Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Eris (dwarf planet) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Eris (dwarf planet) is part of the Dwarf planets series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Eris (dwarf planet) at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.


Naming conventions[edit]

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)

Horizons Craft Finds Pluto is Larger Than Eris[edit]

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)

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)

Note c[edit]

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)

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)

Artists impressions[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Blue? That's odd; we've known what colour Pluto is for years. Serendipodous 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Cos it's cold, obviously. Btljs (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE there is currently an RfC open at WT:AST concerning artistic impressions that may impact this article, and supercede this discussion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Eris (dwarf planet)Eris
ErisEris (disambiguation)

– The most common name is Eris. People are most likely to look for the dwarf planet, not the goddess, therefore the current Eris page should be moved to Eris (disambiguation) and this page be moved to Eris. DN-boards1 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose the planet had 40867 views in June while the goddess had 16875. 2.4 fold difference in views doesn't seem to me to be big enough to justify calling the planet the primary topic. Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment When one does a Google Search of Eris, far more results pop up for the dwarf planet than the goddess. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • When one does a Google Search of galaxy, far more results pop up for phones than astronomy. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, please do not use the fallacious Google argument. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, due to the long-term significance of the Greek goddess, an individual with a significant role in the Trojan War, one of the most significant cultural legends in Western, and indeed world, history. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment. Those results are biased due to press coverage received during the first 2 weeks of July. One day saw 54k hits alone. If you click on the 90 days option on stats.grok you'll see just how skewed the distribution is. When you take away that data, the traffic isn't too different, averaging about 400 more daily hits for the planet. I'm not sure if that is information enough to assert that it is the primary topic, especially from such recent data. If you look back a year from now the difference is much less, due to the Taylor Swift effect. See Wikipedia:Article traffic jumps and this for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Any way you slice it, the planet (sorry, IAU) gets more views. There is no upside to inconveniencing readers looking for the planet. It is not going to help anyone find the goddess article. That article keeps the parenthetical either way. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support, I think I'd go with this on subject matter - a dwarf planet vs a minor Greek Goddess. I don't really oppose the existing but if it were up to me alone...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a minor planet and a minor god, each with about as much interest to their various constitutents as the other. I concur with the other opposition above, and see no reason to move the disambig page. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current disambig page lists the goddess and the dwarf planet at the top. I don't think that's an undue burden for readers looking for either. It also exposes readers to other uses of Eris (e.g. fictional planet) that might be of interest.--Nowa (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and am surprised that the goddess isn't the primary. Eris is a major figure in the discordian tradition. Randy Kryn 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, would support the goddess as literally the "primary", because all others seem derived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, In fact the goddess should probably be the primary topic, per the long term significance clause of WP:Primarytopic. Paul August 18:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Agree with the goddess as primary, maybe after this closes we can discuss that idea. It's correct that the minor planet was named after Eris, the goddess representation, a solid argument for the goddess being primary topic. Randy Kryn 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Side note: Sorry, you are wrong about "solid argument", this is Wikipedia, and if a singer names himself after a composer, and the singer gets more hits, the composer is no longer the primary topic, - don't count on logic here, we go by consensus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    But the case you cite above has them both listed in a disamb page, just like Eris. So the logic and consensus seem to coincide. So, yes I Oppose: placing either as the primary (over the other) is inappropriate given long term trends versus current popularity. Btljs (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Comment, the goddess is not the primary topic here, regardless of the fact that the dwarf planet was named after it. Otherwise all the planets should not be the primary topic, but their namesakes instead. And just because the dwarf planet has not been known for a very long time (well, ~10 years) compared to the goddess, doesn't give the goddess "long-term significance". Instead, what long-term significance means is whether the significance endures. For example, if there were a probe arriving at the dwarf planet, then coverage would spike, but this does not mean its long-term significance has changed (it could, of course, but one can only tell after the fad has died down). --JorisvS (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    The comment - all correct - illustrates perfectly that to say "primary" for what comes first in a search is a strange usage of "primary". My usual example: a hymn vs. Bach cantata on the hymn, - many more "hits" for the cantata, but at least Classical music has the hymn primary, the derived work with a disambiguation, example Wachet auf vs. Wachet auf, BWV 140, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: no case has been made that this article is so much more popular than any other than it is worthwhile to disrupt the status quo. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Keeping at Eris (dwarf planet) makes perfect sense to me. But the goddess is certainly not the primary topic. The dwarf planet is much closer to primary than the goddess. If at some point in the future the celestial body gets visited to increase it's popularity then I would only change the disambiguation page and redirect "Eris" to point at "Eris (dwarf planet)." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Albedo and absolute magnitude[edit]

We list the albedo as 0.96+0.09
−0.04
. 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 −1.2±0.3, 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)

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)
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)

DEFAULTSORT[edit]

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. “{{DEFAULTSORT:Sedna}}”. Okay? Shall I do the same for other dwarf planets?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cryovolcanism[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Chart awful[edit]

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)

Exploration[edit]

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)

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)
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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Orbit[edit]

Is there some reason why this article doesn't include a diagram for the orbit of Eris? I was looking for one and that's why I came here originally. I eventually found it in Wikimedia commons

Eris Orbit

Can we add this to the article? I'd just "be bold" and add it, but I can't understand why it isn't there already and don't want to edit war. Robert Walker (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a WEBM file I made, using Space Engine.
Dwarf planet Eris solar orbit
Zeryphex (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Fiction[edit]

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)

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)