Talk:Makemake

message: For satellites we can't say if it have a satellite because we don't know yet. Make make was a original known nodies in the solar system. We don't even know ehat atmosphere we have, we don't even know if it has rings. Artist beleives the planet is purple, for a fix diameter and axial tilt, we don't know yet.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Artist impressions are taken on face value and obviously based as much on the truth as possible but after the truth runs out the artist gets relatively free range to interpret the rest of it. Don't worry about the color. Aside from that, it appears to have a moon or two. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of April 26, 2016, Makemake is known to have at least one moon.Andrew John Bayles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Lol 97.71.230.218 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it have a moon 

message: What's the point of the Makemake template? It only appears here, and so is nothing more than a 'See also' section, but is less useful because it's obscured by the clutter of four other templates. Should we delete? kwami (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, if there's no suitable template, then it needs to be here Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I obviously didn't understand the question and retract my previous statement, I don't agree with it existing either. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree, and was actually considering removing it until I checked the other dwarf planets.  All of them have their own template, so theoretically this action should apply to those as well.  However, I think Pluto's and even Ceres' are appropriate, despite the clutter, which at the very least lends itself to the keeping of the Makemake template. -- Amory (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  template 

message: In Orbit and classification, the last para. said
:To be considered a plutoid, an object must be exceptionally bright and have an absolute magnitude of +1 or less,[23]
That wording describes two requirements, one of "brightness" and one of absolute magnitude. That might have been correct, if "brightness" were referring to apparent magnitude, but in fact the source referenced states only one requirement of magnitude:
:for naming purposes, any Solar System body having (a) a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune, and (b) an absolute magnitude brighter than H = +1 (see Notes) will, for the purpose of naming, be considered to be a plutoid
The article states requirement (a) separately and in lay terms. I've changed the wording of (b).
-- Thnidu (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until this fuss happened, I just considered "having an absolute magnitude of +1 or less" as a suitable cognate for "bright". Something that large and shiny will, from the standard distance used for harmonising abs mags, definitely have a significant impact on your eye. Maybe not as much as, say, a full moon, but maybe a crescent, which is still a plenty bright object compared to anything else in the night sky. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  absolute magnitude 

message: I tagged out the notes about derivations from formulas, I don't think they need noting and that the page for the object itself is fine Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: ...cuz IAU announcements are worthless. The date after the word "discovered" generally isn't the discovery date. I'm not sure if they use the date of the discovery image, or just whatever the discoverer happens to claim, but they got both Eris and Haumea wrong. Our Makemake date looks approximately right, but I'd be happier if we had something from Brown. kwami (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to verify discovery date 

message: The pronunciation is backed up by a link to
http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/whats-in-name-part-2.html
However, the same author corrects this source as being wrong here
http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/make-make.html
Also see
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LOZuirJWXvUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA63&dq=makemake&ots=xyXfFytGAc&sig=9Bgeo5m2_e3gzZb4ZnD0VpEdyWo#PPA63,M1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.255.109 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a question of how close we stick to the original pronunciation, and we already include both possibilities (as we do with all astro articles I've worked on). It's an issue with all names: Should the moon Io be "-oh" or "-oh"? (Astronomers use both.) Should Paris be "-iss" or "pə-"? Etc. Makemake is the same. The fully anglicized pronunciation is "-kee--kee" (at least for Yanks; perhaps for Brits "-ee--ee"), because final unstressed [e] in foreign names regularly becomes [i] in English: cf. saké, karaoke, karate, ukulele, etc. People occasionally try to pronounce them with final "ay", but usually they give up. Even the days of the week like Tuesday get reduced to final "dee" in normal conversation. Mike says he may have been influenced by the Hawaiian word wiki-wiki, but I suspect he simply fell back on English habit. The closest parallel to Makemake I can find in the OED is the Maori tree name ake-ake, which per the OED is pronounced "-ee-ak-ee" (only stressed on the initial syllable). kwami (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think I ever thought that. My default when seeing a non-English word like that is to assume a more phonetic / phonogrammatic based pronunciation than just munging it into whatever English words look closest, because that's more common on a global basis and has a much better chance of being correct. In any case, even in English herself we have things like "epitome", which is by no means pronounced "eppy-toe-mm"... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Makemake? Is that the best they could do? :/ 99.140.176.63 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Blame the easter islanders. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not appreciate the problems involved in coming up with tens of thousands of unique names.  This was already a problem in the 1950s, when there were only one or two thousand named objects in the Solar System.  People were getting desperate even then. (Around 500 BCE Lao Tsu said, "There are already enough names.  One must know when to stop.") Wwheaton (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Brian May can get an asteroid named after him ;) Raul654 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Difference is it's fairly easy to nominate a small and relatively insignificant asteroid after whoever you like, so long as you can come up with a good reason for it (and/or enough cash). One of the 25~30 largest objects in the solar system, however, is rather a different story, and demands a name with a bit more thought, history, and general weight behind it. And just because it's a deity you've never heard of doesn't mean it's a complete ass-pull, there's a huge amount of stuff out there and any one person can only ever know a tiny fraction of a percentage of all of it. (Now, let's see how y'all do with Gonggong, Quaoar, or Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà...)146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

text: I personally find it rather... cute that astronomers would choose to honour a dumpy little isle like Easter. I guess even one of the most insignificant land masses on Earth can get recognized in space. Brutannica (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just you wait, they'll eventually be planets or asteroids or meteors called Wikipedia or something alone those lines. Evilgidgit (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on your successful prediction! The main-belt asteroid 274301 Wikipedia was named early last year. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible name 

message: ive noticed a lot of vandalism to this page over the past few days, shouldnt something be done about it? Mr Deathbat (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: I have yet to see a pronunciation aide for this satellite. Is it "make-make" like the word "make". Or more like "mah-key-mah-key", or a combo?
98.247.162.70 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the name is from Polynesian, I'd wager "mah kay mah kay" (per Hawaiian), but I haven't got a source for it.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation guide is in the userbox on the right of the page at the top, under the photo. Iridia (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That guide is difficult to notice -- I missed it myself until seeing Irinda's comment on the Talk page.  Suggest that this pronunciation guide is repeated within the "Name" section of the article. Mrstonky (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This talks about a stellar occultation by Makemake producing an equatorial diameter of 1610 km, but all have been able to dig up so far is , which does not give an estimate. Does anyone know anything about the full version, maybe whether it still awaits publication? --JorisvS (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This result has not been officially published, so should not be used. It can still change. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Not just that it can still change, but I wouldn't trust a reporter to get it right, though it looks credible enough. (Wow, I agree with Ruslik!) Perhaps we can write to Ortiz? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why I didn't just add it. I prefer to have the occultation result in the article, Ortiz could help us out here. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: BBC today comes with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20426114
Nice results of Makemake passing in front of distant star: No atmosphere, density 1700 kg/m3, and diameter is 1430 km in one direction, and 1500 in another. Unless it spins fast (I think unlikely for that distant objects, and would have been detected in Doppler blurr of normally sharp lines?) it is not an ellipsoid, but a potato like object. So the thing's gravity does not make it into a ball, flattened into an ellipsoid by spin. Does it now still fit the definition of dwarf planetsPieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth is not a perfect sphere either. Makemake spins in 7.7 hours while Haumea spins in 3.9 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: My reading of that article is that the equatorial and polar diameters are different. 70 km is significant flattening for a body that size, but doesn't seem like a disqualifying amount. My quick calculations show that Saturn's moon Mimas, which is considered to be in equilibrium, is more significantly off-spherical than Makemake with these results. --Patteroast (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The exact shape does not matter, so long as the object has achieved hyrdostatic equilibruim. Haumea has an even greater disparity between its polar and equatorial diameters and is classified as a dwarf planet. The presence of an atmosphere has nothing to do if an object is considered a dwarf planet or not.XavierGreen (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Also note that Makemake is less squashed than Saturn (715/751 > 54400/60300). Density also affects how far off-spherical you have to go to be in H-E. Tbayboy (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article and its supplement you will see that 1,500 km value is not a reliable estimate of the semi-major axis. They basically have all chords near the equator, so they can only reliably estimate the semi-minor axis. In fact, it is perfectly possible to fit a circle to all chords with almost the same χ2. More over 1,500 km value is not the result of a fitting procedure, but is based on an assumed (from physical considerations) value for flattening—1.05 ± 0.03. So, what is the real flattening of Makemake is still an open question. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclips results out: Is this still a dwarf planet?  

message: Hello. I'm posting this here since the image's talk page says don't use it for requesting corrections but to post such requests on the talk page of the article in which it appears.
The image under question has some blackened areas where some orbits mask other orbits partially. As can be seen from the image's page the previous version by Nickshanks does not have this problem. But the note on the current version says it has improved stroke width. It would be good if someone fixes the blackening.
Thanks. Jamadagni (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. If you click on it, the problem suddenly goes away. --JorisvS (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I rv'd the img, since the whole point was to improve the display at small scales.  Problems like this are really common w SVG.  — kwami (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow it still gives black parts for me at the image's page, also after purging, though not here in the article!? --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuiper belt diagram needs to be reverted 

message: Does anyone know why the JPL browser states a rotation period of 22.48 h? --JorisvS (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation period 

message: We have a measured diameter of (1434 × 1422) ± 14 km and a measured albedo of , yet also an inconsistent absolute magnitude of , which also has a rather big uncertainty that is currently unsourced (as well as the second last digit of H). What can we do about this? Is there another source floating around that has a better H value that maybe is also consistent? Or is there anything else that we can do about it? --JorisvS (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no measured albedo (for these distantly observed objects), it is calculated from H and diameter. Each albedo source is calculated from the H and diameter that the writers had available to them at the time, so it's not valid to use one source's albedo with another's H or another's diameter estimate. You can see this in the size estimates that use assumed albedo. Tbayboy (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not directly, but by precise measurement of the spectrum, an estimate can be made. Regardless, the inconsistency remains. --JorisvS (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute magnitude 

message: * It says in the article that its mass can't be easily measured, and it doesn't have a mass category in the stats. In the stats it does list both a volume and average density (from which it's rather easy to come up with a mass). Even if it is only an approximation, could the article not list a mass as well?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.70.8 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most minor planets (asteroids) have estimated masses from KNOWN perturbations on other asteroids. We have no known perturbations by Makemake. Assuming a density of 1.7 g/cm3 with a radius of 715 km, Makemake would have a mass of 2.6 × 1021 kg. This very crude "estimate" comes from the 2013 version of this article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass 

message: ...is a very clumsy way to say that we could get a better estimate if it did have a moon - but either way every measurement of any kind is "only" an estimate.137.205.183.109 (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: … and it seems that you wish has been granted. Happiness! JDAWiseman (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...that its mass can only be estimated 

message: Maybe S/2015 (136472) 1 should be moved into Makemake#Satellites? What more information are we going to get about this little moon? Tom Ruen (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what other information they can deduct from the images, other than estimating what they already said: size, albedo, orbit.   BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, in 30 or 75 years, when [if] a probe studies it, we can do that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good argument for merging Weywot into Quaoar. Tbayboy (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: They now think the "dark patches" were really its moon. Or so the NASA news article says. I don't have a proper reference though. 2.99.200.210 (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA news article is not a proper reference? Ruslik_Zero 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: … and it has an awful “artist's concept”, showing a moon that is both tiny and strangely spherical. Maybe it’s a fluid (!), so easily rounded. JDAWiseman (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface 

message: This article is pretty small, and unlikely to expand in the near future. The Makemake article isn't that big either, so there would be no problems regarding size. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Already proposed, discussed, and rejected. Are there new arguments in favour of the merge? JDAWiseman (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main argument used by those opposing the previous proposal—"more information will become available"—has lost all of its validity, as it turned out we didn't get much more information. The only other argument—"the moons of the other dwarf planets each have their own page"—isn't valid anymore either, as the moons of Haumea doesn't have their own article anymore. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Welp, looks like someone went ahead and made it so on an executive basis without any further vote or discussion, as links to S/2015 (136472) 1 now just redirect to the subsection on this article instead. Yay wiki democracy and all that. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[S/2015 (136472) 1]] 

message: How do you pronounce Makemake?
2602:30A:2CFC:B1A0:85D8:3728:7DA3:DDB3 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the same as Makemake_(deity). See also Makemake#cite_note-7. Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given it's a Pacific region name, I assumed Mah-kay-mah-kay, but that could be wrong. (Broken speakers...) 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you pronounce it? 

message: Says that MM was the only other TNO bright enough for Tombaugh to discover, but that the star field was too crowded. That's an opinion, but precovery images don't include Tombaugh's plates. Does that mean that even knowing where to look, MM is not visible on Tombaugh's plates, so that it's not just a matter of the field being too crowded? — kwami (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment You said , but there is no contradiction here. When a star field is too crowded, you are very likely to find background stars interfering with a target. Even if you know where to look, you are not going to find it even though it may theoretically be bright enough. I don't know if Tombaugh's plates include Makemake's position. But if they do then it is reasonable to assume that the target is not visible due to the crowded field. In any case, the paragraph you just removed from the article was an opinion, with no such thing said in the cited sources, so I concur with removing it. Renerpho (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Whether someone has actually checked Tombaugh's plates to see if Makemake is there is an interesting question. It appears like Lowell Observatory were at one point planning to make the plate collection publically available, but I don't know when that might be or if they are even working on that. Renerpho (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I wonder if any writers have offhandedly speculated about whether Tombaugh could've discovered Makemake, and the consequences if he had. Surely people would have started thinking of Ceres and Pallas... Double sharp (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precovery and Tombaugh 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: :File:El planeta Makemake.jpg is tagged to be deleted in a week unless its source information is corrected.
I just wanted to note here that it appears to have been derived from this NASA Visualization Technology Applications and Development model: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2374/makemake-3d-model/
I'd think that a bit more needs to be known and said about it than, "Representation of Makemake obtained by a computer program." before we choose to use it as our infobox photo.  Is it anything more than an imaginative solar system illustrator model? -- ToE 06:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Image can be deleted. It serves no purpose. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makemake 3D Model 

message: How to pronounce it 162.246.84.148 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Makemake#How do you pronounce it? 117daveawesome (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rapa Nui pronunciation of the deity is [ˈmakeˈmake]. The name of the dwarf planet is usually pronounced [mækiˈmæki] in British English, and either [mɑːkiˈmɑːki] or [mɑːkeɪˈmɑːkeɪ] in American English. Some languages (like German) use the Rapa Nui pronunciation. Also see footnote (a) in the article. Renerpho (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounce