Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 5

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

message: I do not think that there is any reason to give the nickname "Xena" any particular prominence.  It is an historical footnote, a private in-joke and from an encyclopedic perspective best forgotten soon.  People looking for "Xena" will be redirected to this article, and if they bother to read (or search) it they will find the relevant note.  But the name "Xena" has no particular importance with regard to the object and doesn't need a mention among the basic facts about it. RandomCritic 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a half-dozen words in a lengthy intro, and there are references out there that refer to this object only as "Xena"; it's worth it, for now, to reassure readers they are in the right place. I'm sure there will be an obvious course of action in six months (which may be to remove); what's the rush? Septentrionalis 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was nicknamed Xena at the time it was announced, or shortly thereafter--so it was popularly known as Xena for more than a year. Between the announcement and the what's-a-planet debate, it got considerable media coverage during that year; many of those articles will continue to exist on the Web forever after, referring to the object only as Xena.  I don't know why you wouldn't want to help out people who come across those references in years to come by quickly and simply clarifying that "Xena" is Eris. Nareek 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Eris name being Xena (although unoficially) is now part of History. Maybe every mention of it can go down to Name section or something less prominent, but it should be keeped.
While reading through the article I noticed that the nickname "Gabrielle" is mentioned for the moon Dysnomia in the discovery section 
However that fact seems to come out of the blue as there is no mention in the article above that point as to why mentioning the nickname "Gabrielle" is relevant.
It would seem to me that reference to "Gabrielle" at that point should be deleted if the reference to "Xena" at the start of the article is deleted  and the name "Gabrielle" only mentioned in the section of the article explaining the "Xena" name Garda40 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xena 

message: I came to this article because of its mention on Front Page News. When I read it, I immetiately thought it was of or near FA quality, so I came to the Talk page to find out if it was one. The objections from the prior nomination appear to have been largely satisfied. After the post-front-page-mention editing frenzy calms down, it should be ready for a final cleanup in preparation for another FA nomination. The graphics do need to be rearranged. By the way, the proposed new name is a better one for an FA (yes I voted). NOTE: I have NOT worked on this article ever. If a serious FA effort is made, I would be willing to help with some copy editing and the like (I'm not good with graphics, though). Finell (Talk) 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Portuguese version is a Featured Article; I think we could take some tips from them.  --Merovingian - Talk 07:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't nominate it yet. Naming disputes etc. must be resolved first. The article is still too volatile.--JyriL talk 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think some of the arguments still lingering are grounds to delist it for GA, but I'm hesitant to do so unilaterally. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind that. If you think this article should be delisted, be bold and go ahead but give good reasons why you came up with that decision.--JyriL talk 11:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree, hold it until everything settles down, give it a few weeks. Tuvas 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we can edit the article again, I'm actually noticing alot of little things. I think the article should be re-GAed, then peer reviewed, and finally nominated for FA. But I'd have to vote against it right now, even if it was stable... Tuvas 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Featured Article Shot? 

message: I think that this image must be removed from the article. It doesn't give an obvious representation of the distances and it's not to scale for that matter. It only gives you a distorted idea about the solar system, and adds nothing to the already-image-cluttered article. Moreover, it has some copyright issue (click on it) and maybe deleted. If no one gives a good reason why this should stay, i'm going to remove it. Orionist 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that it is to scale.  The planets and orbits are just at different scales.  The fact that it shows the orbits in one ddimension rather than 2 or 3 is a minus, of course.  And any copyvio should certainly be removed.  Eluchil404 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree, and it just doesn't seem to fit, I've been playing around with it without much luck. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Tuvas 06:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Removal 

message: In my mind at least, the see also section should contain links which are relevent, but not given a place in the main part of the article. Terms such as Pluto, Kuiper Belt Object, Scattered Disc region, etc, don't seem to have a place there. Am I wrong? Tuvas 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is normal editing. I see no need to seek concensus for this. Finell (Talk) 06:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm just a bit worried of starting a new edit war... Tuvas 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think you need to worry about a war... the ranks have already been decimated by the deity wars and the Great Move Debate... however, that aside, the changes (I think) have now weakened the "See also" section. A lot of the links removed are relevant, especially for someone who's read down through the article and who may want to continue on to read about related subjects. (Yes, of course, you can click through above, but novice users may not think to search back through the document for a single word or phrase that will take them to the desired article.) It's very common in print articles to have "See also" terms at the end even though those terms have already been mentioned in the body of the article. --Ckatzchatspy 06:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the things I removed can easily be found in the templates right below it, and were mentioned several times in the article. It just seems to be more tidy now, and if people want to know more about the other odds and ends, they can easily look down at the templates and keep searching. Tuvas 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: I looked at the pictures, and moved them around a bit, and removed one that didn't seem to convey useful info. Do these changes seem alright? Tuvas 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just looks too crowded, I think we should trim a few of the pictures. I do think the still lapse picture of Eris needs to be removed, as well as a few of the pictures near the bottom, at least one of them... Personally, I'd choose the Distribution of trans-Neptunian Objects. I added Eris because there just isn't a picture in that part of the article, but I think we could do to remove a few others, in the more crowded places.Tuvas 06:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed ones with issues, either there was too many pictures, copyright issues, or other such things, and I think it looks better actually. I'm going to stop now though, I don't want to break the 3RR rule by accident... Tuvas 06:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: FYI, I looked at the portuguese article, which is an FA, and you will also see the exact same picture on there, so, unless they copied us... Not to say that that should be the ultimate reference, but, I thought I'd mention it. Tuvas 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that I have never seen an article on a solar system body with a picture of its namesake in the article.  We've usually just left it to the article on the namesake to take of that.  A picture of Eris isn't exactly relevant to the discussion of the celestial body Eris.  Now, I understand that a random rendering of the Erisian system isn't relevant to that section (though might be useful elsewhere in the article, perhaps down in the Moon section), but I don't see the need for the Eris goddess picture.  --Volcanopele 20:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely -- that's why we have hypertext. Readers interested in the goddess can follow the wikilink. It is not, however, directly relevant to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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

message: If we're going to use IPA, then it should be in a form that's internationally viewable.  Please format so that the average joe on a public computer with an American, German, Korean, etc. keyboard can read the symbols with-out having to know how to do some sort of complicated stuff with the computer (that might not even be possible with-out admin rights). Kdammers 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  should be transliterated <ee-ris>, not <eye-ris>, which would be , like the flower or the colored part of the eye. BirdValiant 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, somebody got rid of that already.  Thanks. BirdValiant 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ipa 

message: This recent renaming has solved nothing!  Even many of the supporters of this move wanted Pluto and 1 Ceres to conform to it.  However, the Pluto page is now move-protected and the editors there seem dead-set against any move at this time.  Also, 1 Ceres has not yet been moved.  To deal with this issue, I have started the page Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming, so that all interest parties can discuss this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No surprises there! RandomCritic 02:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwarf planet naming discussion started 

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

message: The name itself is wrong, and both pronunciations are ridiculose.  In Latin, it's Èris, and in English, it's Errees.  That anyone would say ee-ris shows that one is a deaf and dim shithead—confer the Cockney. (see Talk:Untranslatability#disputed) -lysdexia 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The air sound at the front is surely because of a US accent. I'd have thought most British people would pronounce it similar to the pronunciation of "ferris" i.e. in ferris wheel - it's effecitvely the same way of speaking the word Eris, just with different accents. Richard B 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the exact sound i meant airris and (f)erris sound exactly the same in AU english... (not US english! ='( ) -- Nbound 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to (a) comment on the pointlessness of this section, and (b) point out how ridiculous our angry friend's spelling is. It amuses me that one can be so pedantic about the pronunciation of obscure words when they are unable to spell common words. aLii 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to point that this should not be confused with Iris - goddess of rainbow (in which honour named element Iridium).--Nixer 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Eris" still wrong

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

message: The text in the orbit section states that Eris does not cross the orbit of Neptune. However, the illustration in that section seems to show it crossing Neptunes orbit. Which is correct? Kaldari 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't cross Neptune's orbit. The periastron is further out than the apastron of Neptune. The issue with the image is a projection issue - the orbit has been projected down into the plane of Neptune's orbit, and since Eris is in an inclined orbit, it appears to cross Neptune. Chaos syndrome 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit 

message: I know nothing about astronomy, but after reading this sentence: -
the team's automatic image-searching software excluded all objects moving at less than 1.5 arcseconds per hour to reduce the number of false positives returned. When 90377 Sedna was discovered, it was moving at 1.75 arcsec/h, and in light of that the team reanalyzed their old data,
my question is how many arcsec/h was Eris appear to be moving across the sky?  It the sentance would be more meaningful if this info was added.
Parasite 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many arcsecs? 

message: (from Talk:Dwarf planet)
You can now enter  and it will automatically bring up the correct minor planet number without you needing to look it up, but it will display only as the name. E.g.  will give  i.e. Ceres. 
These can be used mid-article to provide links to the correct article titles, without using redirects and saving time writing minor planet numbers in.
Only covers the dwarf planets -  will link to Pluto at the moment - just in case it ever changes - but you wouldn't need to currently use the template for links to the Pluto article - it's just at Pluto 
The template can of course be amended if the naming convention changes e.g. if the IAU issues a new dwarf planet catalogue system - meaning that no links would have to be changed - just the template. Richard B 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Template for dwarf planet names

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

message: Ryulong has been removing the wikilink to the appropriate section on astronomical naming conventions, claiming, completely without any cogent argument, that such linking is "ridiculous".
I have added the link back.  I am now asking Ryulong for his direct argument why this link to another article that explains the naming system in use by the IAU and directly relevant to this article, is in some way "ridiculous".  Lacking such, to any rational reader and writer of these articles, a reference to an "official designation" can tolerate a wikilink to the corresponding article that explains as much.  mdf 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion began some time ago, when Paul_venter was continually adding these links in the lead. I felt that the links - initially, just to a long list of numerical asteroid designations - were inappropriate and confusing. He and I discussed it at some length, and we weren't able to agree. I stopped removing the links because I didn't want to get into an edit war with him. However, there are now several editors disagreeing with putting such links at that point in the article. Therefore, I think the onus is now for you and Paul to convince the others as to why it should be added - rather than for us to convince you why it shouldn't. (Just my two cents.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit in question makes no reference to any of the above details:  it simply strips the informational wikilink around the phrase "official designation", dismissing it as "ridiculous".  The phrase was wikilinked for exactly the same reason that I recently wikilinked the word "acetaldehyde":  the referenced page is directly relevant.  Is that sufficient explanation?  Note that I find it hard to go on further, simply because to do so will just insult most people's intelligence.  Isn't this, like, obvious? mdf 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't have a problem with the "naming" page as a link (I think I originally created it to try ty accomodate Paul_venter), I don't know if it is needed in the lead. However, that's something for the group to decide. What are your thoughts on linking the number to a long list of asteroids, as Paul seems to want to do? --Ckatzchatspy 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Yes.  Well, that is just needlessly gratuitous.  As for the it being "needed in the lead", no opinion on that, except that I'll say that wherever that "136199 Eris" makes it's first or second appearance, I think it makes a great deal of sense that a link to the naming scheme be nearby.   mdf 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to naming convention being removed 

message: How can this page be moved while it is still marked as protected?  Maybe the admin who moved it and the admin who protected it could have had a chat before jerking this article around one more time? RandomCritic 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know full well who moved this page and why. You even added an immediate request for the page to be moved back on WP:RM before posting here. This page was moved partly because of majority vote, and partly — I suspect — because it was the right thing to do. The article should stay in its current location unless a good argument can be made to move it to Eris and move the disambiguation page elsewhere. aLii 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do think it should be moved to Eris and disambiguation should be moved elsewhere for the sake of having one style with Pluto and Ceres. Eris should not be discriminated! TestPilot 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we just let things rest for a month ro so?  I would like to see a consensus to give "dwarf planets" the same status and planets before we do that.  However, I cannot see that "dwarf planets" being permanently on that footing.  There most likely will soon be over a dozen of these objects, and they will fade from people's consciousness over time.  The only thing that makes them more noteworthy now (if they are) is the recent media attention over their designation. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, why the hell was Ceres moved? Ryūlóng 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That move was done by an over-enthusiastic admin who figured that 1 Ceres being a "dwarf planet" meant that it automatically trumped the godess Ceres for naming priority.  The page move was done without notice or debate, and after I protested at talk:1 Ceres (which was at talk:Ceres at that time), the move was reversed. --EMS | Talk 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Ceres was moved from 1 Ceres because a newbie moved the goddess' page to Ceres (mythology), and he then performed a copy-paste move to move 1 Ceres to Ceres, which was then histmerged. Ryūlóng 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Now that an admin has moved this page, I'm assuming that the discussion on the article moving is over -- at least on this Talk page -- and I've archived the discussion. It's the third one in the box above. RandomCritic 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:
"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."
"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet." --Ckatzchatspy 05:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU 

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

message: Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New poll on naming dispute 

message: The text has been removed (again) - this was decided upon quite some time ago as not being appropriate for the article, but it continues to resurface again and again. Yes, there's a link, but that only serves to suggest that the campaign existed. It certainly doesn't warrant including speculative text in an encyclopedia article. --Ckatzchatspy 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it was noted that neither Mike or the IAU have mentioned the Discordian's actions in official statements.  Based on talking with Mike, the naming was entirely due to Eris' being the goddess of discord (and the terrible pun of Dysnomia).  This is not an official statement, however. Michaelbusch 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discordian naming campaign 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Ceres move

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Guideline

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

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

message: Far better than current image. Zazaban 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to change image to this 

message: I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep any comments on this issue on Talk:Pluto Bluap 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: As a UK person, I say "erris", not "eeris" Bluap 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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 . 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  then. Also according to Youtube, Robert Anton Wilson, a practicing Discordian, pronounced her name  ("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)
thread_title: Pronunciation of Eris

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So it does - sorry, misread that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.161.125 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moons? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sun pic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pluto larger??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, I'll add "large". Serendipodous 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Comets never been seen at such distance. They only estimated to have orbits there.--Dojarca 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Does this statement need editing. Sedna must count as being a further out TNO. --Overpet 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Furthest Known object in the solar system?

message: So it's named Eris, is it discordant? - 2-16 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. But it did cause discord. Serendipodous 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pluto's naming 

message: 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)
thread_title: Could anyone do the math?

message: There's a new picture of Eris & moon with a NASA tag which looks much better than the current one - can be seen here  from this page . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: "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)
replies: text: Sorry; my bad. Fixed. :) Serendipodous 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current location. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oops, my mistake. I just changed the caption accordingly. Vsst 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um, not a comet? :-) Really that does need clarification. EDIT: Clarified. Serendipodous 09:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  furthest "large object"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  HIstory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Orbital characteristics - important mistake with perhaps wider ramifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0810_050810_new_planet_2.html 83.24.246.73 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: And so? What of it? What is wrong with this article? Serendipodous 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification on Proserpina vs. Eris naming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of 'Xena' nickname

message: I think that the Discordian's role in naming the planet should be metioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.42.156 (talk • contribs) 
:They had no role in naming it. It just so happens that the goddess Mike Brown chose to name it after is also one adopted by the Discordians. Serendipodous 09:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discordian reference

message: I don't understand why Eris was ruled to be a dwarf planet instead of the next planet.  After all, it's bigger than Pluto, and its moon, Dysnomia, is nowhere near as big in comparison to it as Charon is to Pluto.  Can someone explain why it's a dwarf planet?
The short answer (if there is such a thing with Pluto) is because Eris is smaller than the Planet astronomers thought Pluto was back in the 1930's through the 1950's.  Back when Pluto was discovered they thought it was larger than the Earth and perhaps as large as Neptune. (Pluto from a 1959 Book) -- Kheider (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: SO FAR I SEEN A SIGN FOR SUN, MERCURY, VENUS, EARTH, MARS, JUPITER, SATURN, URANUS, NEPTUNE, PLUTO, AND CERUS. WHATS ERIS SIGN?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris doesn't have one. Nowadays astronomers don't really need symbols to represent planetary objects anymore, though astrologers are naturally interested. Serendipodous 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  - this symbol was used in at least four printed astrology books in Poland (http://www.jarekgronert.pl/ Jarosław Gronert "Astrologia od poczatku", "Strategia kosmosu", http://piotrpiotrowski.blog.onet.pl/ Piotr Piotrowski "Lilith - Czarny Księżyc", "Przesłanie Chirona"). GrzegorzWu (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats Eris sign? 

message: can we remove the protection now? Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can, but all of the (dwarf) planet articles attract constant vandalism. There are very few anonymous edits other than vandalism; also, all these articles are FA, which means that they no longer need much input. There's also the problem of having the "best" of wikipedia being full of nonsense. Even if it's for a few minutes, that's the only version some readers will see. Why keep a star on an article that starts off with "Fred sucks"? kwami (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "Featured Article". -RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: "Eris came to perihelion between 1698[22]-1699,[23] aphelion around 1977,[23] and will return to perihelion around 2256[23] to 2258.[24]"
I checked these sources and I don't find these dates quoted anywhere.  Where did they come up with these dates from? Please tell me.  Thank You. Maldek (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA's ephemeris generator is set to default on Mars, but can be set to Eris, and the time span can be set to any period desired. Ref 24 does mention that perihelion passage will take place in 2258. Serendipodous 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eris Aphelion and Perihelion dates? 

message: so, how many planets r there anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkall (talk • contribs)  
:Eight. At the moment.Serendipodous 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: The adjectival form of Eris being Eridian was discussed previously- no citation was given but it was argued convincingly based on precedent.  Does someone just need to blog that discussion and cite themselves,  or should we rewrite the sentence as "The adjective form of Eris is believed to be Eridian, based on precedent with Martian, Jovian, and other planetary adjectives."? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are irregularities in common Latinate names, but generally we get our noun form from the nominative stem and our adj. form from the genitive stem. Slavic languages use the genitive for both. For example, English 'Pallas', adj. 'Palladian', has the d in Slavic. For Eris, the Slavic wikis also use the d form. I think we need to use the regular form (Eridian) unless we have evidence that the irregular form (Erisian) is the one in use. We only see that in Discordianism, not astronomy. kwami (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: We could just link to Wiktionary, though I dispute the claim that Eridian is only the adj. form of the dwarf planet. kwami (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eridian