 x 10^25 g ;-) Tigerhawkvok 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. How like me to get 1.31 confused with 13.1

This, ladies in gentlemen, is why I write science articles on Wikipedia instead of Nature.

Still, that gives us a fairly wide range of densities

2.98582197 and 1.17684091 g/cm^3

According to the formula, the most likely radius for Eris 1.3 x 10^8. That would yield a density of 1.80 g/cm^3, which again seems low when compared to Pluto's density of 2.03. Serendipodous 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Averaging out the values of Spitzer and Hubble would place the radius of Eris at 1250 km. This value results in a density of a bit over 2.0 g/cm^3, right on par with the values of Pluto and Triton. J P 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture

There's a new picture of Eris & moon with a NASA tag which looks much better than the current one - can be seen here [2] from this page [3]. With the NASA tag, I guess it might be public domain. Anyway, I'll let someone more knowledgeable than I to investigate, FU it, and post. The Yeti 23:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep; it's NASA, so it's public. Good call; looks much nicer. Swapped the older Eris image out with it. Thanks! Serendipodous 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The pic showing the orbit of the moon would probably go well on the Dysnomia (moon) page too :) The Yeti 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current location.

"Their current location is some 97 AU from the Sun, or roughly three times that of Pluto." What exactly is meant by that statement? Couldn't it be made clearer? --Overpet 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; my bad. Fixed. :) Serendipodous 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An "AU" is one Astronomical Unit, equal to the distance between the Sun (Sol) and the Earth (Terra). So 97 AU would be 97 times the distance from Sol to Terra. Dmoorefield68 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture

Can the Keck Observatory produce that kind of images for objects so far away like Eris? I think only the Hubble would be capable, following the source link seems to link to a Hubble source, and not a Keck Observatory one. Not sure though. cheers-to-all 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran a google search, and came up with this webpage, which cites the photograph as being taken by the Keck Observatory. Other sites say the same thing. Vsst 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

how about this [4] the picture is from here and it clearly states "Hubble view". --cheers-to-all 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's both. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/eris.html>. NASA is probably right about their own picture. Werothegreat 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
But it seems clear that the image we are now using is from Hubble. The Keck image linked above is a different picture. --Aranae 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. I just changed the caption accordingly. Vsst 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] furthest "large object"?

it says "it is currently the most distant known large object from the Sun in the solar system." what does this mean? define "large object".. 131.111.24.187 09:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, not a comet? :-) Really that does need clarification. EDIT: Clarified. Serendipodous 09:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HIstory

I just checked the history recently, and found that someone has reverted vandalism, claiming that it was I who put it there. I would never do such a thing, and, if you look at the history, it is obvious that the editor who's edit was reverted was 203.214.110.143 (see diffs), not me. Perhaps this isn't the place to say this, but I can't make myself leave people thinking I'm a vandal. Vsst 14:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reversion I saw with your name attached to it, said that it was reverting back to your version. Of course, I only looked at the last 200 diffs. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about this mess. I misread the edit summary, and needlessly bothered several users before I realized my mistake. Vsst 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orbital characteristics - important mistake with perhaps wider ramifications

The orbital characteristics given cannot be right - the angular-momentum-per-unit-mass (i.e. distance x [transverse] velocity) at perihelion and aphelion are different by a factor of more than 1.5.

I think the error is that the maximum and minimum speeds given are simply those for a circular orbit at respectively the Eris perihelion and Eris aphelion distances from the sun. (Or in fact not even correct for that - but bearing approx. the same [inverse-square-root] dependency on distance as for that calculation, rather than the correct [inverse-linear] dependency on distance required of the "perihelion vs. aphelion of same orbit" case.) This calculation method, and its results, are wildly wrong for a significantly non-circular orbit.

Does anyone have a more reliable source for an orbital characteristics citation? (And more worryingly, does the currently cited source maybe make this error for *every* non-circular orbit it indexes, perhaps infecting much of the astronomy corner of Wikipedia? *goes to check around*) Iain David Stewart 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the average orbital speed appears to check out with the formula at the end of orbital speed, so I'm guessing orbital parameters are OK. The minimum and maximum are way off from the formulas over at the top of orbital speed (I get 2.2530 km/s and 5.8189 km/s). Personally, I'd remove all three numbers - it's just an exercise in mathematics and from my experience the orbital speeds are never themselves referenced. Such "data" are a beatuful opportunity for misinformation and cluttering. Incidentally, a discussion on these kind of topics is currently underway at Template talk:Infobox Planet#Proposed cleanup/additions, you might be interested. Deuar 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that, though this information is somewhat obscure, some people somewhere might want or need to find it, and it doesn't really take up much room. I agree that it is easy to end up with misinformation, but that is the nature of wikipedia, and I think it would be better to make sure the information is accurate than simply delete it. Vsst 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on Proserpina vs. Eris naming

The problem is that the name for the planet is either set by public or by the discoverer. In the year 2005 the consesus was for the name Proserpina/Persephone, voiced in polls on astronomy related sites by few thousands of people. In this recommendation IAU ignored official name for Uranus (Georgium Sidonium), in doing so officially once again admitted that the rule 'by the public' is to be followed.

Due to the recommendation given by IAU in Prague, August 2006 on it's status, the IAU followed instead the rule that comets and asteroids are named by discoverer. And more, to please the discoverer and make him 'swallow' this non-planetary status, the AIU own previous recommendations on naming of such objects were put apart completely. Although IAU backed the name oficially, it is still recommendation only. Further more, outside astronomical circles IAU has no credibility to foister names on planets. And the correct information is that this name was given solely by discoverer. Lack of this info in the text of the article is obvious bias againt NPOV. And more important, it omits credit where the credit is due. GrzegorzWu 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. The article makes it perfectly clear that the name Eris was proposed by its discoverers. And there are three listed discoverers of Eris; Brown, Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz, not Brown alone. The IAU barely existed the last time a candidate planet was discovered, and had no standard policy for dealing with it. The last planet, Pluto, was named by its discoverers, so whether planet or not, Brown and his team naming Eris was not a deviation. And I'm not sure what you're saying about the IAU's power. The IAU's purpose, its job, basically, is to deterine the official names and classifications of astronomical objects. Without some kind of universally accepted standard, science across nations would not work. Whether the domestic dog is called a dog, (English) hund, (German) cão (Portuguese) perro (Spanish) or gou (Mandarin), its scientific name is still Canis lupus familiaris. Scientific papers published using Chinese characters still have to call a dog Canis lupus familiaris. That is its agreed name. Such is the case with the IAU. The IAU and only the IAU, has the authority to dictate which terminology is accepted in published scientific papers. Brown has submitted names for 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9, two exceptionally large Kuiper belt objects, but he will not reveal them until they receive full IAU endorsement, and continues to refer to them by their serial numbers. Serendipodous 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0810_050810_new_planet_2.html 83.24.246.73 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What does that article have to do with anything? That article was released before the name was confirmed. Brown himself decided on the name Eris, whatever he may have said beforehand. And anyway, it's just a public straw poll. How does it reflect on what Eris should or should not be named? Serendipodous 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The availability of free web address was the only reason behind this name, nothing else. Brown made good joke on his fellow colleagues from the commision of IAU <rotfl>. GrzegorzWu 08:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Wha? I don't get you at all. Brown's webpage is called "planetlila" after his daughter, not Eris. Serendipodous 08:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Brown's page (registered by him after issuing the name to IAU but before official annoucement by IAU of the name "Eris"), and used since in official Caltech materials is http://www.planeteris.com . BTW suporters of the name "Proserpina" from astrological circles made this year similar move with http://www.planetproserpina.com . GrzegorzWu 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. A couple of astrologers were upset that Brown decided to name the planet Eris instead of Proserpina, so they mirrored his homepage and gave it another web address? So what? Brown discovered the object, Brown gets to name it. Even astrologers seem to have accepted that judging by this page. Serendipodous 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... http://www.planetproserpina.com seems to be just a link to Brown's page, it's just kept in frames. Wrong or mangled redirect? The name Proserpina is used among astrologers too, in printed books too (http://www.jarekgronert.pl). GrzegorzWu 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And so? What of it? What is wrong with this article? Serendipodous 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Canis lupus familiaris is a Latin name and any paper (for instance in Russian) should use this name (and Latin alphabet) to refer to the animal. Another situation with Eris which is English name and cannot be expanded into other languages. Russian for example would call it "Erida" (which is the name of the same deity in Russian) and Chinese/Japan name would be completely different (just as in case with Pluto which is named after local deities in those languages).--Dojarca 08:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But the IAU's job is still the enforcement of official scientific standards. The IAU still has to rule on whether Indians can call Pluto Yama, or Chinese can call it Underworld King Star.Serendipodous 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Underworld King Star" is just a literal English translation of the Chinese calque of the name "Pluto" - that is, it isn't a different name from "Pluto" any more than Russian "Erida" is a different name than "Eris". Chinese for Eris might be "Strife Queen Star", for example (I'm sure it already has a form in Chinese, but that's beyond my dictionaries!) kwami 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 'Xena' nickname

It is revisionist history to completely efface all memory that this was once called "Xena" (after Planet X).131.96.70.140 08:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike named it Xena for humor value - it had little to do with Planet X. And that story is in the article. Michaelbusch 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)