Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 6

message: Kheider added a link claiming Eris "may" be in a 17:5 resonance with Neptune, but in the text we say it's in a free orbit. The site doesn't look particularly reliable to me, so I didn't want to fix the text to match. I'd imagine the JPL folks have figured out whether or not Eris is in resonance by now. kwami (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The possible "17:5 resonance" external link has been in this article since 10 August 2005.  All I did was reword it since it will require more observations to confirm if it exists.  Until we have more than "the appearance of a resonance", I kind of prefer the link in the external links.  Otherwise we have to carefully word it is a possible resonance.  I suspect that they will need several more years of observations to confirm if these resonances exist.  Makemake has an orbit quality of 2 and Eris has an orbit quality of 3.-- Kheider (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A good example of a very poorly know orbit is 2006 QH181 with only 10 observations over 2 oppositions and an orbit quality of 8. -- Kheider (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but if the orbits are not sufficiently secured to determine whether or not they're in resonance, I don't think we should state that they aren't in resonance as we currently do. kwami (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Brown just replied to my e-mail.  The jury is still out, but there is a good chance that Eris and Makemake are in resonance with Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me! Let's put some cautious wording in the text. This is interesting enough not to hide in the footnotes. kwami (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to need better refs though. Serendipodous 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  According to this paper the resonance is 2:7. Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may just be a rounded off number; the difference between 2/7 and 5/17 is 1/119. Serendipodous 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably why nothing's been published yet. A 1:2 resonance is pretty easy to demonstrate, but the higher the integers become, the more tightly they're packed together, and the easier it is to confuse them, or to see a resonance where there is none. kwami (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful!  Having just read Emel’yanenko's 2007 paper "Resonant Motion of Trans-Neptunian Objects in High-Eccentricity Orbits" (subscription required); if I am reading the table correctly, the odds of Eris being in the 7:2 resonance is less than <1%.  (The right most column lists the "probability" that the object is in libration for the tested resonance.  For example many of the objects are 100% 5:2 resonance.) -- Kheider (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  resonance 

message: The human operated and robotically operated observatories make a lot of pictures of the sky. But "first spotted" date is a date when either automatic system make a beep "something to watch on this picture" or human eye make the same discovery. In this case such beep (first automatically, than fast confirmed by human) took place on 5th January 2005. Within short period from this date the earlier image of this object from 1989 was also found. GrzegorzWu (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery date versusu automatically made photo date 

message: Obviously this is not a soapbox but I didnt know where else to ask. If this question could be answered Id be much satisfied.Aquarius2283 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's fairly similar to Pluto, to which we already have a mission on the way, and is three times further away, so any flight to Eris would take ~30 years. Serendipodous 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: See Triton if you want a generic preview of what Pluto and Eris could look like. -- Kheider (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually rocket technolgy and gravity assists have not changed very much in the last 30 years.  For the record, Eris came to aphelion on 1977-Mar-14 around 08UT @ 97.5782AU (using JPL Horizons data from 2009-Nov-04 with 475 observations).  Even Mike Brown thinks money can be better spent than sending a probe to Eris. -- Kheider (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is There a Mission planned to visit Eris? 

message: I've just revised the naming section based on some info I gathered from Govert Schilling's book, "The Search For Planet X". In it, he says that Mike Brown did indeed intend to name Eris "Lila", but changed his story to avoid offending astronomers, who would have been angry at the thought of him releasing the name before it had been accepted by the IAU. Since the book is clearly drawn from interviews with the people involved, I'm pretty sure that Brown himself is the source for this, and, now that it's in print in an internationally available book, the cat, by now, is certainly out of the bag. But I would prefer a comment by Brown himself, as he might not be too happy to see the story plastered all over the internet. Still, if this is true, it means that our previous draft was incorrect, and the truth is the truth. Serendipodous 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I pretty much doubt this story. I cannot imagine Brown would be so selfish to name such an important object after his daughter (well, almost), nor that he would change the name just because he had "released" the name too early. The Haumea dispute shows that he does not shy away from controversies with his colleagues. He never mentions anything like this in his blog either. Is this Govert Schilling a reliable source? And could you provide the relevant text passages from the book that you used as a source?  --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the book at a reference library, so I don't have it to hand, but yes, I could do that. Serendipodous 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lila

message: I wonder when (if at all) Eris will next come closer to the Sun than Pluto. After all, its perihelion is much smaller than Pluto's aphelion. However, at the next time Eris reaches its perihelion (2258), Pluto will be close to its perihelion too (perihelion in 2270), so that it remains closer to the Sun than Eris.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct next time Eris comes to perihelion, Pluto will stay just inside of it.  But in ~800 years (the following cycle), Pluto will not. -- Kheider (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the answer. I'll add this trivium to the article. (Or is it considered OR?) If you could extend your graph to the left to the present, I would like to add it to the article as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is plot #2... -- Kheider (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Eris's closest distance from the Sun is closer than Pluto's farthest distance from the Sun. Ergo, at some point in their orbits they would have to cross paths, as the graph to the side shows they do.Serendipodous 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will Eris be closer than Pluto? 

message: Why is this Infobox layed out inline instead of not layed out with article text along left side? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Page layout 

message: Not that it's really relevant, although Eris is a great name, I think it's moon could have had a better name than Dysnomia. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 14:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah well, maybe you can discover your own moon sometime. Serendipodous 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: In the section "Name" sub-section "Choosing an official name" of the article it mentions "IAU regulations require a name from creation mythology for objects with orbital stability beyond Neptune’s orbit". However on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Small_Body_Nomenclature#Minor_planets it says that these objects are given mythological names associated with the underworld. I checked the URL cited in the article and the part where the "creation mythology" came up was only referring to the naming of a planet proper. Can someone please check the validity of the "creation mythology" reference in this article? 222.153.242.198 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that Plutinos were to be given underworld names and members of the classical Kuiper Belt ("Cubewanos") were to be given creation names. I could be wrong, and even if I'm not I don't think it's been strictly followed. Either way, I don't know where the Scattered Disc falls for naming... --Patteroast (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for trans-neptunian objects 

message: This isn't soapboxing as I'm addressing the article content. Eris was discovered in January 2005, declared the 10th planet and its size - based upon the then-current definition of planet - would bear out that an object larger than Pluto would be justified as being dubbed Planet 10. The IAU didn't come up with its official definition of planet for more than a year. That means for a period of about 18 months Eris fell under the same rule of thumb that resulted in Pluto being declared a planet back in 1930. Therefore, would it not be correct that say that Eris was, for a period of 18 months, the Solar System's 10th known planet? As I say, this isn't soapboxing. But I think if it was declared a planet under the old rule, it qualifies as being described as the former 10th planet in the article just as Pluto qualifies as being described as the former 9th planet... 68.146.81.123 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A loophole

message: We have a great big section called that, good. It's misleadingly titled, though - 95 per cent of it talks about Eris' diameter (which is certainly an interesting subject), while Eris' mass gets one very short mention and Eris' density is not mentioned at all. In fact, Eris' density isn't given or estimated anywhere in the article. Sideways713 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: good point. Added a mention of density. Serendipodous 22:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size, mass and density 

message: Preliminary estimations give a maximum diameter of 2320 km, very close that of Pluto's . The higher mass means the dwarf planet is compositionally very different from Pluto.  — JyriL talk 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Info added. Serendipodous 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this usage should Occultation link to Occultation or to Occultation#Occultations by asteroids? -- Kheider (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless you want to merge asteroid with minor planet, I'd say leave it. Serendipodous 08:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I could change the subsection to "#Occultations by minor planets", but since the section above it is "Occultation by planets", I will leave it for now.-- Kheider (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the links. But the Sky&Tel article seems to have Pluto's size wrong: it has a radius of 1153±10 km, not 1172±10 km, according to our (referenced) Pluto article. So their implication of Eris (claimed there as r≤1170km) being smaller than Pluto seems to be still dubious at present knowledge... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that that the size debate is dubious, but IMHO Eris should no longer be stated as the largest known TNO as if it is an obvious fact. -- Kheider (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still the most massive, whatever its radius. Serendipodous 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eris occults a star, diameter measured

message: This has gone way too far. So far we have a set of extremely preliminary results that haven't even seen the inside of a peer-reviewed journal, giving a diameter for Eris that may or may not be smaller than Pluto, for which we don't have a precise diameter either. Why are we rewriting these articles to suggest that Eris is smaller than Pluto, when we have no confirmed evidence that it is? Serendipodous 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As for "placed an upper limit on Eris's diameter of 2320 km", first, the ref doesn't say that. Second, since you're measuring a cord, don't occultations give lower limits? — kwami (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it. Serendipodous 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you only have one Chord (astronomy), than yes, it would be a lower limit.  But when you have widely separated chords, you are more likely to get a better result (especially when dealing with an assumed sphere).  The Eris occultation produced 3 chords, but 2 of them where from the same location.   So in theory, if the data is good, the results should be decent. -- Kheider (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  For God's sake! 

message: This article claims that Eris is the farthest known object in the Solar System excluding comets. This is in conflict with the article on 90377 Sedna, which claims the same thing. Please amend one or both articles to explain.96.230.207.125 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Sedna article states that it is the furthest object when it's at the far portion of its orbit. But it happens to be at the near portion of its orbit. Even though on average, Sedna is further away, currently Eris is. --Patteroast (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with Another Article

message: The lead says, "It is estimated to be approximately 2300–2400 km in diameter", while the infobox first lists a radius estimate of 1300. Well, 2 × 1300 = 2600. Shouldn't the estimate in the lead be 2300–2600 km? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Spitzer estimate should probably be removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter 

message: CalRis (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a bunch! Added! :) Serendipodous 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bunch of other similar abstracts at the same place, for other presentations at that conference. E.g., one mentions Quaoar having a long chord (1100 or so) and appearing elongated, like Haumea. Tbayboy (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you link to those? I don't have a logon ID to get in. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall how I first found them, which was a short list of the TNO ones. However, go to , click on one of the groups on the left side of the main column (under "Program Groups"), e.g., "Small bodies", then click either "oral progam" or "poster program", and that takes you to a list of the talks for that group that day. Each of the talks has a little pdf abstract (as above). The one on Quaoar is . A bunch on Vesta are at . Tbayboy (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius of Eris 

message: Added a proposed symbol: . Not the only one, but the most common, and several bodies have multiple symbols. Delete though if you think it's premature. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to have been a recent short-lived edit war over this, chiefly over the lack of sourcing.  Perhaps insertion of the symbol could be given proper context with help from the information referenced in Hand of Eris—or maybe a passing reference to that article could be made in the body text, rather than putting the (completely unofficial) symbol into the data box.  Any thoughts? Majestic-chimp (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That page doesn't give a proper reference for it, either. The image file doesn't give any real source for the image, neither for origin of the symbol itself nor for its proposal as the symbol of the dwarf planet. Who is using it as a symbol for the DP, and in which sources? I doubt it's being used in any astronomical sources, but astrological might be good enough. There should also be some kind of wide-spread consensus about it (i.e., across different factions). Tbayboy (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I picked the most common symbol, but no longer remember how I determined that. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The most substantial discussion appears to be in <http://discord-society.livejournal.com/121192.html>, so at the very least, there is basis for it being proposed by a group of Discordians.  Whether that's sufficient to mention it in the article may still be up for debate.  Thoughts?  Majestic-chimp (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See, e.g., http://www.zanestein.com/Trans-pluto.htm. There are several proposed symbols. A proposal by itself is meaningless, since anybody can propose it, and there is no official body to accept it (astronomers gave up on all but a few symbols long ago). Until there's some consensus amongst people who actually use a symbol for DP Eris (only astrologers?), I think it's premature to favour one here. Tbayboy (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: If the radius is 1163 km, then the surface area should be approximately 17 million square km, not 78.5 million. I was puzzled as to how Eris could have a diameter smaller than our moon, yet a surface area twice as big - unless it's not a sphere and has a highly irregular shape.
:Yes, 17 million is right, assuming sphericity. It looks like it used an older value of the diameter (2500), not the new radius. Tbayboy (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the old surface area number used a radius of 2500km. -- Kheider (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface area.  

message: CalRis (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox currently specifies an epoch of 2006-Mar-06 for all orbital parameters. Using JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System at that epoch Eris had a heliocentric orbital period of 2.033184877971827E+05 days (or 556.6 years). I personally prefer a barycentric solution of 558.4 years that is more stable over varying epochs. None of the above is wrong. Orbits are constantly perturbed and that is why accurate simulations require integrating the equations of motion. -- Kheider (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital period 

message: How about Pluto?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.11.53 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris is 27% more massive than Pluto. Serendipodous 21:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "136199 Eris, is the most massive known dwarf planet" 

message: 2.91.115.68 posted this comment on 19 November 2013 (view all feedback).
the tempricher and atmolthfear
Has there been research and a conclusion of the temperature and atmosphere?
NolanCRules (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris doesn't have an atmosphere right now, although it may in the future as it approaches the Sun. As far as temperature goes, that's pretty straightforward, and is mentioned in the "Surface and atmosphere" section. Serendipodous 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: the tempricher and atmolthfear 

message: Which variety of English are we supposed to be in here? --John (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it would appear to have been written originally in American English and then to have evolved to use a mixture of the two. Per WP:RETAIN I have moved all spellings to American ones. --John (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engvar 

message: We say TNOs are named after creation deities.  AFAIK, that is only true for classical KBOs.  Is there a convention for SDOs?  — kwami (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: On July 13, 2015, NASA announced, Pluto to be 1,473 miles (2,370 kilometers) in diameter. This is larger than previous estimates. Pluto is larger than all other known solar system objects beyond the orbit of Neptune, including Eris, which whose diameter is currently considered to be 2,326 km ± 12., nasa.gov,  JM (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With the errors bars on both (20 and 12), it's still possible that Eris is larger. Unlikely, but it's not certain yet. In a day or three, the errors on Pluto should shrink enough to put it out of Eris's max reasonable size (3-sigma). Tbayboy (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizons Craft Finds Pluto is Larger Than Eris 

message: I removed the first sentence of Note C ("Eris is more massive than Pluto even though Pluto has a larger diameter.") as redundant, but it was re-added. Is this sentence necessary when we say pretty much the same thing ("Eris is 27% more massive than dwarf planet Pluto, though Pluto is slightly larger by volume.") very shortly after in the main text?--Trystan (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is a current event, Yes. As a regular editor of this article, I can assure you that many readers do not know the difference between volume and mass. -- Kheider (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note c 

message: Do we really need 2 artists impressions? If we've learned anything from the Pluto flyby is that we have no idea what a planet looks like until we actually go look at it.  One artist impression would be OK since they are popular, but I think two is misleading.--Nowa (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, happy to get rid of one, but which? There are actually three as we have a size comparison chart and the silhouetted one with Dysnomia. I'd recommend getting rid of the first one as it has no size comparison. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the last one with the fake backlighting and the fuzzy sun.  That seemed the most misleading.--Nowa (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need any? Not that long ago, artist impressions of the Venusian surface showed forests of exotic trees -- and this in planetariums. Artist impressions were used because nothing really was known. But now that we know what dozens of bodies look like, it's no longer necessary to invent crap to fill in our ignorance. If people want an idea of what Eris might look like, they can compare actual photos of Triton, Pluto and Charon.  — kwami (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If we leave one it implies that we have a good reason for believing it to be more accurate. I think computer generated images are even more misleading; I had no real idea that we knew so little about what Pluto looked like because I'd seen lots of (usually blue) high res photo-realistic images. Btljs (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue? That's odd; we've known what colour Pluto is for years. Serendipodous 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, somehow even though we've known that Pluto is red for a long time, artist's impressions generally depicted it blue! --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cos it's cold, obviously. Btljs (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Artists impressions

message: We list the albedo as . This is technically properly sourced. However, they do not give the absolute magnitude they've used, so that readers cannot check that their calculation is accurate. Our listed absolute magnitude is , whose uncertainty is not in the cited source. These values are not consistent with the listed radius. --JorisvS (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Plugging in the numbers, I get H=-1.17 from diameter=2326 and albedo=0.96. Also, albedo=0.986 from diameter=2326 and H=-1.2. So the numbers aren't too bad (not like Makemake). The H that Sicardy used seems to come from one of the references, the main occultation results they submitted to Nature but had not yet published at the time of the here-cited conference abstract. I couldn't find it in a quick google search, so maybe it was never published. Tbayboy (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response. Given that the uncertainty in the cited absolute magnitude is unsourced and that the calculated absolute magnitude is consistent with the cited value, we should simply use the calculated value, including uncertainty. --JorisvS (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albedo and absolute magnitude 

message: For Eris, I made it so that the article would be alphabetized as simply "Eris" (no DEFAULTSORT necessary). I did the equivalent for Sedna, Varda, Orcus, and Quaoar. (E.g. “”. Okay? Shall I do the same for other dwarf planets?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFAULTSORT 

message: Have there been any reports discussing this? I've done a little research of the photographs taken of this planet and noticed at least two of them show prominent "bulges" on them. If they were additional moons, then their effects on Dysnomia's orbit would have made them obvious, so it is clear that can't be the case. Others have suggested they could instead of eruptions taken at the time (which would help explain Eris's high albedo). Here are said images: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZY-sFkUEAA3Iu9.png
 Shall we mention this in any capacity in the article? 134340Goat (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryovolcanism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120225015100/http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/Sedna2076.txt to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/Sedna2076.txt
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051108052322/http://www.slackerastronomy.org:80/wordpress/index.php/archive/10th-planet/ to http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/index.php/archive/10th-planet/#comments
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The chart is awful. If sent the data or the formula — I suspect not quite sinusoidal — I could make better. 
• X axis in years, starting at 1800. 
• Y axis in A.U, starting at 25 A.U.
• No grey background, and gridlines much much lighter. 
• Smoothed lines, rather than heavy markers. 
• Perhaps some vertical small text at appropriate years: “Neptune discovered 1846”, “Pluto discovered 1930”, “Eris discovered 2005”. 
JDAWiseman (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart awful 

message: I believe any more edit/undo repetitions would constitute an edit war, so to prevent that, let's talk about it here. I was told to present a source. It's sort of difficult to find a source where absolutely no astronomer, not even Brown or Trujilio, the dwarf planet's discoverers, has expressed any interest in sending a probe its way. Aside from that, there's no public interest. Ask an average person what Pluto is, you might get a planet debate. Ask what Eris is, you'll get a "Huh?" It's simply too open but factual to deny. 107.77.225.124 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a research journal. Therefore every fact must be confirmed by a source. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point. No source exists because there's no interest. Get what I mean? That is noteworthy enough. 107.77.225.124 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323180835/http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/asteroids/sizemagnitude.html to http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/asteroids/sizemagnitude.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205035336/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/08700/08747.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could someone please add more articles to :Category:Eris (dwarf planet) in fiction? Said category currently has only one article in it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For something discovered in 2005 (so only a dozen years ago), with this little known about it, and with the not-so-glamorous classification of "dwarf planet", I would be very surprised if there were enough notable works set there to add "more articles" to that category. Double sharp (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716035615/http://forum.wgbh.org/content/forum/3710-2007_04_11.mp3 to http://forum.wgbh.org/content/forum/3710-2007_04_11.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104194022/http://www.iau.org/iau0605_Eris.409.0.html to http://www.iau.org/iau0605_Eris.409.0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/615UmlUZa?url=http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html to http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The dwarf planet Eris is thought to have a rulership over Aquarius. Eris was discovered in 2003 and already being larger than Pluto, some astrologers began to view Eris as an important celestial object or "planet" in astrology. Eris might co-rule all air signs including Gemini and Libra. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eris' rulership over Aquarius debated