Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Separated at birth?

I know the suggestion that Pluto was named after a cartoon is a joke, but I just looked it up, and Pluto the ex-planet was discovered in 1930, and the cartoon dog was created in 1930 as well. I don't know their exact birthdays, but they could be twins. However, they were not named after each other, they were named after George Foreman, I mean they were both named after the Greek god of the underworld, and also after Percival Lowell. That is, it was not allowed to name the planet after a person, but the name Pluto was chosen partly because the first two letters are Lowell's initials. Presumably, the dog was only named after the god, not after Percival LowellWood Monkey 09:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs) I just looked it up some more, in the Wikipedia article about Pluto the dog, and turns out it's not definitely known where the dog's name came from, but the former planet was discovered before the character was created, so the dog would have had to be named after the planet, if at all.Wood Monkey 09:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs)

This page is about Eris, not Pluto. Serendi^podous 21:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Eris's rotation synchronous with Dysnomia's orbital period?

I found this 2014 DPS meeting abstract by Rabinowitz and Owainati, who state that Eris and Dysnomia are unambiguously mutually tidally locked to each other, in a way similar to how Pluto and Charon are both tidally locked to each other. Older published sources (which I have already added to the article's infobox) state that Eris has a rotation period around 25 to 28 hours, although Rabinowitz did not mention anything regarding athese older studies. Although there is no full paper about this, should this be included to the article even though the different values contradict each other? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 06:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This really should be on Talk:Dysnomia (moon), but we have a pretty solid source (albeit an old one) for Dysnomia's orbital period, so if you want to counter it with a more up to date source, it should be just as solid. Serendi^podous 21:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

Serendipodous This Featured article was promoted in 2007, and has fallen out of FA standards. There is a good deal of uncited text, unresolved questions on talk, and a MOS review is needed. Unless someone is willing/able to bring this article to standard, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I can fix the citation issues but I don't really know what you mean by unresolved questions. Many of the discussions are years old and were resolved ages ago. Serendi^podous 21:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I didn't check them closely. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: Refs added. Serendi^podous 23:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, Serendipodous. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Most massive"?

The intro says it's the "most massive" dwarf planet. As a layman, I don't understand what that means. It's not the biggest dwarf planet, so what does "most massive" mean? I think the article needs to be clearer for laymen to understand. Grand Dizzy (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Think, "ton of lead vs ton of feathers." Two tons of lead weigh more than one ton of feathers, even though one ton of feathers is bigger. Serendi^podous 21:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Think of 'mass' (the amount of stuff matter has) as 'weight' for argument's sake. Pluto is mostly frozen gases and relatively light, even though its diameter is larger than Eris - Eris's "stuff" is more dense, having a more rocky and metallic makeup. A basketball made of bread is less massive than a baseball made of lead.50.111.25.253 (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It took a couple of minutes to figure that out from the article. The introduction should mention this in the first sentence rather than the last sentence of the paragraph. Maybe: Eris (minor planet designation 136199 Eris) is the most massive (containing most mass)[20] and second-largest known dwarf planet in the Solar System. KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so 'massive' is a technical term pertaining to mass? Most people understand 'massive' to mean big. I would change the word 'massive' to avoid ambiguity. I also think its size should be mentioned first, as that's of more general interest than mass. Thus, I think the article would be improved if the opening sentence said:

"Eris … is the second-largest known dwarf planet in the Solar System (after Pluto), and the largest in mass." Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or make "massive" link to a Wikipedia article which clearly defines the word in this context.Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now made this change and think the intro is a good deal easier to understand, from a layman's point of view.Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As the most massive dwarf planet that fact should be mentioned first. This is just mas vs volume. -- Kheider (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. To me the intro remains confusing. I will leave it for other people to worry about Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Orbit

"Unlike the eight planets, whose orbits all lie roughly in the same plane as the Earth's, Eris's orbit is highly inclined: It is tilted at an angle of about 44 degrees to the ecliptic" Mercury is inclined 7 degrees, double or more the next most inclined planet, so "roughly in the same plane as the Earth's" doesn't go so well with all the 8 planets, the wording should be changed to => "most of the planets" for example. احمد الليبي (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine as-is. 44 is a lot more than 7, which is the point of the sentence. No need to overcomplicate such an introductory-level statement. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Caption

Hi. Maybe someone here can edit the infobox image caption. My edit failed. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You changed the alt text but not the caption. I don't think that's a photo, so I changed both to 'image'. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

3rd symbol

A 3rd astrological symbol for Eris that's really for Proserpina might seem like trivia, but people will see it and not realize the implied claim (of an astrological prediction confirmed by astronomy), and it might be proposed to Unicode as a symbol for Eris (thankfully that didn't happen when the two current symbols were proposed), so IMO it should be checkable here. (And NASA's used the hand-of-Eris symbol, so these aren't just astrology.) — kwami (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I please change the image to something new. In my opinion, it's better than this one. Kortana Jose Matez (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

infobox image

I just reverted an infobox image change because the caption no longer matched the image. The (current) image is a photograph from Hubble, the image I removed is an "artists impression" (i.e., painting). Certainly the requested image is more interesting, the question is whether an artists impression is better suited to an infobox than an actual photograph. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT consensus has long been that we use single (best?) or composite natural-color photos when available for the infobox. Color-enhanced, artificial color (e.g. UV and IR composite) and B&W photos would be second choice. Artistic impressions, if sourced to a RS and not outdated, so they agree as closely as possible to current knowledge, are fine for the text, just not the info box, because they invariably introduce fictitious elements. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwami. Wasn't sure what the policy was, sounds like we are where we need to be. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked at WP astronomy. I'd expect it's spelled out somewhere, but I have no idea where. Could be an informal consensus. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Addressed at WP:ASTROART. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The images in question: File:Eris and dysnomia2.jpg, File:ESO-L. Calçada - Eso1142c (by).jpg