Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 1

message: The Caltech web page says "We have proposed a name to the IAU and will announce it when that name is accepted." Thus it is amusing to see that the title of the page is "Planet Lila", and the image on the page is named "lila.JPG". A hint? KSmrq 01:35, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
:Yep, I noticed that, and added it to the article.  The URL also strongly suggests the same thing, but maybe they're trying to put everyone off the scent of what the real name will be..! Worldtraveller 01:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the page has been updated, and here is a comment written on it: "For those speculating that the name proposed is "Lila" based on the web site name I must warn you that that is really just a sentimental dad's early morning naming of a web site for his three week old daughter and one should not take it too seriously!" DarthVader 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A piece on the radio just now said that some researchers have nicknamed it "Xena"; I added a brief mention (along with the caveat that this is just a possibility) to the Xena entry. DS 12:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Lila? 

message: * I think it would be wrong to merge this article with Planet X.  This is about a specific object, the latter is about a general concept which this object is only partly related to.  I think it makes very good sense to have two separate articles so I oppose the move. Worldtraveller 12:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no more need to vote. The merge tag was removed on 30 July. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: The correct name for this page is 2003_UB%E2%82%83%E2%82%81%E2%82%83.  (The %-s identify hexidecimal code which is used to create the subscripted characters.) However, some well meaning anonymous editor has created a redirect from that title to this one.
I am putting in a request to move this page.  Please comment on it here.  --EMS | Talk 19:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I uplodaded this image to prove my point.--Jyril 19:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
* oppose I can't read those characters on my computer, even though my browser's been updated with Unicode patches. If I want to read a bunch of boxes, I can go to the Chinese Wikipedia. ;) --Firsfron 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct page name 

message: This image which was used in the article is taken from here.  I can't honestly see how fair use could apply when the entirety of the work has been used, and it would be quite straightforward to create a freely distributable version of this image.  Therefore, I've commented it out. Worldtraveller 00:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image lifted from BBC web site

message: Please upload public domain pictures to commons, so every wikipedia can use it. Thanks.--Pedro 00:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plz upload public domain pic to commons

message: I consider :Image:2003_UB313_artist%27s_impression.jpg to be one of the worst examples of "artist's impressions" used to illustarte astronomical articles. 0% information, 30% speculation (planet's surface), 70% redundancy (oh yeah, we see stars and a dim sun). Any objections to removing it? --Pjacobi 11:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, it's better than nothing.--Jyril 12:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
::Better showing what? That there are stars visible? Also we have two pictures with content for this article. --Pjacobi 12:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't see any major reason to remove it - it's not misleading and it makes the article look better.  Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, surely. Worldtraveller 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the image, until such time as the artistic impression on the image become Obviously Outdated.   The only reason to remove the image currently is if the displayed size of the sun was obviously wrong (ie: if the image suggested a distance different then what is currently known.)  Eclipsed 14:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artist's impression" 

message: I have corrected the discovery date for 2003 UB313 to October 21, 2003, from January 8, 2005.  The Minor Planet Center has been very consistent in its approach that the discovery date is the date that the discovery images were acquired, and not the date that the images were first recognized.
:What? Are you serious? They might as well go back and change the official date of discovery of Neptune to 1612, Uranus to 1670, and Pluto to 1915 as well. I haven't seen this practice done anywhere else, but then again, i'm not an expert on this... bob rulz 08:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
::The difference is that those were pre-discovery observations.  You can see that this practice is followed from the provisional designation 2003 UB313, which denotes the year and half-month of discovery.  Someone else might later uncover an image of this thing from decades ago but it was the October 2003 images that were used to discover it, so that's the discovery date. Worldtraveller 09:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery date for 2003 UB313 

message: The line 
:Xena is the tentative name for 2003 UB313 which has been classified as a planet beyond Pluto.
was added as the first descriptive line by AI.  I find this to be inappropriate because it is annoucing as fact a rumored name (which apparently is not the real on being proposed anyway), and makes another claim about the classification which simply is not true.  These points are covered better and without hype later in the article itself, and so in that respect this line causes confusion.  --EMS | Talk 04:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate first line 

message: "The new object is bright enough with an apparent magnitude of about 19 to be visible even in quite modest telescopes."
Just how modest? Perhaps more detail would be good here. User:Rmhermen
:Sources differ, but it appears that under ideal conditions you would need something on the order of a 20" aperture, or larger. While such an instrument is out of reach of the average amateur, they are available. A quick search turned up an outfit that at one time sold 30" dobsonians. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Telescopes

message: "2003UB313 is not Planet X." I am under the impression this statement was originally placed into the article just to offset any other contributors who may try to claim that 2003UB313 is Planet X. I think this is unecessary and is "proving a negative." It is not very encyclopedic. I removed the statement that 2003UB313 is not Planet X, yet TheTom restored the statement; so I am offering a discussion here to see what everyone thinks about including a statement to the effect of "2003UB313 is not Planet X" --AI 00:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Common misconceptions about a thing should be addressed. When enough people try to be helpful and say "X is Y" when X is not Y, it becomes necessary to explicitly say "X is not Y, contrary to what you might have heard". Otherwise they will come in, see that the "fact" is missing, and add it again and again. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can accept it in its current form:  Noting and refuting a media misconception.  At least the Planet X link is out in the open this way.  Someone else liked the idea of having the words "tenth planet" be a link to Planet X, which I strongly oppose.  I will admit to being a little ambivalent about the mention of Planet X in this page, however. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL, ok I can accept all this. --AI 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  ...and now we have a separate article about the tenth planet. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?!?! There should not be a seperate article there, I redirected it here the other day. Until astronomers confirm that 2003UB313 IS a planet, tenth planet should be redirected here, or preferably: deleted. --AI 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  If the IAU hasn't confirmed 2003UB313 as a planet, we certainly shouldn't be redirecting that article here. I wasn't convinced that there was enough different, separate material for a tenth planet article vs. Planet X, though I did briefly consider creating it, at least as a redirect to Planet X. But it's a valid article on the topic of the hypothetical tenth planet, a cultural meme, and I see no reason to delete it. Put your objections on Talk:Tenth planet or try a VfD if you feel that strongly about it. Also, I tend not to listen to people who make silly redirects to Xena; forewarned is forearmed. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to behave as a troll, but if that is your style and you enjoy it, then act as you wish. What is even more "silly," is to redirect tenth planet to planet X, which it IS NOT. Redirects related to Xena were based on reports from United States national media. --AI 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret to inform you that if "United States national media" is the standard, then you're on shaky ground with respect to your "Planet X" position , which I may characterize through your sober quote removed link to Planet X, THIS IS NOT PLANET X!!!!. In popular culture terms, it is a Planet X. In scientific terms, if somebody wonders whether it might be Lowell's Planet X, then it's appropriate to send them to that article to find out the history of the term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: For clarification, here is the edit where you retitled 2003 UB313 as Xena , and here is the edit where you redirected the tenth planet article to Xena . I really think these edits speak for themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to defend my actions, I already made my point. Everyone else has responded civilly and intelligently. And if you look you will see it has resulted in my civil response. Your critical tone is unecessary, but if that is your personality you're certainly entitled to be that way. I rest my case and will ignore any further rants you express over this issue. Of course if you disagree with my desicion to disregard your future communication you're perfectly entitled to "persecute" me further :) --AI 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003UB313 is not Planet X 

message: Why isn't the sun at one focus of the body's orbital ellipse?  --Doradus 04:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Good question, but on examination, I think the answer is that it's a three-quarters (3-dimensional) view -- a screenshot from NASA's Java applet for visualizing the orbit. I think that geometrically it is true that an ellipse from any angle will show the focus correctly, but if the view is not itself centered on the focus, it might appear off-center. In any case, it's a NASA image, so not our fault ... ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right...  Foreshortening can make the sun appear as though it's not at a focus, even without perspective effects.  --Doradus 20:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
We could possibly do with 2 diagrams, one from above, one from the side. Evercat 16:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kepler wouldn't like our orbit diagram