Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 5

message: In the article, 1 Ceres is classified as a C-type asteroid in the Infobox planet, while it's categorized as a G-type asteroid. Here, also, 1 Ceres is exemplified as a G-type one. I've found this source where it's classified as a C/G asteroid and this other one where it's classified as a G asteroid. So, there is ambiguity. It would be better to report both the information in the Infobox planet and change the initial statement of this section. Do you agree? --Harlock81 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: G is a subtype of C. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, sorry, and I've just noticed that it's already said in the Surface section. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 

message: 4 Vesta has been recently determined to be a dwarf planet, not an asteroid. --76.180.168.219 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence please. Serendipodous 20:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: See http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/dawnclassrooms/1_hist_dawn/history_discovery/exploration/tg_exploration.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kepler's earlier remark 

message: Surely the statement in the opening paragraph "...it constitutes a third of the mass of the asteroid belt." is incorrect.  In the articles on Dwarf planets and Clearing the neighbourhood, Ceres' planetary discrimant is given as 0.33. This is equivalent to Ceres' mass being 0.33 and the rest of the asteroids having a combined mass of 1.00, making Ceres 0.33/(0.33 + 1.00) or about a quarter of the mass of the asteroid belt.
This is further confirmed in the third paragraph of section 5 of Steven Soter's paper What is a planet? (This is reference 3 in the Clearing the neighbourhood page.)  That paragraph reads: "Ceres, the largest asteroid, has a mass of 1.5 x 10^-4 ME, about 1/4 the total mass of the asteroid belt." Nickgard (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Soter is mistaken. See this. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That paper gives the mass of Ceres as 4.753e-10 solar masses.  Given that one solar mass is 332946 Earth masses, multiplying (4.753e-10)*(332946) yields 1.583e-4 ME, or just very close to Soter's value. siafu (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Clarification: the mass for Ceres is in Table 5 on page 184 of the Pitjeva paper, and is the only mention of the word "ceres" in the entire document, according to Adobe Acrobat's text find tool. siafu (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Pitjeva's is a rather crude estimate, as any of these probably are. We could use a more recent estimate of the mass of the belt. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be great to have precise and accurate measurements of everything, of course, but we do apparently have two sources that are in agreement about Ceres' mass at least. siafu (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That part's easy. It's the total mass it's a fraction of that's not well determined. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning any fraction of the asteroid belt's total mass seems a self-evidently bad idea to me, seeing how many asteroids of unknown mass have not even been discovered yet, let alone had their mass determined. Furthermore, once we establish Ceres' mass in relation to, say, Earth, what difference does it make?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  04:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the error bar is for. Cited 0.28–0.35, which is about a third. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: @Trekphiler. Mentioning it illustrates how big it is relative to the rest of the objects in the asteroid belt, something only an absolute figure could not do. I think such an illustration is useful. As for any undiscovered asteroids, those will be small bodies with very little mass. You'd need many millions of them to affect the figure in any significant way. There aren't any Vesta- or Juno-sized asteroids still lurking. The only thing that does somewhat meaningfully affect the figure is the uncertainty in the mass of the biggest asteroids, which, as Kwami has already said, is what the range is for. --JorisvS (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mentioning it illustrates how big it is relative to the rest of the objects in the asteroid belt" I can appreciate that. We're already saying it's the biggest; why not say "'x' number of times bigger than the next biggest", frex, with an estimate of the total number of objects? That also gives a sense of scale; IMO, against the total number, it's actually more informative.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  07:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no definable total number, only a total mass. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As Kwami wrote, there is a nearly infinite number of "ridiculously small" asteroids, but their combined mass can be estimated. Also keep in mind that the asteroid belt has far less mass now than it did 4 billion year ago. -- Kheider (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not as prima facie wrong as I thought. :( Note, I don't oppose the mass range; it's now clear to me it's the best option, if an agreed value can be found.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass relative to asteroid belt 

message: Just wondering if flattening is a physical property that should be listed for Ceres, since it is supposed to be large enough to make itself spherical, wouldn't it be proper then to list spherical properties?  Just wondering.  I noticed that the radii given have some play ±, so not sure if this then would be a value reflective of that.  If there are no objections someone who knows better than me can add it, or, if in a few days I don't hear back, I'll add it and if consensus is I'm wrong, you can remove.  Thanks! --Turboguppy (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why flattening should not be included. However, the numbers I get are a little different: .0669 ± .0002. Tbayboy (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Ceres is large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium (this does NOT imply spherical!), flattening due to rotation is part of that! No large rotating body is perfectly spherical, most are oblate ellipsoids like Ceres. Earth and Jupiter are notably flattened, too.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , can you clarify in detail which values you used as input and how did you calculate it, step by step? So we can check, given that another user gets a different value. Thanks! --cyclopiaspeak! 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I used the formula at the top of flattening, and the radius numbers in the infobox for the main number, then twice again adding in the error-bars to get (max-equitorial,min-polar) and (min-equitorial,max-polar) inputs. Tbayboy (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I get about 0.0669 +/- 0.007 this way. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-calc'd it and got these numbers, too. I think I goofed previously by forgetting to add the error bars in the denomimator. Tbayboy (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took so long to get back to you--honestly at this point I don't remember where I got my numbers, but I think I pulled them from the equatorial and polar radii on the Ceres page, applied the flattening formula, then tried to guess the error based on the given error from the polar and equatorial radii (Perhaps guess isn't the right word, I calculated it somehow but I have no idea how at this point).  And I meant to say hydrostatic equilibrium, really, I just had the word spherical in my head because I was working on oblate spheroids when I came across this :) Thanks for clarifying! Turboguppy (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Flattening

message: Went to remove the unwarranted precision in the update to the orbit, from NASA, when I thought it was a bit odd for the orbit to be changed significantly in just a few years.  What's going on?  Should we use NASA's figures?  — kwami (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Orbital elements for asteroids are constantly changing and as a result are only valid at the epoch (date) that they are defined at. Without a defined epoch they are somewhat meaningless (very vague). -- Kheider (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, of course.  And the epoch is undefined either way.  — kwami (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

text: The precision of the various orbital distances does not match, the semi-major has 100× the precision of the source, and the precision of the surface area is 1000× greater than that of the radii.  — kwami (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The precision is correct, it has been machine compiled. The Surface Area has been calculated using the formula of 4*Pi*radius2 which is correct formula, there is no defined flattening to make neither the geometry an ellipsoid nor a spheroid. I can't stress this enough, there is NO valid reference for the cited physical characteristics, which means that the values are incorrect on the original page, the stated Epoch is invalid and does not reference.AshleyJames (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the infobox, next to "Orbital characteristics" it cites reference 7 (The JPL SBDB). I have changed the orbital solution to JPL SBDB EPOCH 2013-Nov-04. AU should be listed first and that is what the reference uses anyway. -- Kheider (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that, thanks for updating the citation. I am going to compile the new values for a separate database and am willing to update the infobox with proper notation, unless someone else is already on the job I don't want to make conflicted values due to multiple people editing together so I'll hold off until I compile the data in full incase it's being done.AshleyJames (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit 

message: I think the hatnote should be removed, per WP:NAMB. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: From the start of the 2nd paragraph in the intro: "The Cererian surface is probably a mixture of water ice". Shouldn't that be Ceresian?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.154.229 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Latin final s usually either drops or changes to r or d. Like venereal from Venus or iridian from iris.  — kwami (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see we were using "Cereal" briefly... which makes sense but... I'm sorry but it's awkward-looking, probably because of breakfast cereal (or just cereal) (though TIL the word cereal indeed does come from the goddess Ceres, go figure). Anyway, I think we should use "X of Ceres" rather than "Cereal X", perhaps thinking of it as an extension of WP:MTAU; I don't often see English speakers forming adjectives with the -al suffix outside of medicine and science, and more often see confusion result when it's done outside of those contexts. I'd also consider using "Venereal X" in the sense of "X of the planet Venus" to be problematic somewhat because of the phrase venereal disease. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The -al forms mean pertaining to an attribute of X, while the -an forms mean pertaining to X.  (Venereal diseases aren't diseases of Venus, but of love, which is an attribute of Venus.)  So "Cereal" wouldn't be expected as an adj. form.  — kwami (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Absolutely correct. I personally think "Cereal" becoming more common in this context would be awesome, but aiming for that goal is kind of opposed to Wikipedia's purpose of just describing what's in the sources. On the other hand, I could totally see an infobox entry for "adjectival form" (or whatever the appropriate term is), much like how infoboxes on countries tend to have demonym fields. If we did that, we'd both be informing those interested and have articles that avoid awkward phrasings where necessary. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is such a field.  It's good to gave it somewhere in the text too, though, as otherwise people often miss it.  — kwami (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

text: There are three classical forms I've seen:  Cerérian, Cereréan, and Ceréan.  We might expect *Cérian as well, but I haven't come across it, and anyway it would be a homophone for Syrian in many dialects (for those who pronounce Sirius and serious the same), so probably isn't the best choice.  I've sometimes seen Cerésian outside sci-fi, but often it's difficult to tell if it refers to Ceres, to Lake Lugano (the "Ceresian Lake"), or to something else.  (Though evidently Lugano was named after Ceres.)  The genus Ceresia is named after Ceres.  So like Venerean/Venusian, it looks like both forms are found outside sci-fi, though I've only seen Cererian/Cererean for the planetoid outside sci-fi.  — kwami (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceresian or Cererian? 

message: Information presented in the infobox, e.g. the pronunciation etc, should be repeated within the main article text. I usually never read infoboxes, and I know other people don't either. Furthermore, I may copy-paste or print an article without including its infoboxes, or I may zoom the page to 500-600% and make the infobox too big that it goes at the top so that I just scroll down without looking at it. In general, my experience is that if something is in the infobox but not the article text then I almost certainly won't be able to see it. It has happened to me that sometimes I try to find some information and I wikipedize it, I don't get an answer from the main article text so I then google it, but I later discover that the information I wanted was wikipedized into the infobox rather than the article text, so I think that infoboxes should only repeat what's already in the article. Cogiati (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of numerical data in astronomical articles that would be silly to put in the main text, as it would be in tables that would simply duplicate the info boxes.  If you don't bother to read the entire article, then you can hardly expect to get everything out of it.  — kwami (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We should include the pronunciation after the dwarf planet's name in the lead paragraph, what do you think? Cogiati (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have it there (I put it there), but people decided to move all pronunciations to the box.  — kwami (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should repeat the infobox information within the article 

message: this is Interesting...It has been a long theory of mine that the asteroid belt is the remains of a planet that was destroyed by some event.....the fact that the debris remains in a fairly stable orbit points to this being the case.... now With Ceres spinning in the opposite direction from the rest of the asteroid belt this would cause all the debris to eventually gather at one point. thus creating a "new" planet.....Billions of years of course but I believe this is what will eventually happen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCaerdic (talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres...On Old Planet reborn? 

message: We had the escape velocity as 0.51 m/s², "calculated based on the known parameters".  NASA has 1.855.  Either NASA screwed up or we did, and if we did, there may be (probably are) other articles w the same error.  — kwami (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about this NASA page, it's in km/h, not m/s. Looking at List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, .51 is about right (comparing it to similarly sized moons). Tbayboy (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For a Ceres-sized object to have an escape velocity of 1.885 km/s, it will need a density of more than 25g/cm3!. Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again, it says km/h.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.226.40 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escape velocity 

message: I am not sure if the king mentioned was Ferdinand the First or Ferdinand the Third.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.237.209 (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  King 

message: I don't think a gallery section is needed for this article because I think it does not belong to those articles for whom "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images", per WP:Gallery. Hekerui (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hekerui. The gallery currently shows the history of the gradually improving quality of the images taken of the dwarf planet. That's something that is not "easily or adequately described by text". Whether or not the article needs a gallery, is highly subjective but I appreciate your opinion. Maybe other editors should decide. Galleries have several advantages, for example they avoid articles to get too cramped with images; and I think Ceres_(dwarf_planet) is a potential candidate to suffer from this fate in the near future (take 4 Vesta for example, and imagine the article without the section "Observations from Dawn", which is basically just a gallery). BR, -- Rfassbind -talk  00:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the gallery of images of improved observations of Vesta has nothing to do with Vesta per se, who managed fine in 4.6 billion years without observation. That gallery should rather be in Dawn (spacecraft) which was created by carbon based life forms, with whose history the spacecraft correlates. The observation history belongs to the space craft and the carbon based life forms. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not going to comment on any specific gallery at this point, but images of explorational history help give an idea of where the current understanding of an object comes from; once the understanding based on those images was current, too. Small traces of even what today is considered hopelessly outdated views could still be part of contemporary theory. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: I know that "1 Ceres" is an official name.  But seeing that "1" pop up in text looks strange.  How about after the introductory section, just call it "Ceres"? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 Ceres 

message: It looks like nearly the entire surface of Ceres is illuminated.  Does anyone know, as the year progresses, will more surface be illuminated, or less?  I'm wondering if Dawn will be able to map the entire body.  — kwami (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by this comment, not much will be in the shadows at any given time. Except from the nightside,  obviously, which Dawn will be photographing a lot of in the next few weeks. --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know.  Hopefully we'll get less that 3° concealed at the dark pole.  — kwami (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will we get more surface, or less? 

message: What's taken so long with the stills?  — kwami (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the 4 February animation; only two frames from the 12 February imaging session have been released through the normal channels thus far. The 19 February images will probably be released either today or tomorrow; though when the first full rotation animation (from RC1/12 February or RC2/19 February) will be released is anybody's guess. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss the raw-image release we got with Cassini, even if Dawn isn't returning very much.  — kwami (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Emily Lackdawalla has a nice montage of Ceres with some icy moons, including Tethys. Umbriel is another good match. Tbayboy (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New animation (from Feb 12) 

message: Looking at the most recent photographs of Ceres, it appears that the northern hemisphere has some fairly significant deviations from being spherical. Has NASA or anyone commented on whether or not that's significant? Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it will make much difference as to whether Ceres is a dwarf planet, because the de facto definition of a dwarf planet is whatever the IAU declares to be one.  — kwami (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Quite Round

message: To quote: (CNN) NASA's tractor-trailer sized Dawn spacecraft will snuggle up to Ceres on Friday, getting close enough to be pulled into orbit and to complete the first mission to a dwarf planet. "I'm just delighted that Dawn is now on the doorstep of Ceres," Jim Green, director of NASA's planetary science division said in a news conference on Monday. Ceres was discovered in 1801 (Pluto wasn't found until 1930) and was the first object found in our solar system's main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.  ... ... ... [As you all know, right?]
 Headline-1: NASA spacecraft nearing mysterious dwarf planet Ceres
* http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/02/us/dawn-spacecraft-ceres/index.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D621681
QUOTE: "Ceres was demoted to an asteroid because 19th century astronomers couldn't be sure it was round. But it was bumped up to a dwarf planet when that category was created in 2006." -- AstroU (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As the discussion above already indicates, Ceres was neither demoted in the 19th century nor promoted in 2006.  News blather isn't a reputable source for scientific or historical fact, no matter how many television personalities in search of a headline repeat it.  Although the term "asteroid" was coined to describe Ceres and similar bodies soon after its discovery, it continued being referred to as a planet for some decades, and the term "minor planet" was widely used until being superseded by "dwarf planet" in 2006.  But that's just a substitution in terminology, not a promotion.  And nobody ever "demoted" Ceres in the first place.  Astronomers simply stopped calling it a planet in the same sense as the "elite eight," and almost everyone else was blissfully unaware of its existence.  Perhaps if people didn't assume that the IAU or any other organization creates reality when its members vote on what to call something, we wouldn't need to talk about things like "promotions" or "demotions" that suggest important distinctions for something that hasn't changed at all in the course of human civilization.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "minor planet" (asteroid) was used to separate Ceres and other asteroids from the major planets much as the term "dwarf-planet" was used to separate Pluto and other dwarf-planets from the major planets. From a cultural standpoint both of these events are notable. When I went to school I was not taught that there were 10000+ known planets in the Solar System because "minor planets" are treated different than (major) "planets". And Yes, Ceres received a much deserved promotion to spherical dwarf-planet in 2006! -- Kheider (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  The technical terms dwarf planet and minor planet are not at all synonyms.  There are currently five dwarf planets (plus several candidates) and roughly 670,000 known minor planets.  In astronomical parlance, a "minor planet" is any natural object that directly orbits the sun but is neither a planet nor a comet, which includes essentially all of the asteroids.  The creation of the new category "dwarf planet" was definitely meant to distinguish a specific new classification of objects, and is not somehow a redefinition of "minor planet".  Dragons flight (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional DAWN reference(s) 

message: As Dawn approaches and begins its primary science mission around Ceres, there will be lots of news coming in over the next days, weeks, and months. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I do think one of its strengths is its ability to incorporate breaking findings into its articles. My concern in this case is where those breaking findings (which have already started to trickle in) will go and how they will be organized. Right now, they seem to be ending up at the end of the lead, which I think is a bad trend. While this article will inevitably be shaken up a lot in the coming months, we should try to keep some semblance of FA-class organization and balance. Accordingly, I propose confining the newsfeed-like reports from Dawn to the exploration section, where they can be presented in roughly chronological order, with potentially some grouping by subject (e.g. the bright spots). That section needs a cleanup/rewrite anyways.
What do people think of this plan? I would also love to hear any alternative strategies and/or additional suggestions for keeping this article looking good over the coming months. A2soup (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not a subheading under Exploration titled something like Dawn mission discoveries? Editors could add fully sourced new findings there. Some will eventually be superseded by newer discoveries in which case they'll be removed, and if enough sources confirm the info over a longer period of time the stuff could be added to the proper sections. After the furor fades and the new info drys up, this could simply be a section for highlights of the mission. Anyway, my thoughts on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possible suggestion for the "Ceres" article (as well as the "Dawn" article?) may be a "Timeline" (section or new article?) - similar to the present "Timeline of the Opportunity rover" (for the "Opportunity rover") and the "Timeline of the Curiosity rover" (for the "Curiosity rover") articles - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a subsection for the Dawn mission seems like an appropriate place to mention new discoveries, at least until the majority have trickled in and can be evaluated for importance.  Eventually anything of major significance will probably need to be incorporated into the lead.  But since announcements could be made prematurely and then contradicted by subsequent data within a few weeks, and the relative importance of each discovery needs time to be weighed, confining them to a section or subsection devoted to the Dawn mission seems like a good idea for now.  But I think a timeline would be less appropriate for Ceres than it would be for Dawn.  A timeline for Ceres would probably begin with its discovery in 1801, and have almost nothing else on it until Dawn (maybe "Hubble takes pictures" or "Ceres included on list of Dwarf planets as defined by IAU"), and since Dawn is likely the last source of new information for the foreseeable future, it'd also end there.  So it'd read like a timeline of Dawn, plus one or two other items at the beginning.  A timeline makes more sense for Dawn, since it'd be more compact, with events spread out along its history, including many items not directly relevant to Ceres.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with news reports 

message: I believe the 'SLOOH' observatory community will have a 'live' video broadcast and commentary tomorrow, Friday 3-6-2015.  Are there alternative websites for the Ceres event?  Try: http://live.slooh.com/stadium/live/dawn-to-arrive-for-ceres  As suggested, I check the DAWN/exploration article subsection. -- AstroU (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Aviation Week sends out a note, very interesting and informative (with excitement) http://aviationweek.com/space/dawn-closes-orbit-ceres --  AstroU (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do you watch? 

message: Please be informed that you can find/read the 2 original texts announcing the discovery of Ceres by Giuseppe Piazzi on Wikisource in Italian language.
* Risultati delle osservazioni della nuova stella (1801)
* Della scoperta del nuovo pianeta Cerere Ferdinandea (1802)
Can you please use/add these texts to the article as source or bibliography? Thanks. --Accurimbono (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original texts by Giuseppe Piazzi on Italian Wikisource 

message: might wanna protect the page briefly Saturn star (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I removed the statement ( and may harbor an internal ocean of liquid water under its surface ) from the lead until it is put into the body of the article with a citation from a Reliable Source.   Ceres is too small to have an internal heat source at its core to heat up the mantle to form an ocean, it is too old and too far from the sun to have residual heat remaining from its formation to keep the ice melted, and unlike the moons of Jupiter (and Saturn), there is no constant gravitational tug from a gas giant to internally heat it and melt the ice into an ocean.  If there has been some more-or-less recent well-grounded theory on why Ceres could have such an under-surface ocean of water like Europa almost certainly has, I have personally never come across it.  If someone has a good journal or other reference, please summarize and re-add it to the article with a proper cite. I would ask that editors please refrain from some offhand remark by an astronomer who might be just speculating from a news-media outlet - that is not the same thing as proper research appearing in a journal such as Nature.  A while back, someone made the statement in one of the TP archives about Ceres having an ocean and it was questioned, but the originator never responded.  HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See the 2 references I just cited. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing a Reliable Source citation for the previous un-referenced statement.  Interesting - but I doubt this planetoid has enough volcanism to provide the necessary heat.  The probe may determine this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Volcanism is not necessary. In fact, surface volcanism would tend to release heat instead of retaining it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on the surface - undersea volcanism, such as is suspected on Europa.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that instrument was cut to reduce cost.  But subsurface oceans are theorized even for TNOs, where pressure is high enough for liquid even at low temperatures.  — kwami (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced sub-surface ocean of water ......