Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)

Parts subject to change: "Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), officially designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt." - As the Dwarf Planet category may well have further bodies added to it, the assertation that it is "smallest" and "only one in the asteroid belt" may change over the next few months. Check these are still correct after any additions to the group.

Archives

Origin up to August 2006 Previous naming polls September 2006 October 2006

An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

1 Ceres

I've changed this section into a hopefully more accurate section: The Minor Planet Center has nothing to do with the 1 Ceres or (1) Ceres name, because it came into use before the Minor Planet Center existed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Possiblility of a sub-surface Water Ice Ocean

Some scientists are at least speculating that this raises the possibility of a subsurface liquid water-ocean. Sean7phil 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That what raises the possibility? —Tamfang 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Discovery: Fact checking

The Discovery section reads, in part:

By early February Ceres was lost as it receded behind the Sun.

I'm removing this wording on the grounds of error. (See older similar edit at Talk:Least Squares.) Modern astronomy software confirms that on 10 Feb 1801 Ceres was still more than 90 degrees away from the sun, therefore not behind the Sun, and not even lost in the Sun's glare. (Jean Meeus, in Mathematical Astronomy Morsels, p. 300, agrees.) Conjunction with the Sun did not occur until July 1801. A much more likely guess is that Ceres, which had dropped from magnitude 7.9 to 8.5 and was also lower in the western sky each evening by the end of twilight, became too dim to be seen, but the date at which this happened depends on the aperture of Piazzi's telescope. Perhaps also Ceres became lost in the star fields between the Pleiades and Hyades. My own experience is that Ceres is difficult to track with 80mm binoculars in the best of conditions, so I favor the dimness explanation. I suggest someone find Piazzi's notebook and see what he said.

Note also the earlier assertion that Piazzi's observations were interrupted by illness. I'm not in a position to confirm this, but it would seem to contradict the deleted wording. JEBrown87544 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I have archived material from October 2006. RandomCritic 12:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the diameter of Ceres?

It doesn't say what the diameter of Ceres is, or is it unknown so far? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceboy222 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

It's given, but Ceres is a bit elipsoid, so it's given as "Dimensions": 975×909 km Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The given source in fact does not say anything about the body's dimentions.--Planemo 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does − left column of the first page (page number 224), about 2/3 of the way down:

We find that the shape of Ceres is rotationally symmetric to the limit of measurement accuracy (Fig. 2a, b), and is well described by an oblate spheroid of axes a = 487.3 ± 1.8 km and b = 454.7 ± 1.6 km (1σ).

Deuar 15:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese

So, I checked the Portuguese version of this article, and if I must say, this one is already better. Unfortunately, the Portuguese Wikipedia isn't known for its outstanding quality... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willie the Walrein (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Portuguese

So, I checked the Portuguese version of this article, and if I must say, this one is already better. Unfortunately, the Portuguese Wikipedia isn't known for its outstanding quality... Willie the Walrein-^{talk to me} 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on this issue at Talk:Pluto Bluap 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maximum magnitude

There seems to be an error in the table of oppositions. The closest opposition to Earth (on 31 January 2018) is shown as having magnitude 8.8 - which is the faintest of all the bodies.

Also, though their mean opposition magnitude is dimmer than Ceres, 2 Pallas[1] and 7 Iris[2] can reach higher maximum opposition magnitudes because of their orbital eccentricity.

• A suggestion is to draw the orbits of
  • Ceres
  • 2 Pallas and
  • 7 Iris

on the same map to show the difference in mean and maximum opposition magnitudes due to Ceres' low eccentricity

Luokehao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Move to "Ceres"?

Surely the overwhelmingly predominant referent of the word "Ceres" is the planet, not the mythological figure. I think Ceres (dwarf planet) should be moved to just Ceres, after moving what's currently at Ceres to Ceres (disambiguation). --Trovatore 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that. Deuar 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than just discussing it here. We'd have to revisit the dwarf planet naming discussion, which was a long, drawn-out affair. Also, to be fair, the editors at the Ceres mythology page should have a say as well, given that the current setup (disambig page at Ceres) is a compromise between the mythology and astronomy camps. (Not to say it can't be done, but just that everyone should be aware of what is involved.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. We'll almost certainly have to do it in 2015 when Dawn arrives, unless something unexpected comes up before then, but it wouldn't hurt to move it now IMO. Bryan Derksen 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion is still open (nothing seems to have changed anyway) then I'd disagree. My interest is astronomy, but I'm interested in mythology as well. The current set-up, "Ceres" leading to a disambiguation page, and both articles sub-titled, seems a good compromise. That way no-one need be put out by what would look like a take-over bid. And I wouldn't be too sure that " the overwhelmingly predominant referent of the word "Ceres" is the planet, not the mythological figure"; Ceres (mythology) may be a minor deity, but then Ceres (dwarf planet) is a minor planet. Moonraker12 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz, Moonraker12, and Bluap. I see no reason to move at this time. Perhaps in 2015 we can do a temporary move, "if needed". And I am one that truly thinks historically snowball Pluto got too much attention and that objects like Ceres and Vesta received too little attention. Go Dawn!  :-) Kheider 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'm one of the few people that thinks we should colonize Ceres before Mars, assuming it has all the water we think it does and that there are no unwelcome surprises when Dawn arrives. We'll have some better observations of the planet before 2015 so maybe we'll find out a few more interesting things about it before Dawn arrives too. Then we can move the page. Mithridates 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Some empirical notes on the proposed move: Google seems to indicate that the Internet has a lot more links to the Wikipedia page for the dwarf planet than to either the Ceres (mythology) or Ceres disambig pages. Google also shows a lot more popular results for discussion of the dwarf planet when you search for just "Ceres" (though a lot of random things with "Ceres" as an acronym also show up). I'd say the evidence definitely shows that most users would be looking for info on the dwarf planet, and so the proposed move of this article to the simple title "Ceres" would be well-justified. This justification is also bound to become ever stronger as Dawn and other closer investigations raise attention on the dwarf planet. (As noted for example in Entering Space by Robert Zubrin, a crewed mission to one of the asteroids would be a lot cheaper than one to Mars - though the latter is a better prospect for settlement.) I say we proceed with a formal discussion of the move. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If it were just about the dwarf planet, then perhaps a formal discussion might be in order. However, we're talking about reopening a long and complicated discussion about naming conventions for dwarf planets and revisiting an informal compromise established between the astronomy and mythology camps (both of whom would like Ceres). That certainly doesn't mean we'll never revisit the issue - but there's no convincing rationale for doing so at this time. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Temperature

Did anyone else notice that the temperature is negative kelvin? How does that work? Anooneemiss 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not negative (-). It's 'approximately' (~). In some fonts those symbols look similar. Derek Balsam^(talk) 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Move

WP:DAB comes to mind. When someone says "Ceres" is one term meant much more than any other? I think it's hard to say, so we'll stick with the current setting of keeping Ceres as a dab page. So, there's three principles that should be applied (in order) according to WP:DAB:

1. Another name, or more complete name that is equally clear.
2. disambiguating Parenthetical phrase
3. Adjective

Right now, we're going with 2, when we should probably go with 1. Shouldn't we move to "1 Ceres" (which is currently a redirect to here). Any objections? McKay 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This page was originally at 1 Ceres. After a huge amount of discussion on how to name the various dwarf planet pages, it was decided to move this page to Ceres (dwarf planet). What about the current name do you find bad? Personally, I would much rather not re-open the whole can of worms. Bluap 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, the only complaint I have is that it doesn't meet the guidelines found at WP:DAB. I remember the discussion over at Pluto, and the guideline here is that topics should be labeled under what they're most frequently known by (Pluto, and Ceres respectively), unless there's a conflict (which both have, with Ceres (mythology), and Pluto (Disney) respectively, as well as numerous others). Which is where WP:DAB comes into play. When there's a conflict, first we determine if one term is meant much more than any other. Which probably isn't the case for anything with the name "Ceres" but probably does mean the dwarf planet in the case of Pluto. So pluto gets the primary page, and ceres becomes a dab page. Then Dab tells guides us to first, try another or more complete name that is equally clear (1 Ceres), and if that doesn't work (for whatever reason), then use something in parenthesis (like Ceres (dwarf planet)). So, in order to follow the guidelines, we should move to 1 Ceres, but WP:CONSENSUS overrides that guideline, so if I can get a link to the discussion that decided that it should be here, that should clear up most issues. McKay 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall where the page is (I'll try to dig it up) but it concerned naming dwarf planet articles in general. The consensus, after a series of long and bitter discussions, was to place dwarf planets at "X (dwarf planet)", with the exception of Pluto. (Hence Eris (dwarf planet), Ceres (dwarf planet), and the redirect at Pluto (dwarf planet).) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

kepler discovery link

WP:EL:

• Accessable? Probably
• Relevant? Sure
• Funcitonal? yes, yes.

Should be linked list?

• Official Ceres site? No
• Copy of the work? No
• Cannot be integrated due to excessive detail? Well, it can't be integrated because it might be considered a how-to guide? It is excessive detail. Let's put this as a "maybe"?
• meaningful, relevant content that can't be included? Again "maybe"

To be considered?

• Review? No
• Very Large Page? Not a problem
• Long list of links? Also not a problem
• Unreliable citing reliable? Not really.

Should be avoided? Some might have a problem with #5.

So, having perused all of this information, I think I'd go with keep.

Any other comments? McKay 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Life on Ceres?

Here's an interesting read on the possibility of life forming on Ceres:

• Moomaw, Bruce (July 02, 2007). "Ceres as an Abode of Life". Space Blogger. Retrieved 2007-07-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

— RJH (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"recovery"

It seems that the word "recover" is being used in a technical sense in this article. (To recover Ceres, Carl Friedrich Gauss ... developed a method of orbit determination ... unambiguously confirmed the recovery of Ceres.) Can someone familiar with the term clarify the exact meaning or connotation? Tesseran 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Recovery in this context means to find once again in the sky. To keep track of which 'star' is actually Ceres, and to be able to find it again each night. --Patteroast 01:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

big astroid belt object

i thought that ceres was always classed as the biggest of the astroid belt objects? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.77.234 (talk)

The article does saqy it has about 1/3 of the mass of the asteroid belt...

Visible

Is this true?

'At its brightest it is just barely too dim to be seen with the naked eye.'

Maybe I am just being fussy, but I thought with exceptional eyesight under extremely good conditions, it could barely be seen. My eyes are not good enough anymore to test it, but it would be good to know for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.121.19 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a better chance of seeing Uranus or Vesta than you do of seeing Ceres. Under an ancient dark sky it was possible for someone with unusually good eyesight to track Uranus as it slowly drifted from magnitude 5.5 to 5.9, yet there is no record of it. Ceres (being at best magnitude 6.7) is still 3x fainter than than Uranus or Vesta at their brightest. "Math: (5th root of 100)^(6.7-5.5)" Can Ceres be spotted when shining at magnitude 6.7 by someone with great eyesight standing on a 10,000ft mountain that knows exactly where to look? Maybe. Kheider 18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

Why is this Dwarf Planet out of all the Planets and Dwarf Planets in the Solar System the only one without the Feature Article tag?