Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 1

message: A more recent study led by Peter Thomas of Cornell University, suggests that Ceres has a differentiated interior: observations coupled with computer models suggest the presence of a rocky core overlain with an icy mantle. This mantle of thickness from 120 to 60 km could contain 200 million cubic kilometers of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth[6] [10].
200 Million cubic km of water in Ceres mantle? This has to be an error. This would be a cube some 5.84 million km per side!
:Actually only 584 km per side. Deuar 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After trawling through the published stuff and getting advice from Myles Standish, one of the researchers, the page has been revised to the current best estimate of about 4.75×1010 Solar masses. The uncertainty here is of the order of a couple of percent, mostly due to differences in the assumptions used by people, rather than measurement error which is much smaller. Deuar 11:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How did you get that? Mind you, I get 2.12 g/cm3 using the geometric average diameter of 950 km. Deuar 11:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're out by a factor of four - it's pi times radius (not diameter) squared Deuar 15:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Characteristics 

message: Ixion is listed as being larger than Ceres, however at the Ixion page its stats put it at a smaller 822km.  Ixion is removed from the list as being a "larger" object than the 975km Ceres.
:Ixion was believed to be larger than Ceres at the time of its discovery. It was later shown to be smaller, because it is much more reflective than originally thought.--Jyril 10:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ixion 

message: Can somebody find & include the term Piazzi used to describe Ceres? Herschel's "asteroid" only gained currency because he was better known; science (& we!) should use the term the discoverer preferred, N?  Trekphiler 13:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He called it a planet, although he at first announced it as a comet until he had better data on its orbit. It was Herschel that decided it was too small to be a proper planet, but 'planet' it was called for decades. Almanacs listed 11 planets in the mid 19th century (Neptune had not yet been discovered). kwami 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Herschel 

message: Needs some expansion on the discovery, and its former status as a planet... The fact that it's visible to the naked eye seems like it only had bad luck not being picked as a classical planet.
:From the article: "under exceptional viewing conditions a very sharp-sighted person may be able to see the asteroid with the naked eye". It is much too dim to track over time with the naked eye. Jonathunder 04:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this just opened up again. We should definitely discuss it's revocation and possible imminent readmission into the ranks of the planets... and the other astroids with planetary symbols should also get mentions about their former planethood. 132.205.93.195 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet

message: I propose changing the article title to "Ceres (asteroid)" instead of "1 Ceres"
I believe "Ceres" is the name under which it is commonly known, rather than "1 Ceres", which to me and I suppose many non-astronomers is somewhat puzzling (I first thought it was a typo). I notice that in Encylcopedia Britannica, it is listed simply under "Ceres", and the two google searches below show that asteroid Ceres is listed as "1 Ceres" in only about 15% of the articles. 
*"1 Ceres" asteroid:  35k google hits
*"Ceres" asteroid : 227k hits
Of course, in the lead of the article introduction, both names should be mentioned.
Jens Nielsen 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this applies to every other asteroid article on Wikipedia, so a lot of work would be involved. 1 Ceres is its official name, which is why it is used as the article title, even though it's normally called Ceres in practice. It might be simpler to just explain the meaning of the '1' in the introductory paragraph. The Singing Badger 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the full official designation is (1) Ceres, but dropping the parentheses is often done for named asteroids. Urhixidur 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If we remove the "1" from in front of Ceres' name, then where do we stop? After the "big four" (Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Hygiea)? after the first ten? hundred? only for asteroids bigger than 100km radius? for all named asteroids? None of these are satisfactory, and most are tedious to implement. With the asteroid number as part of the title it's at least consistent. I think the present solution of having a redirect from Ceres (asteroid) is a good solution, no need for further change. Deuar 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Let's just keep the name as it is.--Jyril 15:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yup.  —Tamfang 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear from the lead sentence that "1 Ceres" is what most of us commonly just refer to as Ceres. I'll make that clear. Jens Nielsen 11:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't it be dropped for all asteroids with planetary symbols? I wonder how screwed up astrology will get after this. 132.205.93.195 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title: "Ceres" or "1 Ceres"? 

message: Someone left the page history stranded at Ceres (asteroid). They should be merged if possible, otherwise I think this page should be copied there, then deleted here, and then that page should be moved here before much other editing is done. kwami 09:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed this. To whomever moved the page in the first place, please use the Move function instead of just copying and pasting the cotnents of the page. Jude (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page history stranded 

message: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_IAU_Draft_Definition_Of_Planets_And_Plutons_999.html
Get ready for Planet Ceres!!! Hopquick 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very interesting, and would require major changes to this article and a number of planet-related templates, but people reading this article should be very clear that this proposed definition is just that, a PROPOSED definition.  It has not been approved yet.  Ceres is not yet considered a planet, and for now, at least until the 24th, it remains just the largest asteroid.  As I mention below, I think it is only prudent to discuss possible changes, and as in the edit I made a few minutes ago, mention that change is in status is possible soon, but we shouldn't make this change yet to the main article.  We definitely need to wait until this is approved.  Let's not jump the gun...  --Volcanopele 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VINDICATION 

message: The proposed defintion for a planet currently under consideration by the IAU would mean that Ceres would be reclassified as a planet.  While this proposal has not been officially accepted, I think it is only prudent to suggest changes here on the talk page for when and if this definition is accepted.  See  for more information on this definition.  here is my suggested edit for the lead paragraph:
*Ceres (seer'-eez (key), IPA /ˈsiriz/, Latin: Cerēs) is the fifth planet from the sun and is the smallest body categorized as a planet.  It was discovered on January 1, 1801, by Giuseppe Piazzi, who named the new world after the Roman Goddess of growing plants.  With a diameter of about 950 km, Ceres is the largest and most massive body in the Asteroid Belt; it contains approximately a third of the belt's total mass.  Ceres has undergone a number of classification changes.  Following its discovery it was considered a new planet, but after a number of other worlds were discovered in the asteroid belt in the 1840s, it was reclassified as an asteroid or "minor planet".  In 2006, a new definition for planet upgraded Ceres once again to the status of planet.
:Above comment posted by --Volcanopele 05:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this day would never come! Hopquick 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didnt think they would consider Ceres as a planet, but lets see what happends imi2 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is reclassified, shall it and Charon (moon) take the real names, and the dieties currently in those spots, Charon and Ceres, be renamed to Charon (diety) and Ceres (diety) respectively like the rest of the planets? --Kitch 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Ceres Article 

message: If the draft is passed, Ceres will be a planet, not a pluton. The term "Pluton" refers to objects in the Kuiper Belt. "Pluton: A planet orbiting beyond Neptune, taking more than 200 Earth years to circle the Sun. So far, it would include Pluto; Pluto's former moon, Charon; and "Xena" (2003 UB313)."An unofficial term, Dwarf planet, could be used to describe Ceres and refers to any planet smaller than Mercury.  Eccentricned 11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Pluto won't be a classical planet anymore:"The IAU draft resolution recognises eight "classical" planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - three "plutons" - Pluto, Charon and UB313 - and the asteroid Ceres."  Also, "Dwarf Planets" is not an official term but is defined as "smaller than mercury"(as seen from the list of new definitions I referenced above). The only official term to be added is "Plutons" which that list doesn't even mention. Where are you quoting the list from, it doesn't resemble any of the articles I've read today? Eccentricned 14:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misreading of the article. Hopquick 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between Mercury and Ceres.  Look above for the links to the articles.  Hopquick 14:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me there's far more commonality between the terrestrial planets and all the other bodies everybody's arguing about; as you say Mercury and Ceres are quite similar, or certainly more similar than Mercury and Jupiter. The "odd guys out" are the gas giants, if anything. I think the only way to make sensible classifications is to consider "planet" as very broad, as with the term "animal". Then we'd have gas planets (several categories thereof, perhaps) and solid ("terrestrial") planets which might then be subcategorised as rocky or icy. There's no really rational way to create a class of objects that includes Jupiter and Mercury but that excludes Pluto or Ceres. It's much like trying to create a special category in biology called "important animals" and then cherry-picking statistics to try to include lions and exclude hyenas or whatnot- "Must wheigh more than x kilos when mature"/"must be one of the top 5 predators in its niche or one of the top 5 herbivores"/and so on. IMHO :) 82.71.30.178 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Where's that quote from? super maximum, super, etc? Zzzzzzzzzzz 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Pluton, a "Dwarf planet." 

message: Currently there is a sentence in the first paragraph as follows:  "Ceres name derives from Roman goddess named Ceres, depending on context."  Can anyone explain what this means?  Usually a phrase like "depending on context" accompanies at least two choices, not just one.  This looks like the result of an incomplete edit, where someone removed some words from the sentence but did not pay close enough attention to what remained.  I looked at the section of the article entitled "Name" to try to find out what the two (or more) alternate meanings of "Ceres" (if any) might be, but it is not clear.  I notice that the proposed rewrite of the lead (above) would remove this issue.  Obviously this article is going to be attracting greater attention in the coming weeks and months as Ceres gets "promoted", so it would be a good idea to clean this up now.  6SJ7 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence in intro

message: Mmm... there has been some debate over this, but the article still doesn't explain to a lay person like me why the title is 1 Ceres and not just Ceres. That should be covered in this article, and I think even in the lead section.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was about to propose that the title be changed.  I'm assuming that the "1" has to do with the asteroid listings.  Assuming that the proposal passes, Ceres will no longer be an asteroid, and would, I assume, lose the "1".  The page here should then, IMHO, be renamed to reflect it's new status.  I would suggest Ceres (planet) as a simple, straightforward new name for the page.  This is totally assuming that the proposal passes on the 24th.  If it fails, any discussion of renaming the page is totally moot. - TexasAndroid 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It certainly won't lose its numbering even if it becomes a planet.--JyriL talk 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may not lose it's number, but would it still make sense to refer to it with it's asteroid numbering, when it's been upgraded in classification to a dwarf planet?  - TexasAndroid 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If and when it is classified as a dwarf planet, I would agree that the article would be changed to Ceres or Ceres (planet).  However, we definitely should mention in the naming section (maybe even in the lead paragraph) that this object was previously refered to as 1 Ceres since a lot of print and even internet sources will still be refering to it as such.  --Volcanopele 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  No renaming of articles until things are official, in a little over a week.  Just trying to get a little ahead of the game, assuming that the proposal passes, and see if a new article name can be agreed upon ahead of time. - TexasAndroid 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if Ceres becomes planet, I don't see any reason not to change the article title to Ceres. Mercury is the only obvious example where disambiguation is justified.--JyriL talk 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I added an explanation of the number in the first paragraph. The Singing Badger 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have supported removing it from the lead paragraph, but it is certainly a lot better than it was.  The previous wording on why there is a 1 (and why there aren't parentheses or some such) was very distracting a derailed the lead paragraph by dealing the unnecessary details that belong more in the Name section.  The current wording is far more concise.  Thanks The Singing Badger. --Volcanopele 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title 

message: What's with the 1 and is it part of its name?--Sonjaaa 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All asteroids are given a number as well as a name, and the formal title for the asteroid uses both. See Asteroid#Naming asteroids. Bryan 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea. 2006 redefinition of planet may have some information about it in its references, but I wouldn't be surprised if the matter simply hasn't been decided yet. Bryan 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amalthea (moon) was formerly called Jupiter V, according to order of disovery, though it's lower than any of the Big Four.  —Tamfang 02:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceres or 1 Ceres?

message: I guess if they add three new worlds to our list of planets, we will be able to officially refer to them as the World Charon, the World UB 313 - and the "World Ceres." Roger 01:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Why are there 4 symbols? Can we have a paragraph or section that explains which on is the most often used or most official?--Sonjaaa 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of planet signs are "official". In the case of Ceres, the sign (every version) fall out of use after it was no longer considered as a planet.--JyriL talk 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the symbol thingy

message: Could we promote the model of Ceres :Image:1 ceres hst 2005.jpg from halfway down the page to the infobox, and demote :Image:Ceres Hubble sing.jpg from the infobox to halfway down the page?  Other articles on heavenly bodies (see Mars, for example) use composite images in their infoboxes. --M@rēino 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. The current infobox image is the best "real" image of the object that exist (I don't know if there's better images by the Keck telescopes, but in any case they wouldn't be in public domain). The model is a sphere mapped with a crude Ceres map and is not a bit more informative. The model also gives unrealistically "clean" view of the object. In reality, it is most likely more rugged (c.f. Saturn's icy satellites like Tethys, which is slightly larger than Ceres). We have to wait several years until Dawn gets there and gets better images.--JyriL talk 18:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: In the article, Ceres is described as a spheroid with dimensions 975 * 909 km, and also as oblong. I suppose this means the axes are 975 km, 909 km and 909 km, making the volume 4.22*10^17 km^3 and the density 2.25 g/cm^3 using the mass 9.5*10^20 kg. Or are the axes 975, 975 and 909, making the volume 4.52 and the density 2.10, in better agreement with the value 2.08 given in the article, but making the spheroid flat rather than oblong (if I, a non-native speaker, understand these words correctly)? I have NOT checked the references, but does anyone know, or can you explain the discrepancy between my calculated density, 2.25, and the given one, 2.08?--Niels Ø 12:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say oblong, are you referring to while lightcurve analysis of 10 Hygiea indicates it is oblong?  That means 10 Hygiea is oblong, not Ceres. HenryFlower 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Errh - hum - yes, I do. Sorry. Also, the flat shape seems more probable to me due to centrifugal forces. But I think the article (as well as a table in Definition of planet) could be clearer here - could one e.g. write 9752×909 km instead of 975×909 km, or would that confuse more than it helps?--Niels Ø 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: Dumb question, If Ceres is so near Earth why are the pictures so poor? LCpl 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's small. And because no spacecraft have visited it. The Singing Badger 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I have a user subpage that is identical to this article but I'm using it to change the article for saying that it's an astroid to a planet.  So when the IAU does decide that it's a planet it can be quickly updated. So please make changes to it.--Scott3 20:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is just beginning I'm still working on it--Scott3 (talk • contribs •  count) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just in case this does become a planet 

message: The article lists "siːriz" as the pronunciation of "Ceres", however, I don't think this is even close to the actual pronunciation.  The article has "Cerēs" listed as the Latin, and this is the only way I have ever heard the name pronounced, therefore, I think the IPA should be changed to sɛəriːz.
--Veratien 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: siːriz (roughly "SEE-reez" in English, like "series") is the correct pronunciation. The stress is on the first syllable, and both vowels are IPA "i". The Latin "Cerēs" is also correct; the macron on the second ē indicates vowel length, not stress. Derek Balsam 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I've never heard a pronunciation similar to series (sɪəriːz), only "sehriez" (sɛriːz), which is Cerēs, no?  Incidentally, I made a slight mistake above; should have put sɛr instead of sɛər. --Veratien 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The derived terms from Cerēs in Modern English, in particular cereal and Cerium, show the iː pronunciation, from the Modern English reflex of classical Latin short e due to the Great Vowel Shift. Derek Balsam 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, sorry...  Great Vowel Shift?  I thought the Latin vowels were ah, air, or, ee, and oo respectively? :/ --Veratien 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Latin simple vowels were a, e, i, o, u, (and y in inherited words) in long and short quantities. But that has nothing to do with how this article's subject is pronounced, other than as a historical note.  This entry is in the English Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia. English underwent a Great Vowel Shift which changed many of the vowels inherited from earlier languages.  The word for the asteroid is English, not Latin, anymore. By the way, the Romans pronounced it "kereːs", anyway Derek Balsam 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, where abouts are you from?  I live in London, and have only ever heard sehriez and serez as pronunciations of this name. --Veratien 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in the US, but this does not appear to be a case of differing US-UK pronunciation. Random House,  Merriam-Webster and Britannica Online all give the only pronunciation as "SEE-reez". I agree, if you can produce a citation for a pronunciation of "SEH-reez", then by all means add it to the article as an alternate pronunciation.  But your original claim above that "siːriz" was not "even close to the actual pronunciation" is simply wrong, as evidenced by the dictionaries. At the very least "siːriz" is a correct pronunciation and must remain. By the way, I don't disagree that you may have heard people pronouncing it as you say.Derek Balsam 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for ceres and "SAIR-eez" comes up with nine results, including one from sierracollege.edu, however they all have "DYE-moss" for "Deimos", which I know is incorrect.  I've been speaking to some of my mythology-crazed friends, and they have all come up with either sɛriːz or sɛrɛz, but I can't find either on the internet.  SEE-reez seems to be the most common. --Veratien 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't find it in OED 2nd Ed., and I can't find the online version.  I cede on this one, then.  Must make sure I get the proof first before making a fool of myself. ;) --Veratien 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the OED, in any version. My bad. I must've used Usonian dictionaries for this one. But in any case, both fully Anglicised and semi-Latinate pronunciations are quite common for astronomical bodies, and none of the variants are official. Not even the Galileian satelites have stable pronunciations among astronomers: Io is commonly found as both eye'-oh and ee'-oh, for example. kwami 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: For: 2
* --TheFEARgod 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the Minor Planet Center  as of today, this body has the following names:  (1) Ceres, A899 OF, and 1943 XB. The number is a valid part of its designation.Derek Balsam 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it can be, but you can also not add it, that is why there is the parentisis. Besides there are no Minor Planets - that doesnt exist any longer.--Pedro 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're jumping the gun by saying that "Minor Planets" do not exist any more.  The Minor Planet Center has not changed its name.  Be patient.Derek Balsam 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, nothing changes that fast :P--Pedro 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ceres' status has been updated, and the number and name designation (1 Ceres) counts only for asteroids.--TheFEARgod 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Until the IAU has figured out how to name dwarf planets, Ceres remains "1 Ceres", with the minor planet number.--JyriL talk 22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Based on four days of discussion here, I conclude that this article will not be moved for the moment.  If the IAU decides that being a dwarf planet removes Ceres from the list of asteroids, that is the time for the proposed move to take place. Michaelbusch 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of proposed move

message: The article fails GA criteria because it is not stable. Obviously that can't be helped as circumstances have changed greatly in recent days and it is a current event, but it means it can't be a GA for the moment. Additionally there are a couple of  in the article. Alexj2002 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: By the way, a quick search turned up nothing to show why the alternate designations "A899 OF" and "1943 XB" exist and what they mean.  Is the first a catalog number?  Is the second a relic of a "new" discovery that was officially acknowledged and later recognized as an error?  —Tamfang 09:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternate designations