Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 2

message: Yes, these names fits pretty well (even in astrology and pagan religions), but...
:Pluto (Hades) was the god of war.
:Persephone was the goddess of Spring, wife of Hades (Pluto). Planet Persephone passes half of her life near Pluto, like the goddess did in mythology.
:Proserpine (Persephone) was the goddess of Spring, wife of Pluto. Planet Proserpine passes half of her time near Pluto, like the goddess did in mythology.
I don't know what fits best: Persephone sounds better, but proserpine fits better.
--Pedro 21:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the appropriate IAU committee will duly consult this Talk page before making its decision. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk pages are not for general chatter -- they're here to discuss issues relevant to improving the page. I'm sure it's essentially harmless, but this isn't the "2003 UB313 BBS". As the naming question is entirely out of our hands, it serves no purpose to speculate, and makes the task of finding relevant discussion on the page that much harder. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Persephone or Proserpine

message: User 62.252.0.7  added something about the definition of the word 'Planet' to come out in 2006. Is there a source for this?--Firsfron 05:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, progress! Last time I heard they were to decide in September who and how the definion of planet should be decided.--Jyril 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006?

message: The paper has been submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters, a peer-reviewed journal in the US.  Claims include that it has a similar IR spectrum to Pluto's, and its brightness implies it is much larger than Pluto (for any reasonable albedo).  
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf
--zandperl 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication submitted to ApJL 

message: The nature exlink http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050801/full/050801-2.html is now paid subscribers-only.  I think this makes is no longer a "valuable service to our readers" (per Wikipedia:External links), so I'm going to remove it.  -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 18:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, remove it. Thanks! --Pedro 14:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature exlink now subscription only

message: IAUC 8596 (subscription required, won't be public for a long time) contains the following text:
:if the variations are due to rotation, then the period exceeds 8 hr.
:However, the observed variation might be due to other effects, such
:as unknown color terms. 
--Jyril 11:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The > 8 hr rotation period is highly speculative at best, and
according to IAUC 8596 is valid only if the "observed variation"
is not "due to other effects, such as unknown color terms".
I am in favor of deleting the rotation period until more or better
data is obtained.
--Japaget 15:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
:data are lysdexia 01:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotation period of 2003 UB313

message: We appear to be entering endgame in terms of some sort of decision being made of the definition of planet.  Space.com has a story out today, as does Nature, although I can't seem to persuade my university library's proxy to let me have a look at their article. -The Tom 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd say we're entering a post-definition-of-planet phase. They can't agree, so they're going to cop out. ;-) Really, they're saying that such a definition is scientifically meaningless, which is basically the argument of the demote-Pluto faction (i.e., that to call Pluto a planet means you have to call a lot of other things planets, too). I'm surprised they couldn't agree on a simpler breakdown than the Space article suggests, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Astronomy, and other sciences, have been through such revolutions before. I'm sure they'll weather this one and your children and mine will grow up knowing the new terminology. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet naming definition 

message: The article says that the observations were made on October 21 2003 or October 31, in two different places.
And in this paragraph:
"Pluto's reddish colour is believe to be due to deposits of tholins on its surface, and where these deposits darken the surface, the lower albedo leads to higher temperatures and the evaporation of methane deposits. In contrast, 2003 UB313 is far enough away from the Sun that methane can condense onto its surface even where the albedo is high."
shouldn't that last "high" be "low"? Ken Arromdee 15:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that you're not confusing albedo with magnitude? Albedo, which describes the reflectivity of a surface, can get only values between 0 (perfectly black body, 0% of light is reflected) and 1 (perfect mirror, 100% of light is reflected). For example, a very dark asteroid may have low albedo of 0.03. The best reflecting body, Enceladus, has an extremely high albedo of 0.99. --Jyril 12:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get it.  The first sentence says that low albedo leads to higher temperatures.  The second sentence says that methane condenses "even where the albedo is high", implying that higher albedo leads to higher temperatures but that methane condenses despite that.  Regardless of what "high albedo" means, these two sentences can't possibly both be correct--they contradict each other. Ken Arromdee 16:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there's a contradiction. The sentence makes much more sense as I changed "high" to "low": Unlike on Pluto, methane condenses *even* on the low albedo (warmer) areas because of the lower temperatures on . --Jyril 18:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm? 

message: :Talk:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1
I would like to make a page at S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 for the moon. Should it be a redirect or a separate page? I would say having it be a separate page would be somewhat silly, but it appears that all of Jupiter's 63 moons have their own pages too... so why not? --Ctachme 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to wait until it is confirmed, and an orbit worked out. After all, that would be the required for assigning it a name. kwami 07:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, they do, but the data sheet is full of question marks! Maybe not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but close. kwami 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a Portuguese page: pt:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 132.205.45.148 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an Italian page: it:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 132.205.93.88 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Moon - A Redirect or a Page? 

message: The discovery photo of Gabrielle would make a beautiful intro photo at the top of our article. However, I'm not familiar with the copyright issues involved, though I assume they're similar to the other photos we've used. Could someone who knows what they're doing upload it? kwami 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is not a NASA image and Keck images are not copyright-free so I don't think we can use it.--Jyril 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the copyright notice for :Image:Animation_showing_movement_of_2003_UB313.gif.  Basically someone needs to contact Michael Brown and get his permission to release this photo too. --EMS | Talk 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is attributed to the Keck Observatory, since they are the ones who took the photo.  On their website it specificially states the image can be used for any educational purpose as long as its not for commercial purposes.  I went ahead and uploaed it with a fairuse tag, but if someone wanted to double check it, that might be nice.--ScottyBoy900Q 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair enough. Though Hubble will image it soon and hopefully they'll make a press release of it as soon as possible. Then we would have better and copyright free image.--Jyril 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo? 

message: Is it just me perceiving that Wikipedia is not completely neutral about discovery dispute. The article 2003 UB313 is just mentioning 2003 EL61 as another one discovered on the same day, and there is no word about Ortiz at all. OTOH the EL61 article clearly states "Credit for the discovery is sharply disputed between two different groups (Ortiz et al. in Andalucía, Spain and Brown et al. at Caltech in the United States)."
My personal opinion is that currently article does not conform to Wikipedia principle for neutrality covering U.S. team designation as one-and-only, and disputing Spanish team designation. Thus I've added a section about the dispute. -- Bggoldie 10:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just deleted it. That info belongs in the EL61 article, correct? kwami 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Does any body have a clue what they might name Xena & Gabrielle? — Hurricane Devon  (Talk, e-Mail) 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If  is declared a planet, it will probably get a Greco-Roman name, most probably some deity related to the underworld. Otherwise it will be named after a creation deity, I think. No Scattered disk objects have been yet named, though (if Sedna is not counted). Until its planethood is decided, it won't receive a name. S/2005  1 will most probably named after someone related to . If the object won't receive planetary status, it will be named by Mike Brown and his colleagues, who have already submitted the name to the IAU. If it becomes a planet, the IAU will decide the name. Mike Brown won't reveal the name beforehand (they did reveal the name Sedna too early, which was against rules and that annoyed some).--Jyril 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think Hades is valid, because it is the Greek name for Pluto. Proserpina/Persephone might be good (plus she was an important goddess). There are also many other minor netherworld gods/goddesses in these mythologies whose names could be used. Conflicts with asteroid names may be inavoidable (Persephone is already the name of an asteroid). However, all this is pure speculation. Let's wait and see what happens. The next IAU general assembly will be held in August, 2006, and I'm really disappointed if the issue is not solved by then.--Jyril 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Persephone and Proserpine are taken by asteroids but the planet could be called Kore which is an alternate name for Persephone that has not been taken, like Orcus which is an alternate name for Hades and was used for another recently discovered planetoid.
What about Cerberus, the three-headed dog that resides in Hades? Proserpina is a wonderful name, and I can't see why they couldn't rename the asteroids which already have the name Proserpina. Also, what about Orpheus & Eurydice? their myth involves the underworld. --Revolución hablar ver 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the rules allow for the renaming of an object, not to mention the confusion that would result. - Aerobird 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of names 

message: No, no, no! Not everybody can see subscript, you know. On my computer it looks like "2003 UB(square, square, square). I believe there was a huge issue on this that said it should not be moved to the subscripted title. It's probably archived now (hey, what happened to the archive?). bob rulz 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Is there any word yet on whether the just-launched New Horizons Pluto probe could also visit 2003 UB313 after its Pluto flyby?  I read that NASA is considering visits to other Kuiper-belt objects after Pluto in 2015.
:I highly doubt it. The chances that Pluto and UB313 are perfectly aligned is very slim. They'll choose Kuiper Belt objects that are on the same trajectory as Pluto. bob rulz 06:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No way.  See Michael Brown's website.  The illustrations of the orbits of Pluto and  show that they are currently 120° apart with respect to the Sun.  New Horizons cannot produce the delta-V needed to redirect itself to , and Pluto's gravitational field is way too weak to send it in that direction. --EMS | Talk 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that 2003 UB313 is currently around 97 AU from the sun, as opposed to Pluto's 33 AU, I highly doubt that they would consider the idea, since flight times would probably be at least 30 to 40 years. A 2003 UB313 mission would probably require propulsion technologies that have not been flight-tested yet. JamesFox 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Horizons flyby?

message: Is this the 10th planet or a minor planet?
:The decision on that is still pending. The definition of a planet is not clear cut so it's going to be a little while before a decision is made whether to call this a 10th planet or a minor planet. If this does become a minor planet, Pluto may be downgraded. - JVG 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See definition of planet.  In an nutshell, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is trying to decided what to do about  and Pluto.  What has happenned in that between 1930 and 1992, Pluto was the only object of its kind known.  However, starting in 1992 simlar objects began to be found, and today over 1,000 trans-Neptunian objects are known.  So Pluto and  are now known to be only part of a much larger population, just as Ceres (which was originally considered to be planet too) is now just the largest member of the asteroid belt.  That is why the IAU needs to decide what to do. --EMS | Talk 17:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that asteroids 1-4 were considered planets for half a century before being downgraded, the case against Pluto is compelling. Of course, the other way to do it, is to readmit those four and anything larger than the smallest. Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "small world" for these objects, as in the "small world Ceres". Thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Jonathunder 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically, the asteroids and these trans-Neptunian objects are all minor planets.  So the real debate is whether  should be considered a major planet or not, and in either case why.  Personally, as part of a population of similar objects, I think not, but we will see with the IAU decides. --EMS | Talk 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this a planet 

message: This article in Nature, published Feb 1, needs to be incorporated into this article.  I'm not a regular editor on this page, but it seems that some of the information on this page is now incorrect.    ⇔    | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in Nature 

message: This article states that the absolute magnitude of the planet is minus 1.2. This can't be correct, because this means that it should be visible (in a Sirius-like manner) at a distance of 10 pc. -- Maclaine 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objects in the solar system have a different scale for absolute magnitude. It's how bright the object would appear one AU from earth and one AU from the sun, at a Sun-object-earth angle of zero degrees. It's an impossible configuration, but it yields the simplest calculations. It would be just as bright as sirius.shaggy 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I wasn't aware of this different scale. Maclaine 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute magnitude? 

message: I noticed that despite the tag, this isn't on the Featured Article Canidates page, and the "talk" page has a number of "objections". Should this be nominated for AID? - Aerobird 03:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the article failed the nomination, or why it is no longer listed in the FAC page?--Jyril 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I am going to try to get the lead section to be concise. -- 68.122.239.95 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us go for a concise lead section 

message: Either the Julian date or the "normal" date is wrong. JD 2453800.5 is actually March 6 2006, not 2005. Alternatively, March 6 2005 is JD 2453435.5.--SiriusB 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I checked the orbital elements against the MPEC list of Centaurs and SDOs, and it appears that the proper epoch is march 6, 2006. I have corrected the error. shaggy 21:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Epoch 

message: If this article is correct, we need to update this page: Proposed 10th Planet Shrinks Under Hubble's Gaze Rmhermen 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shrinking planet

message: Please don't let this beutiful planet be named Xena.  It's too cool to be named that.  Instead it should be named after gods from different cultures, like the other planets.
:Xena was a codename of sorts for it. It's not going to be named Xena. It says that right there in the article. bob rulz 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of this rather silly debate betwixed all the scientists and so called "exsperts" debating, the world is already calling it Xena, and it's moon Gabrielle, It indeed rather looks now as though this has been settled on it's name by the populous and popular demand!...ergo, "it is going to be called Xena because it IS being called Xena.",therefore being what it is called, it is what it is called...therefore it is what it's called, Xena!(cathytreks 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A columnist for Science told me that the discoverers actually do want it to be called Xena... but that's just hearsay in any court of law. Zzzzzzzzzzz 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, looks like the discoverer himself doesn't know that: "We use these names internally simply because they are easier to say and remember [...]. There is no chance whatsoever that these will become the permanent names of these objects!"--JyriL talk 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd love to have a planet named after a TV character, and Xena is not all together a bad name (as least it's not called SpongeBob). We have moved on, names based on mythology appeal to very little of the populace today. Unless they call it based on something from reproductive anatomy, Xena will by far be the most popular name then anything they decide on. Then the academic world will have to convince the masses to use whatever term they come up with, or accept Xena as an unchangeable reality. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SpongeBob sounds better.--JyriL talk 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xena 

message: Luna, Terra has sections such as Tesla.
Has NASA or any other government/space program named the regions of Xena?
--Cyberman 03:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA or other governmental organization/space agency don't name regions on celestial objects, only the IAU can do that. And no, because any surface features haven't been resolved on the object. Remember that only extremely crude maps of Pluto can be created from the Hubble images, and  is three times further away.  isn't even two pixels wide in the Hubble images!--JyriL talk 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has NASA listed regions?

message: When will this planet get an official word name?? Georgia guy 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Mike Brown's webpage: There is no chance whatsoever that these [Xena & Gabrielle] will become the permanent names of these objects! 'Xena' was used as an internal codename before the object was published and received a designation. Mike Brown used this name in public because he thought that the object would be named soon after its discovery, given that it is so important. However, it is not clear if it will be a planet, so the IAU must decide first if it will be a planet or not. If it becomes a planet, the naming will be decided by the IAU. If not, Mike Brown has already a name for it. But it will not be Xena. It is a familiar name and that's why people started using it. BTW, 'Xena' has no mythological background whatsoever; she was invented for the Hercules TV series.--JyriL talk 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suppose you just know better than all of us? It's already been stated over and over again that it's not going to be named Xena. Xena has no mythological background whatsoever. Please check out the Xena article, where it explicity states "Xena of Amphipolis is a fictional character in the television series Xena: Warrior Princess and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys." and "Xena first appeared on the Hercules: The Legendary Journeys television series (in the episode The Warrior Princess airing in March 1995),". Also this "The show credited Xena (or her friends and associates) with a central role in many events in history and mythology." In addition, what does the fact that Xena lasted longer than Hercules have to do with anything whatsoever? bob rulz 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because people refer to it as Xena doesn't mean that it's the official name. It doesn't have an official name, hence why it's still at 2003 UB313. bob rulz 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we cool this discussion down until the IAU comes up with a name for 2003 UB313? It's all fruitless speculation and name-dropping until then, anyway. The decision could take awhile, as they first need to decide on its status as a planet (or not)... — QuantumEleven 07:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word name 

message: Could someone add an infobox for the moon, Gabrielle? 132.205.93.88 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See []  69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gabby 

message: What year do you think this planet will have an official word name?? Georgia guy 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IAU will decide by the end of August on its status and name. Will probably be announced in early September. Aquirata 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the IAU fully appreciates the urgency of this situation. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What urgency?!?! The planet/KBO is not going anywhere! --BerserkerBen 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The object does not have a hurry, nor does it disappear, but we the people on earth have a hurry anyway. If it takes a long time, the informal name "Xena" will be more and more established. Media is often already using it as if it was official. Besides we are plain impatient. One more planet is a big thing for those interested in astronomy. /BIL 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to the IAU it is a dwarf planet, among others Ceres and Pluto recognized already, and Eris is the official name as of 13 Sept 2006.  69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What year?? 

message: I thought this planet already had a name - Sedna (the Inuit goddess of ice or something). Michaelritchie200 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sedna is a completely different object. Check 90377 Sedna. It's a different Kuiper Belt object that was discovered earlier and is still much smaller than Pluto. bob rulz 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why  should be named as soon as possible to get the name right (though it seems it may take some time, worst case scenario is that it'll be named in the next IAU meeting in 2009). To put things in perspective, it took decades Uranus to get its name. Neptune's situation was slightly better, but it either wasn't named immediately.--JyriL talk 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: This is in the category Binary minor planet. Is the moon actually big enough for that? It seems a rather big stretch. 132.205.93.88 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary minor planet? 

message: Is this image the moon of Xena (Gabrielle), or is it Xena and Gabrielle?
:It is a very poor resolution (what's the point with that?) artwork image of the pair.--JyriL talk 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: I know that this is nothing to do with the science of 'Xena' but are there any groups out there claiming that there is any religious significance to people finding this planet. For example, is anybody linking it to any old prophecy?
perfectblue 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just googled "Bible" and "UB313" and got this site. sure there are plenty more such sites out there... Tfleming 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Significance? 

message: I heard on the IRC that they decided this was a planet - is that true yet ST47 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it will be according to the new proposed definition of planet. The IAU will vote on it on August 24.--JyriL talk 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Now classified as a a dwarf planet, as are Pluto and Ceres so far.  69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet?

message: "Xena"; "Ceres", "1 Ceres".
Hilarious & silly.
Miles O'Brien [ Miles_O%27Brien_%28journalist%29 ], cnn, speaking with Neil deGrasse Tyson, announced this mnemonic:
"My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas,..."
"Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto,..."
"...'chovies eXtra."
Hopiakuta 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[Gabrielle_%28Xena%29]]"

message: Xena? They should name it Chuck Norris. FireSpike 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here and here for more information. --Ckatzchatspy 09:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Name 

message: Does "Xena" have a special symbol to represent it like most other planets have?? If so, please add it to the enttry!--Sonjaaa 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xena is neither a real mythological figure, nor is it the name of this planet. bob rulz 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IAU may or may not decide on an astronomical symbol for 2003 UB313 if it decides whether it is a planet or not.  That has not been disclosed.  It has been disclosed that the body will not be named Xena, no matter how it may be classified. That should be clear from this article.  In addition, the IAU will not decide on an astrological symbol, obviously; the IAU are scientists and the planetary classification question has nothing to do with the superstition known as astrology. If astrologers want to use a symbol the IAU decides on (if they do), then that is their prerogative. Derek Balsam 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be named Chuck Norris, and the symbol should look something like this: . FireSpike 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think astrologists will use it. Every science or pseudoscience must be based on something. Since astrology is not based on observations or scientific calculations it must be based on tradition. For that reason they have usually not even included Uranus. Some may, some use intuition more than tradition. BIL 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm not going to argue that astrology is accurate or anything, but could you at least be accurate ABOUT it, if you're going to talk about it? "They have usually not even included Uranus" is wrong - the only time they did NOT was before its discovery. They use it now; it "rules" Aquarius. Astrologers simialarly do not "use intutition more than tradition", though I find it odd that you state that, given that your previous argument seemed to state "they only don't count these planets because it's not in their little worldview", which would seem to contradict it. Anyway, they actually have formulas to calculate horoscopes and such - not that it's alleged effects are based on anything save for folkloric associations, but they DO use formulas, NOT just "intuitiion". I'd argue that using traditional formulas to arrive at a conclusion even without knowing what the hell they were based on is FAR more "traditional" than it is "intuitional". Similarly, you can't expect them to except every known astronomical object in our system, as there are thousands and thousands of them and most are comparitively small or newly-discovered like UB313 is - and therefore either not considered large enough to have a significant effect, or not yet included because they haven't gotten the chance to address it yet (though it would be interesting/funny to see them start accepting just about everything and start arguing that only someone with "considerable knowledge" could decipher it all, heh). Despite some astrologers' claims that it's an "art", it's actually a combination of folklore and mathematical pseudo-science that semi-led to the creation of astronomy, similar to the no-longer-used alchemy, which was the precursor to modern chemistry. Again - it uses formulas based on planetary paths and folkloric associations, NOT intuition. I'm not saying that what they do with these calculations is science (obviously, it's not an empirical science), but your comment very much implies that they do not consider newly-discovered objects in their calculations, which is simply NOT true, otherwise why would Neptune (which was NOT an anciently-known planet) "rule" Pisces or Pluto (only discovered this century!) rule Scorpio, or, contrary to your implications about Uranus, Uranus "rule" Aquarius? The VAST majority of modern astrologers use the more newly-discovered planets in their little calculations, and I'm sure these large, Pluto-sized-or-larger objects in the Kuiper Belt will considered for inclusion as well. Who knows, maybe it'll finally be 100% accurate once they're counted in :P (/jk). 63.21.80.43 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Special symbol?

message: This user has been adding comments to several articles about (his?) a new bodes law. His claims of notability have been in the form of saying that his webpage has been up for a while (though no claims of traffic and external links are made). Just as an FYI, here's his edit history  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs).
:It seems that 71.215.54.11 and PlanetCeres are of like mind on this issue, as both are repeatedly inserting this material into numerous articles. The articles include Planet, Definition of planet, 2006 redefinition of planet, 1 Ceres, 2003 UB313, and Titius-Bode law. PlanetCeres also deleted Mckaysalisbury's comment above, which has now been restored. --Ckatzchatspy 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodicity 

message: What happened to it being referred to as Quanor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfleming (talk • contribs) .
:The name is Quaoar, not Quanor, and it refers to a completely different space object.--The Great Honker 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See 50000 Quaoar. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quanor 

message: Any estimate on when it is expected to receive its final and official name?--Sonjaaa 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it won't (probably). But let's hope they hurry the decision. If it becomes a planet, I don't know how they will proceed—IAU hasn't named a planet yet. If the draft proporsal is accepted, they'll better to figure out the proceedings. If it doesn't, Mike Brown et al. already have submitted a name for it to the committee which supervises the naming of minor planets. Without the definition of a planet controversy, it would have been named a long ago. In fact, Mike Brown thought it will be declared a planet within months after the discovery announcement. To save media from using the horrible designation , he gave it the (temporary) nickname "Xena".--JyriL talk 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I meant that. Mike Brown can suggest the name only if it doesn't become a planet. However, the IAU won't name it during this meeting (if I understood it correctly).--JyriL talk 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When will it be named?

message: : is presently classified as a scattered disk object (SDO)...
This sentence is somewhat misleading. Even if it becomes a planet, it still remains a SDO (like the planet Pluto is a KBO).--JyriL talk 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is full of wording like that: "is presently classified", "The object currently has the provisional designation", etc.  The words "presently" and "currently" are superfluous and misleading.  The sentences are just fine -- true, accurate, and verifiable -- without those words. The words actually make the article less accurate by implying a prediction of future events, as you rightly point out.Derek Balsam 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who is Brown to formally classify something?"  Not sure I follow you.  By 'formally classify', I simply mean that Brown et al. used the term "scattered Kuiper Belt object" in a published, peer reviewed scientific paper (The Astrophysical Journal, 643: L61–L63, 2006 May 20 - See References section of main article), which is the standard as far as we at Wikipedia should be concerned.  For readers of Wikipedia, that is a formal statement of science to which we should not add weasel words which could give an incorrect impression to laypeople.  "Informally" and "unofficially" suggest usages such as the name Xena, which is a good example of informal usage outside of science proper.  But characterizing 2003UB313 as a scattered disk object is not informal at all, as evidenced by citation to a verifiable scientific source.Derek Balsam 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: If the phrase "dwarf planet" contains the word "planet", then what makes the term not a planet?? Any clarification on terminology?? Georgia guy 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being too literal about it.  The IAU says those terms are what they are.  Planets and Dwarf planets are two different things. Kind of like "holes" and "black holes". Derek Balsam 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The IAU discussed calling "planets" instead "classical planets", meaning both types would be "planets", but that language was voted down. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet/Dwarf planet 

message: Article needs to be moved to 2003 UB313!! "Xena" is just a nickname for now.--Sonjaaa 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be at 2003 UB313.  Whatever is decided on, please settle on something.  I've been trying to fix double redirects only to find myself having to start over again before I can even finish.  Unless you're going to move it back to 2003 UB313 where it started and belongs, please discuss a move like that here first.  --Aranae 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This object will never, never, be named "Xena".--JyriL talk 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: can an admin please move it to 2003 UB313

message: What is the most correct pronunciation? Is it "two thousand and three, yoo bee, three one three" or "... three hundred and thirteen" or ?--Sonjaaa 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard both, as well as "yoo bee three-thirteen."  I think Brown used three-one-three in an interview I heard, if that's of any help. The Tom 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an IPA pronunciation of Eris, the now official name, would ease some confusion.  69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pronunciation??

message: Is the mass really unknown? It is easy to calculate the mass from the distance to the sattelite and from the period of the satellite's orbit.--Nixer 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculation would be easy, but we don't know the orbit of the satellite...--JyriL talk 14:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to require more accurate measurement of the orbital inclination, especially for such a distant object.  69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass 

message: Note 8 currently links to Mike Brown's page. The note is attached to an old quote of his. However, the quoted bit has now been deleted from the page. I think it'd be nicer to change note 8 into a  template, with a proper access date. --Kjoonlee 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done for note 8. --Kjoonlee 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing sites, changing cites 

message: It's orbit is almost completely void of other objects, unlike Pluto.  I wonder if the IAU has to eat some crow... 70.177.71.206 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these underestimates for Pluto and Xena due to our limited knowledge of what's in the Kuiper Belt and beyond?  I suspect we have a reasonable idea of what massive objects are in the vicinity of Ceres, but we are still determining what's in the vicinity of Pluto and Xena.  --Aranae 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You may have missed my point.  I agree that there are many objects within Pluto's orbit.  What I'm saying is that many of these objects were discovered very recently and there are likely to be more on the way.  We know even less about what's going on way out at Xena.  The region around Ceres, on the other hand is much better mapped.  I'm curious if these values are likely to decrease much (separating Pluto and Xena even further from the 8 planets) or if the values will stay roughly the same even with more objects discovered?  --Aranae 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing the Neighborhood