Talk:Haumea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Language.

Can someone please check if this article is in correct English, because my (the creator of the article) first language is not English.

References.

• Michael E. Brown
• Keck laser guide star adaptive optics discovery and characterization of a large Kuiper belt object satellite (PDF)
• IAA-OSN Información Pública
• Near infrared spectra from Mauna Kea of the new brightest Kuiper belt object
• Photometric observations of a very bright TNO with an extraordinary lightcurve.

₆₁ characters ?

What are the last two characters of "2003 EL₆₁", as it appears in the article title. I'm concerned that someone has been very clever and found a couple of characters that look like a little 6 and 1, but are infact weird things from some turkic language or soemthing. The reason this can be a problem is that it confuses screen-readers no end, and entirely flumoxes google. Perhaps this article should just be called 2003 EL61. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

These are the actual unicode values for subscript 6 and 1. However, for me only the 1 displays. I think it should probably be moved back. Morwen - Talk 16:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#Subs/Supers and the samples at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#Subs/Supers. I was also involved in a discussion about this a while ago (which I cannot find right now — it was about {{sub}} IIRC), where it ended up finding out (from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong):

• It depends on the font, browser and operating system
• 1-3, 4 and 5-9 tended to act differently (either by having different appearances or some groups not showing at all)
• 1-3 are mostly safe
• <sub> always works, so it's better to keep using it

--cesarb 17:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Found it: [1]. --cesarb 17:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Finlay. Subscripts in the title are a nice try, but it doesn't really work - they were illegible on the main page just now. My browser is managing to render them but at normal font sizes they are too small to read. Few people are going to go to the trouble of getting the link right, so it might as well be at 2003 EL61. -- Solipsist 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. They're illegibly too small, and sometimes they appear just squares. Not much useful.--Jyril 21:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

For those of you who just see little squares, what do you get if you use a browser and fonts that support unicode? And more importantly, why the heck are you still in the computing dark ages?! Nicholas

Well, Unicode subscripts and superscripts... Clever little things, but they are rendered too small in Firefox, and aren't rendered at all in MSIE; while MSIE is perhaps not a top-of-the-line browser, it doesn't exactly belong to dark age. It also seems that Firefox can't find those characters in a page if one just types "61"; maybe this is by design, but it is not very convenient. It appears someone went through Category:Trans-Neptunian objects today and changed all back to , which is just as well, I think. The time has not come yet... GregorB 21:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:2003 UB313 for a draft policy regarding proper rendering of asteroid name notation.

Urhixidur 03:04, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

10th Planet?

I realise this is why people are interested in this discovery, but is it a safe claim. A couple of other articles I looked at appear to avoid making the claim that it is a 10th planet. The latest news is that it is ~70% of the size of Pluto and my impression was that current astronomical thinking was that Pluto shouldn't really be classed as a planet, but it is too late to try and revise general public opinion. -- Solipsist 18:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not larger than Pluto, but another body announced today (July 29th) designated as 2003 UB313 is.--Jyril 20:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Type / Subtype of TNO

Not a plutino, eh? According to Ortiz' and other sites e.g. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O36.html this orbit has a= roughly 43 so it is not a "plutino" since these will have a= roughly 39. I did see one post on MPML list suggesting it was in a different resonance with Neptune besides the 2:3 which Pluto & plutinos have.

I've made the change, after waiting a few days for someone else to weigh in or make it.

Yet another giant KBO

Looks like there are third huge Kuiper belt object discovery announcement today. The discovery MPEC [2] gives 2005 FY₉ an absolute magnitude of 0.1. 2003 EL₆₁'s magnitude is 0.4, so this one may be be larger than 2003 EL₆₁ unless it is more light-colored.--Jyril 22:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Is there some reason these are all coming today? :-) Evercat 13:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually yes. After the Spanish team managed to announce the discovery of 2003 EL₆₁ first the Brown team decided to publish their announcements now. Also, because the observation logs are available on the Internet so there were a possibility that someone could use them to claim the discovery. --Jyril 13:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Moon's name?

Dactyl's designation is S/1993 (243) 1, meaning first (1) satellite (S) found around (243) in (1993). So 2003 EL₆₁'s moon should be...S/2005 (2003 EL₆₁) 1? Urhixidur 03:02, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has yet acquired that designation. It is not mentioned on the MPC's astronomical headlines page. IAU Circular #8577 may mention it, but we non-subscribers can't read it. (Interestingly, the page has a lapsus: Satellite of the large transneptunian minor planet 2003 UB₃₁₃ IAUC 8577 (2005 July 29).) --Jyril 13:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Text of IAUC 8577. Urhixidur 03:53, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Controvery

Should there be something about the thwarted controversy on who discovered the planet? see last paragraph in [3]

---

Given the contenuous nature of his discovery controversy, and the fact that I just edited the text on it because felt it provided a suggestively worded highly pro-Brown biased account, I suggest this page being flagged as "controversial/content disputed"

LaMa 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've calculated some of the missing data

I've calculated the object's density, surface gravity and escape velocity from its mass and diameter, using the formulae at User:Pt/Formulae. — Pt _(T) 13:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The name of the moon

In this edit, 63.193.153.109 (talk · contribs) changed the name of the moon from "Little Helper" to "Rudolph". As 63.193.153.109 seems like a knowledgeable fellow, I've not reverted this. Was the moon originally called Little Helper? Is it now called Rudolph? Was it changed, and if so why? (I guess Santa's Little Helper is trademarked) ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'd even linked to here through a disambiguation page at Little Helper... I'd like to know so that that page can be accurate too - JVG 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Discovery controversy, no more... (YES MORE)

According to this article Español birla planeta a través de Google (Spanish Spaniard (–kwami) steals planet through Google, in Spanish) at the Deutsche Welle, the Germany's international broadcaster; Jose-Luis Ortiz recognized he found out all about the planet investigation details on the Internet, and that Brown and his team are the legitimate discoverers of the whole thing. So, no more controversy any longer dudes. [anon]

Here's the gist of the article, in case it goes off line:

Finalmente Ortiz reconoció ante el diario Los Angeles Times que bajó la información referente al planeta un día antes de darlo a conocer. Brown exigió posteriormente que se le niegue el descubrimiento a Ortiz y su grupo de investigadores. Ortiz defendió su accionar recalcando, "si alguien utiliza Google para buscar información al alcance de todos y Google lo lleva a páginas de Internet oficiales, ello es legítimo".

El Dr. Ortiz reconoció finalmente que Brown y su equipo fueron los primeros en descubrir el planeta, por lo que la disputa no pasó a mayores.

Which in my broken Spanish comes out to,

Ultimately Ortiz admitted to the LA Times newspaper that he downloaded the information referring to the planet one day before he made it known. Brown demanded afterwards that Ortiz and his team disown the discovery. Ortiz defended his motives, stressing, "if someone uses Google to search for information accessible to everyone, and Google takes it from authorized internet pages, that's legitimate."

In the end, in order to avoid escalating the dispute, Dr Ortiz acknowledged that Brown and his team were the first to discover the planet.

kwami 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I AM AFRAID THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JOURNAL IS WRONG. Ortiz, us all the astronomers, recognized that the first that observed 2003 EL61 were Brown et al., but they didn't follow the proper report procedure to the MPCs.

note: the above comment seems to be made by someone from within the Spanish team. If in fact Brown et al observed this object first, then Brown et al should be the rightful discoveres. Now, in regards to 'not following proper procedure': clearly, if an abstract had been made, then Brown et al were preparing for an announcement...in other words, they WERE following proper procedures. Spying on others in order to pre-emptively go public with a competing claim is NOT following proper procedure.Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Ortiz in the Minor Planet Mailing list forum (the only public version of Ortiz) they noticed that Brown et al. observed the same object they discovered by accesing the PUBLIC information on the web, BUT they didn't used it for its own discovery or orbit determination. In this case Ortiz et al. followed the correct procedures, reported the observations of 2003 EL61 to the MPCs, and computed, using old public images, the orbit of the TNO. Noticed that Ortiz et al. DIDN'T accesed Brown images (as wrongly stated in several journals), they only accesed the log of their observations were the pointing position of the telescope (not the astrometric position of the object, needed to compute an orbit) is written.

But this is science, and the important thing is not to be the first in observing something, is to be the first in make public the discovery. So the discoverers are Ortiz et al. who did all in the correct way.

Aside from your poor English, such a claim is fallacious. Naming rights is EGO, not science. Neither did Ortiz et al do things the correct way, so by your logic they should not be the discoveres. It's like a 'false start' in track and field. Leaving the starting gate too soon doesn't make you the champ, it makes you disqualified.Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Brown claim that Ortiz should mention that it is the same object they already know, but how to make public something the wanted to keep secret?

Obviously they weren't going to keep it secret much longer if they had an abstract online!Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The report of minor planet discoveries is thru the Minor Planet Center, and that is the way we all proceed. No matter how many articles in the USA press appear, this dispute is a scientific dispute and journals are not the place to solve this matters.

If I steal money from someone's house and get to the teller first, the fact that the bank is a legal place doesn't make me the owner of the money. If I take someone else's check and forge a signature, and the bank cashes it, that is still fraud.Ryoung122 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So the article is incorrect, and the discovery of 2003 EL61 is wrongly attributed to Brown et al., should be attributed to Ortiz et al.

The article never says that Ortiz downloaded any images.

Does Ortiz still claim the discovery? 66.27.205.12 12:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But this is science, and the important thing is not to be the first in observing something, is to be the first in make public the discovery. So the discoverers are Ortiz et al. who did all in the correct way.

If they discovered the object independently, they had all rights for the discovery (Brown acknowledged this at first). But it proved not to be the case, as they started to search the object after its existence was hinted in the Brown group's abstract and found it using their observation logs. If they didn't claim the discovery, I think this is much ado of nothing (however, it would have been kind to inform Brown et al.; pre-publication secrecy is practically the norm in science, minor body astronomy is unusual in this). On the other hand, if they did, that would be scientfically unethical. When they published the object, why didn't they mention how they actually discovered it?--Jyril 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"But it proved not to be the case, as they started to search the object after its existence was hinted in the Brown group's abstract and found it using their observation logs" ---> Please, none of this is substantiated in any way!

Please note that there are protocols about who gets discovery credit for minor solar system bodies. Its who follows those protocols, which counts. Ortiz et al did, Brown et al. did not. Also note that simultanious discovery happens very oftten in his field of science. Both groups were deliberately searching for TNO's, not unlikely at all then that you bummp into the same objects.

The MPC Discovery circumstances page currently gives formal discovery credit to Ortiz et al and hence they should be mentioned as the discoverers, as the MPC is authoritive in this. LaMa 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ortiz et al should be ashamed....rushing to publish data taken others in order to claim 'discovery' just isn't right.Ryoung122 09:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

second satellite

Sturmde, can you copy the relevant specs here (distance, period, eccentricity, magnitude, etc.), for those of us who don't have a Harvard account? Thanks, kwami 09:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

See Mike Brown's 2003 EL₆₁ page and discovery paper. Some values: a = 39300 km, p = 34.1 days, satellite fractional brightness 1.5 ± 0.5% of the primary.--Jyril 12:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A negative of the image published in the EL61 pdf looks decent and shows both satellites. I don't know about licencing, though. Are public images available?

File:EL61 and satellites.jpg

(Satellites are at 12 and 5 o'clock.) kwami 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Table of sattelites

Should we place here the table of sattelites just like in the Pluto's natural satellites article and articles about other planets?--Nixer 11:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Concrete way to visualize the speed of rotation...

I am curious, if 2003 EL61 were hollow, how much Artificial gravity would one experience in the extreme points of the planetary body? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Artist's impressions of the moons

Where do these two 'artists impressions' come from? They seem designed to look like blurry telescopic photographs, which I find somewhat misleading since the shapes of the moons are completely unknown. Who is the artist? And what are his/her qualifications? The Singing Badger 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The images are from the bigger one in the infobox. I don't know why Acom likes to upload such images.--JyriL ^talk 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the original source link shown on the image description page indicates that they are from NASA's Hubble site. The illustrator being A. Feild of STScI; so I'd expect their credentials are pretty good. However the original illustration was intended just to show the relative sizes of known Kuiper Belt objects. Whether it makes any sense to separate them and show them out of context is another matter. -- Solipsist 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the way artist's paintings seem to have been processed to look grainy and out-of-focus. I think it makes them look misleadingly like photographs, which the original images do not. Does anyone agree? The Singing Badger 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It's better to remove them.--Nixer 06:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. They don't have any informative content.--JyriL ^talk 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet number

2003 EL₆₁'s minor planet number is 136108.[4]--JyriL ^talk 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to (136108) 2003 EL61, as per naming of other unnamed objects with minor planet numbers Richard B 00:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Move

I wonder whether this renaming adds any readability for the wider public. I believe we could wait for the name to add the number. My concerns:

• Unlike 2000 Varuna for example, making the difference between a god and a TNO, the number adds no value for the provisional designation
• There are tons of links in TNO articles; not only creating redirection and fixing the links represents an effort but forces future editors to look-up these numbers any time they link!

I believe that simple politeness would require such massive moves to be first announced and discussed on talk pages (or Project talk pages). Regards Eurocommuter 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just consistency with other unnamed TNOs which have received numbers. I've not moved 2003 UB313, or Pluto as both are dwarf planets, and maybe we want to treat them differently - but until the IAU decides on 2003 EL61, and 2005 FY9 - these two objects are just large un-named numbered minor planets. I didn't think their moving would be controversial - and I was just following WP:BOLD. There are about 50 pages total to correct if we want to avoid redirects (for correcting both 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 links). Richard B 08:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It’s ok; I do not know whether the move proves controversial after all, I simply gave my personal opinion to find out what other editors think. The necessity to look up the numbers (while linking) in the future edits is (from my experience) a bit of a pain. Sorry for my a bit too strong comment. Eurocommuter 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose future edits don't need to include the number if they don't want to as long as the redirect stands. Writing 2003 EL₆₁ would probably be better for many purposes than dropping in nightmarish stuff like (136108) 2003 EL₆₁ in the middle of a sentence. Deuar 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's likely that 2003 EL₆₁ and 2005 FY₉ will become dwarf planets; we could move them back if that happens.--JyriL ^talk 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Name speculation

The announcement circular[5] mentions "two other new potential dwarf-planet candidates". It is now confirmed (if anyone doubted) that 2003 EL₆₁ is one of them and 2005 FY9 is the other. Eris is a deity from Greco-Roman mythology and not an underworld nor a creation deity, it is likely that these objects will be named in a similar fashion. In addition, the name was accepted only nine days after it was submitted, so it is highly possible that these objects receive permanent names soon (not to mention that they may be classified as dwarf planets). Obviously 2003 EL₆₁ is not round, but it still is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the prime criterion.--JyriL ^talk 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not in hydrostatic equilibrium.--Nixer 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nixer is mistaken. The shape of EL61, derived assuming hydrostatisticy, gives the observed lightcurve amplitude. EL61 is in hydrostatic equilibrium.Michaelbusch 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

From Mike Brown's webpage:

When will 2003 EL61 get a real name like Eris and Sedna and Quaoar?

We don't know. We submitted a name to the International Astronomical Union in mid September 2006 for 2003 EL61 and both of its satellites. The name were based in Hawaiian mythology to pay homage to the place where the satellites were discovered.

Since it seems that Ortiz et al. are still considered as the discoverers by the IAU, I wonder how the naming will proceed.--JyriL ^talk 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing. If they're sticking with the Kuiper belt = creation deities pattern, that might suggest Kāne. And then Kanaloa and Haumea for the moons? The Tom 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the naming is not urgent since it remains still unnamed in the latest batch of new names. Maybe they're going to promote it and 2005 FY9 to dwarf planets before announcing the names. All the currently recognized dwarf planets are named after Greco-Roman deities, so perhaps the naming committee is not sure if 2003 EL₆₁ should be named accordingly...--JyriL ^talk 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think most are expecting Sedna and Quaoar to get promoted, too, though, and they're non-Greco-Roman. I agree with Deuar that the Ortiz thing is probably a factor, and the IAU would presumably be wary of getting into a repeat situation of the US-Russian pissing matches that used to be a big issue with naming new heavy elements. That said, there's no controversy over 2005 FY₉, and it remains similarly stalled. The Tom 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect the "discovery controversy", and resulting uncertainty over who gets to name it, may be a factor in the holdup. Deuar 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that we not debate this further here. Mike isn't talking, the IAU isn't talking, so anything on the subject is original research. Michaelbusch 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it even up for promotion (lol it's kinda like a office)?, whether it does or doesnt have hydrostatic equilibrium is irrelevent to the fact that it cannot hold a spherical shape. at least I thought it was... this is confusing.Arkkeeper (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Spherical shape" is just a dumbed-down substitute for "hydrostatic equilibrium". Usually it doesn't make much difference which term is used, but here and w Vesta it can be a source of confusion. kwami (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

THX for clearing that up. Arkkeeper (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure.

Jyril, you said above that "It is now confirmed (if anyone doubted) that 2003 EL61 is one of [the dwarf-planet candidates] and 2005 FY9 is the other." Do you have a reference for that? kwami (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Controversy Weirdness

I am reading this page and notice that the discovery controversy issue seems awfully like the one that Mike Brown says happened with Eris, apparently involving the same players and specifics. Here is a ref to Mike's page. Can anyone help clarify?

87.65.138.154 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Eric Francis, Brussels, Belgium

To wit:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

According to our web server logs, these observing logs were accessed on July 26, 2005 by a computer at the Instituto de Astrofisica in Spain. Less than two days after this computer accessed the observing logs, the same computer was used to send email officially claiming the discovery by P. Santos-Sanz and J.-L. Ortiz at the Instituto de Astrofisica (see detailed timeline here http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz).

At the time of the announcement we truly believed that they had no prior knowledge that we had been observing the object, and we truly believed that they had not used our data to make the announcement of the discovery, but other people found the coincidence suspicious. Shortly after their announcement, however, we realized that all of our observing records -- including those about what is now known as 2003 UB313, the tenth planet -- were unexpectedly public, and made the decision to prematurely announce the discovery of 2003 UB313 that same afternoon by a press conference. We were unhappy about having to forgo normal scientific protocol and announce the discovery with no corresponding scientific paper, but under the circumstances we felt we had no choice.

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

The text from Brown's website describes the circumstances surrounding the discovery of 2003 EL61 in order to explain why the discovery of 2003 UB313 (now known as Eris) was announced earlier than the Caltech group would have liked. 213.211.211.217 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Collisional Family

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070314_kuiper_family.html

Article published in the March 15th edition of the journal Nature states that 2003 EL61 has been found to be the parent body of the first collisional family discovered with its origins in the Kuiper belt.

Would anyone feel that this is important to add to this article? I think it is very interesting. Eaglesight 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is both important and interesting, and it has already been added to the article. The collisional family could be described in more detail, though.--JyriL ^talk 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Added core stuff. The idea appears less straightforward than it seems but Brown explains away major difficulties. Publications by competition to follow with interest...Eurocommuter 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Animation

Is this animation of any value? I can speed it up if desired, the speed is set by my existing codes, which were written for asteroid animations. WilyD 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations are always welcome. It's so slow that I didn't realize it was an animation until I read that it was. On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing to make it slow - especially if the other animated orbits are proportional. That would give a nice comparison to the length of the local year. kwami (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still vexed at the speed of animation issue - asteroids with semi-major axis below ~2 tend to be too jumpy to boot. WilyD 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Officially submitted name

I contacted Michael Brown via e-mail last November and he revealed (though I did not ask him directly) that the names submitted by Caltech for "Santa" and its moons are --REDACTED-- and "her two daughters" though --REDACTED-- had more than two according to the Wikipedia article. Also, Brown describes --REDACTED-- as the goddess of stone; but according to the article, --REDACTED-- was the goddess of --REDACTED--. This is an important discrepancy, because apparently the whole point for choosing this name was because "Santa" has a high density level (i.e lots of rock). But that's what the man said and since he and his group are the one's that found the friggin' thing, I added it to the article. However, clearly something is amiss here. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Two quick thoughts

• One, mentioning these names in personal communications is one thing, but "publicizing" a potential name prior to adoption is very much not kosher per IAU rules. By including the name in the article, or indeed, even on this talk page, HurricaneEric, we actually raise the possibility of that name getting ruled out as a potential option. Obviously, Mike wouldn't intend for that to happen, nor, I'm going to assume, you. :)
• Secondly, in terms of Wikipedia policy on original research, we actually can't include stuff that you collected via email exchange. It needs citation on another verifiable source. Obviously, Brown et al. have done what they can to ensure that that name isn't presently viewable on such a source, for the above reasons. So even if it was ok to publicize the name, we couldn't do it just on the strength of your personal emailings.

(Finally, yes, I know that it's sorta hard to memory-hole this information out of the editing history, but I think that intent matters most in these things.) The Tom (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Brown does not have naming rights for the primary, which was the only name mentioned, isn't this concern irrelevant? kwami (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Brown's still appealing the crediting of Ortiz et. al. as discoverers, as far as I know. The whole metapolitics of science are notoriously slow-moving in that they still haven't conclusively rejected his claim to it, leaving alone the naming issue, which follows from that. The second point stands, mind you. It's unverifiable to include that in Wikipedia's article space without, say, a citation link to Brown's blog where he says "I submitted [insert she-who-must-not-be-named here] to the IAU." Indeed, the fact that he's still explicitly going out of his way to respect the IAU's hush rule as recently as two weeks ago in public contexts suggests to me, anyway, that he still feels that the prospect of getting She-who-must-not-be-named approved as EL61's real moniker hinges on not publicizing it. The Tom (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have one question. If it's that important to keep secret, why whould he trust me with that information? It's not like I'm some highly respected astronomical scientist. I'm just some dude with a curiosity about the subject. If the acceptance of his group's submission hung on keeping it out of the press, I find it hard to believe that he would include it in an e-mail reply to someone he'd never heard of in his entire life. Mike Brown is too smart for that. Based on that, blacking out stuff on a talk page sounds pretty silly to me. The second point is much more reasonable; there may not be a way to source a direct communication and if that's true then I'm SOL as far as the article goes. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, he may be used to using it with his colleagues, and was tired & slipped. It's a reasonable precaution. Meanwhile I've asked him explicitly if it's an issue, and also for the moon names. kwami (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We're all lucky he's such a nice guy. I wonder how many emails on this he gets in a week. Serendi^podous 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard back. That may simply mean that he was out of town or backlogged, but in the absence of confirmation, I say we err on the side of caution. kwami (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So is it a dwarf planet now?

The IAU has classed it as a plutoid, which means it is, by definition a dwarf planet. So should it be classified as such? Serendi^podous 09:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It meets the criteria for plutoid, but hasn't actually been classified as a plutoid. Splitting hairs. I'd be happy classifying it as a DP, but I have a feeling others would object that's OR. kwami (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to have the category Plutoid is so that objects that appear (absolute magnitude<1) to be Dwarf Planets can be named and classified quickly. Otherwise the two categories are basically redundant. -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 2003 EL61 is a dwarf planet "for naming purposes". That's all Makemake is too, but we've moved that to Makemake (dwarf planet). I propose we do the same here: the only difference with 2003 EL61 is the dispute over who discovered it. kwami (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer

I initially speculated that Spitzer was the proposed name of this object in response to the slightly-less-than-an-hour-old edit to this article, but my speculation turned out to be wrong by detail of the meaning of this word. Any opinions on when this body should have a confirmed name?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It will have a name when the IAU decides who gets to name it. The IAU will decide who gets to name it when it decides who discovered it. Since two people lay claim to the object, that will take time. How much time, no one knows. Serendi^podous 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

2003 EL61 is a dwarf planet "for naming purposes". That's all Makemake is too, but we've moved that to Makemake (dwarf planet). I propose we do the same here: the only difference with 2003 EL61 is the dispute over who discovered it, which prevents it from going through the naming process. That has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the object. kwami (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Makemake has been officialy announced as a dwarf planet, whereas 2003 EL61 has not. We have to wait for the IAU to make such a pronouncement before moving the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No original research. We can't decide for ourselves. Peter jackson (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But if it meets the definition, and we're not using the term simply because it hasn't been officially announced, doesn't that mean that "dwarf planet" is a bureaucratic rather than a scientific phrase? kwami (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Far more importantly, adding "(dwarf planet)" to "Makemake" was for purposes of disambiguation vs. "Makemake (mythology)", and as far as I know there IS no goddess named 2003 EL₆₁. DanielCristofani (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know EL₆₁ = אלוא was the Semitic god of numerology? kwami (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your earlier remark. "dwarf planet" is a bureaucratic phrase, not a scientific phrase. So, mutatis mutandis, is "planet": it's been the IAU that decides what is a planet for a long time. The names of these bodies are also bureaucratic, as it's the IAU bureaucracy that names them. Likewise, it's IUPAC that decides whether a new chemical element has been created, & what it should be called. Wikipedia is itself a massive bureaucracy designed to transcribe everything said in "reliable sources". Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Haumea

Mike Brown reports that it has been named Haumea (with moons Hi'iaka and Namaka) at [6]. A commenter links to the USGS list of names at [7] which confirms the names. Shall we start moving pages around? I think making Haumea a dab page is pretty standard at this point, based on Eris and Makemake. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early, If the IAU truly has decided in Brown's favour, I would like a bit more information. This is a lot more contentious than Makemake; what has Ortiz to say about this? It seems they've given the name to Brown but the discovery honour to the Spaniards. This is goign to get complicated. Serendi^podous 17:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

USGS seems pretty reliable, but it's probably worth looking around for some more cites.DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

USGS news post: [8]. IAU announcement: [9]. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice consonance between Namaka and Hi'iaka and Pluto's Nix and Hydra. I wonder if that was intentional. (Probably.) Will make it easier for kids to memorize the names. kwami (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's now officially a dwarf planet, I restored the articles on the individual moons and created a stubby Moons of Haumea article. That could use some expansion, but it's mostly there just to give each DP its due, and as a place for future data. kwami (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a confirmation yet on the Ortiz et al. name proposal other than from here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/20988 , so I don't know if it is valid to include that yet. The Johnston page is not a primary source for that information (says "reportedly")... Iridia (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a cut&paste of the proposal, just not sure if it was the final version. kwami (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see in the archives that someone guessed Ataecina/Ataegina would be chosen. kwami (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all redirects in article space have been cleaned up, and AFAIK "Haumea" is now used in all articles. Whew! kwami (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! :) Iridia (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Ataecina, here[10] is an article (in Spanish) with Ortiz complaining about "Haumea" being chosen for the name. It doesn't quote him, but does say that he had chosen Ataecina. And here[11] is a German article mentioning both names, though I don't know what their sources were. kwami (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And here[12] it is in the words of one of the Spanish team. kwami (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/append7.html#DwarfPlanets --Dojarca (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy! This thing is less qualified to be a dwarf planet than Palin is qualified to be Vice President! Who's running the IAU?! This message powered by 76.118.41.9 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick on a planet? :D /ducks for cover Iridia (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

...Still a planet...BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

citation tags

I wanted to slowly start working on this by placing ref tags where required (for a GA+) but I noticed that the article is now referenced in the mainpage. So I stopped. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the article from the Main Page due to all the [citation needed]s. Hopefully it can get referenced and up to par soon so it can go back on the Main Page asap. - Mark 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

nooo! That wasn't the point! I wanted to work on the article for GA+ so i was labeling stuff for myself and other contributors. ALL the debatable information in the article is referenced. It is just at the level of a B-class article. Please relist it, since I would rather have this on the mainpage that add all the refs right now... Nergaal (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, I have converted the two biggest {{fact}}ed sections to have refimprove tags at the top instead. If you want the specific locations of the fact tags, they are in the page history. I'll restore the item to the MP now, in light of your statement that they were more for your own reminder, than to challenge the validity of the claims made therein. - Mark 05:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The information in the article now is actually reliable. The density of fact tags was meant basically for a future FAC. I was just a bit impacient :). Nergaal (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Haumeaid or haumeaoid?

If plutoids are "dwarf planets" (imagine extra heavy citation marks) i.e. irregular-orbit roundoid super-SSSB (AKA "transbulundum filimanjunks") or whatever, then are this subclass of cubewano TNO:s "haumeaids" or "haumeaoids"? Said: Rursus (☻) 08:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, all dwarf planets beyond Neptune are Plutoids. And your classification would just as easily (perhaps more so) be called "Makemakoids" (Makemakae?) Serendi^podous 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

how?

Its shape is not even near round. How could this fit into IAU criteria? --79.67.205.14 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See hydrostatic equilibrium. Basically, if it has the shape that a water balloon would have if spun at the same rate, then it counts as a dwarf planet. Earth isn't exactly round either. (It's wider at the equator.) kwami (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

dates of discovery?

The USGS gives the announcement dates as the "dates of discovery". Johnston's Archive gives 2005 June 30 for Namaka, but nothing for Hi'iaka. Anyone know? kwami (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider the USGS a prime source on that one, but the original source will be the IAU circular. They match in dates. Iridia (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind. They got that one right. (But Namaka wrong.) kwami (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not as though the IAU circular is available yet to the public, anyway. Iridia (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the text says the discovery of Hiʻiaka was announced on 26 Jan 2005, but that date is 6 months before the announcement of Haumea's discovery. Was Hiʻiaka discovered on 26 Jan 2005 (by Brown?) but announced later or is the date just wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.162.1.41 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Haumea's discovery is listed as Dec 28 2004. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Announcement date??

Hang on, these two quotations are both from the same Discovery controversy para: "José Luis Ortiz Moreno... announced the discovery of the object on July 25, 2005" "Ortiz's group announced their discovery on July 27, 2005..." So on which date did they announce then? Got to be at least a typo here. (btw, I wish you'd use the Day Month Year little-endian standard for dates, like most of the world). Edetic (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Either that, which is at least partially rational, or the more consistent big-endian millennium-century-decade-year-month-day-hour-minute-second convention. kwami (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi'iaka: Okina or apostrophe?

I don't know what the IAU's rules for what constitute allowable characters in names are, so it is not necessarily the case that the dwarf planet moon is spelled in the same way as the goddess Hiʻiaka. Does the official name of Hi'iaka in the IAU circular use an okina or an apostrophe (I can't get at it because I don't have a subscription)? The press release from the IAU doesn't, nor does Mike Brown's website. See also the discussion at Talk:Hi'iaka (moon). Icalanise (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Size and Composition ... clarification?

Under the Size and Composition section, the following line is slightly ambiguous:

"... (compare with Pluto's density of 2.0 g/cm³ and Moon's density of 3.3 g/cm³) ..."

Of particular note is "... and Moon's density ..."

Which moon are we talking about? "THE" moon, as in Earth's moon's desity? Or are we talking about the density a satellite around Pluto? 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Haumea family?

The Collisional family section is pretty bare, and the Haumea family article doesn't seem all that big. I think it should go back here. Serendi^podous 09:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I split it off is that all the other asteroid families have dedicated articles, even though there's not always much to them, nor to the article on the parent body. This article is long enough that it's not unreasonable to start splitting things off. As for the section being bare, it's not really about Haumea. kwami (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that it has a lot to do with Haumea, since all of the members of the family are fragments of Haumea. Serendi^podous 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's related. The same's true of every family. For that matter, you could argue that the large irregular satellites should have sections on their families rather than putting that info in independent articles, but so far that's what we've done with all of them. I don't see how Haumea's any different. kwami (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

discovery?

I'm a bit confused. [13], which bears an IAU logo @ top right, gives date of discovery as 7 Mar 2003, contrary to article box, place of discovery as Sierra Nevada, but no name of discoverer. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Brown believes the 2003 date to be a precovery date: that after Ortiz (at Sierra Nevada) had accessed enough of Brown's data to calculate the body's orbit (they accessed Brown's computer logs for several observations), they went through old images until they found it, and then announced this "discovery" to the IAU two days later. Ortiz claims that they checked had only Brown's logs to see if he was tracking the same object, but they hadn't mentioned this to the IAU, and only admitted it after being shown the internet access records.

Two days after the initial IAU email, Ortiz accessed more of Brown's logs, and then asked another amateur observatory to look for Haumea, which they did; Ortiz then--within an hour--informed the IAU of the new observations and more archival "precoveries". It does seem suspicious that they only found these additional old images after further checking Brown's data, which would have enabled them to more precisely calculate Haumea's orbit. They also weren't able to tell which kind of body it was, and announced it as the tenth planet, which Brown knew it wasn't. kwami (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, 2003 is the date the images were made, not the date that Ortiz discovered Haumea in them. That would have been when his student is said to have shown him the images. kwami (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't help. The article's infobox has changed since I made the remark above. It now gives 2 discovery dates, taking sides in the priority dispute in violation of NPOV, & neither date agrees with the IAU. Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

helpful link?

Is this news item helpful as a reference to this article? Kingturtle (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute some of the claims it made (I doubt that Haumea will be the last dwarf planet, and I think the dispute between Adams and Le Verrier over who discovered Neptune was a bit more contentious than the one between Galileo and Simon Marius) but Marsden's open backing of Brown's claim is important, and should probably be quoted. Serendi^podous 14:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they don't say it will be the last to be named, but that it is the last to be named. That's correct: Haumea is assumed to be a DP for naming purposes, and it was the last such body to be unnamed. There will be no more DPs unless either the naming conventions are changed, more objects with a magnitude less than 1 are discovered, or we vastly improve our imaging capability to verify that Orchus et al are gravitationally relaxed. Since we have a hard time even telling whether Pallas is a DP or not, I doubt the latter will happen any time soon. kwami (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it works quite like that. The reason these bodies were assumed to be DPs was that their brightness implied a minimum diameter of 838 km. Logically, any body whose diameter is confirmed to the IAU's satisfaction to be that much should also be a DP. Peter jackson (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that diameter measurements (based on albedo estimates) are often off by a factor of two. Direct measurements and thermal measurements often give different results. So to be confident that an object is at least 800km in diameter you almost need estimates of a size close to 1500km. See 20000 Varuna and 28978 Ixion as an examples of how estimates can jump from 500 to 1000km. When Ixion was first discovered they thought it was larger than Ceres. Oops. You also want to try and rule out contact binaries. -- Kheider (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

'Becoming a Comet'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6268799.stm This article on the BBC website suggests 2003 EL61 (which it refers to as a dwarf planet, though I don't think that has been made official yet) could become a short period comet when it passes close to Neptune. Is it worth including something about this in the article? PGingell 10:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added it at the end of the article, but if such additions are first supposed to be discussed here, I apologize. I should have checked this page first, perhaps. But anyway...its there...if its not appropriate, feel free to move or remove it. Eendrani 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article is very badly garbled. I checked, and what Mike really said is the following:

• EL61's orbit is slowly evolving to higher eccentricity.
• Sometime in the next few hundred million years, the eccentricity will become so high that EL61 will interact strongly with Neptune.
• The most likely outcome of this interaction is that EL61 will become a scattered disc object.
• EL61 is rock with a thin coating of ice. We infer that it was disrupted by a large collision, which produced a family of small KBOs that are almost pure ice (being the mantle of the pre-EL61). Similar objects will have been produced by other collisions.
• Some of these near-pure ice objects will have become comets, in accordance with observations of comets with very little dust. The minimum timescale for transport onto comet-like orbits is ~2 million years.

EL61 will not become a comet. Little pieces broken off of it maybe. The above may be added to the article if consensus deems it sufficiently interesting and understandable. Michaelbusch 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I support adding this, if properly sourced. Trapolator 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Eendrani 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to locate the original for this article, as the information it provides would be rather important.Serendi^podous 16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should make clear

why Haumea is considered a dwarf planet, even though it is not spherical. I've added a line, but I haven't found a source that explicitly explains this. The IAU press release mentions that Haumea is a dwarf planet, and why Haumea is not spherical, but fails to explain that that is WHY Haumea is a dwarf planet, even though it is not spherical. Serendi^podous 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be nice if this was explained clearly because when I saw the artist's conception image of Haumea this is the first question I had. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I had added something to the intro, but it was reverted as not being 'strong' enough. That editor hasn't responded, so I just put it back in. "Spherical" has nothing to do with being a DP, however, so we don't need a citation for that. We only need something that says it's in hydro eq. kwami (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AFAIK it's only assumed to be ellipsoidal because of its mass. It hasn't actually been shown to be a DP. kwami (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it originally because of how it was written; the newer version avoids the "walking on Haumea" text, and as such is more appropriate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Haumea is certainly not in the hydrostatic equlibrium.--Dojarca (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference? kwami (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but isn't the main cause for the ellipsoid the fact that it spins really fast, and the surface at east is possibly made of light ice? Nergaal (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though any sufficiently fluid material will form an ellipsoid, given a sufficiently strong gravitational field. (Earth is an ellipsoid too, after all, and most if not all rounded tidally locked moons are triaxial.) kwami (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydrostatic equilibrium is spheroid, not ellipsoid. Peter jackson (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Been trying to get to grips with some confusing scholarly papers

I've found something I can't make head or tail of. Basically, what the papers seem to be saying is that Haumea's surface is bright, so it must be young.[14] However, the collision that created Haumea must have occurred at least 1 billion years ago.[15] Volcanism is unlikely to have resurfaced the object [16], so I have no idea how to resolve this. In my attempt to incorporate the info, I made a bit of a mess, now hopefully cleared up. Serendi^podous 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The mystery of the bright surface is due to the problem of "the influence of cosmic radiation that darkens and reddens most icy surfaces on times scales > ~100 Myr" (Rabinowitz et al. paper's abstract). So Haumea, which formed along with the rest of all the outer solar system objects ~4 Gya in the past, should have a dark surface...but it doesn't. The Rabinowitz et al. abstract then goes on to say: " We examine possible resurfacing processes and find none that are plausible." Which means none of the answers that work for other KBOs (eg. Pluto's atmosphere freezes out and then re-vaporises as the distance of Pluto from the Sun changes, so Pluto stays nice and shiny) work for Haumea, and so the research simply hasn't reached consensus on a resurfacing mechanism yet :) Iridia (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This remains an unresolved problem. People seem to think it's old. Mike Brown's group and the Nice guys both do, I'm sure. There was some paper across the arXiv a few months ago that seems to resolve the crystaline ice issue; it's fine for EL61 to be shiney, everything over 500 km or so is, but for the other guys and the moons, it's unexplained. If there's no dirt in them at all, it's fine, but that's crazy talk. WilyD 20:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stansberg et al 2007 has a plot of of albedo vs. size - everything big is shiny. It's just the family that has no business being shiny. WilyD 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

polar axis

Someone added a fact tag to the intro where it says H has a 2:1 eq. to polar axis ratio. I don't know if any of the sources say this explicitly, but it's the only possibility, if H is in fact an ellipsoid: if the long axis were the pole, there would be no fluctuations in brightness, and the median axis cannot be the pole without the rotation being chaotic, which it is not. kwami (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

mythology naming

Regarding the statement: "the object was formally named after a deity related to a creation myth". This probably needs a note. I think this might be explained for Eris&Makemake, since Brown suggested that these should use deity names as the actual Planets do, but the IAu guidelines does not specify anything w/ respect to this. Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a link right in that sentence to the Wikipedia page that discusses and quotes the IAU regulations, and a reference to the IAU regulations themselves. The exact sentence that is being referred to is in one of the bullet points on the IAU page. Cubewanos (ie. Haumea) are named after deities related to creation. I don't see how to make it any more referenced... Iridia (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

designation vs. name

I'd removed "designated" as excess verbage, but Ckatz restored it, explaining that the number is not part of the name. However, according to Minor planet names, it is the name. Could someone who knows the details correct the names article?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and find the NASA/IAU/MPC linkk that explains this... it has been a while since I looked it up during the Pluto/dwarf planet naming debates. Reading through "Minor planet names", the lead section seems to explain the difference fairly well ("number" and "name"), the only confusing part being the title of the article. Perhaps that is where we fix it, through a rename of the article. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor-planet designations would seem the logical choice. "Minor-planet names" (they're not minor names of planets, as we currently have it) would be the place to discuss the mythos that have been used, orthography, etc. kwami (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the uncited paragraph in "Discovery controversy"?

It seems a bit contentious, and looks pretty tough to source. I'm not sure the article actually needs it. Serendi^podous 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, I would rather see it moved to a separate stub article. Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much emphasis should be placed on it or anything, but the discovery contraversy is worthy noting here. For what is almost certainly the most interesting Kuiper belt object, that section is way too prominant - there is an undue emphasis problem. But ~1 paragraph of text is merited, I'd guess. Maybe a separate article for a more extended take, but I'm not sure that's necessary. WilyD 13:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

needs explanation

"the object was formally named after a deity related to a creation myth." none of the refs seemed to suggest that a deity should be used as a name. and the creation myth part? Nergaal (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is "a mythological name associated with creation." It has to be a name, not a word, so there has to be a person involved. I suppose Adam and Eve could be used, so it doesn't necessarily have to be a god. However, I don't think, grammatically, the sentence is incorrect. IAU guidelines specify that it has to be a mythical name associated with creation; EL61 was named after a creator deity, ergo it was within IAU guidelines. Serendi^podous 07:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think right now the sentence implies that the name had to be a creation deity. Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

Is there any reference to the pronunciation? I have the suspicion that in some cases the pronunciation of /eː/ is wrongly displayed as /eɪ/, e.g. in Gegenschein, /ˈgeːgənʃaɪn/ (in an earlier version it had been /ˈgeɪgənʃaɪn/, like "gay-geyn-shine"). This may be due to difficulties for English-speaking people to correctly pronounce an elongated /eː/ like in Beethoven. However, "gegenschein" is a German example, but I have no idea how the correct Hawaiian pronunciation should be. As a German, I would pronounce it /haʊˈmeːə/ or even more likely /haʊˈmeːa/ (with a non-reduced vowel at the end), not /haʊˈmeɪə/, but all these pronunciations may be wrong. Please check this for the above-mentioned difficulties.--SiriusB (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiian is fairly phonetic; the "e" in Hawaiian orthography represents the /e/ is IPA. So the diphthong is perhaps unnecessary. But no English speaker is ever going to pronounce it "ea", so the inserted diphthong makes sense for English speakers. Serendi^podous 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: as someone learning Hawaiian language at a school where Hawaiian language and culture is emphasized, /haʊˈmeːə/ is closest to how I would pronounce Haumea. I'd say that /haʊˈmeːa/ is also acceptable. —Kal ^(talk) 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the link, you'll see that this is the English pronunciation. The Hawaiian pronunciation, [hɐuˈmɛja], can be found at Haumea (mythology). —kwami (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW what is the problem with speaking /eːa/ or /ea/? Ok, this connection of /e/ and /a/ does not occur in native English, but on the other hand, /ei/ (e.g. in "hay") does not occur in German, but I've never heard of pronounciation problems for Germans, in big contrast to some consonants like /ð/, /θ/ ("this", "teeth") or even /r/ ("ring"). And is the 'j' in /hɐuˈmɛja/ also a compromise in favour of the English-speaking people (see Kal's suggestion for the most probable pronounciation above)? For the article: I would suggest to give both pronounciations, the English and the Hawaiian (once we have found out which one is closest to true Hawaiian). No one is forced to use the English pronounciation just as no German is forced to pronounce Titanic as /ti'taːnik/ as it is often spoken in German. One is always welcome to use the original/native pronounciation.--SiriusB (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:FlieGerFaUstMe262 had removed the suggested Hawaiian pronounciation because /haʊˈmeːə/ would be the same as /haʊˈmeɪə/. At FlieGerFaUstMe262: This is not the same. In /eɪə/ there is a short i- or y-sound (like that at the end of "kitty") between the /e/ (see Ludwig van Beethoven where there are also two different pronounciations!) and the /ə/ (or /a/), but as already discussed here, this (semi) vowel is not present in the Hawaiian language as its latin transcription is almost identical to the phonetic transcription. However, if you have reliable references that the Hawaiian people also insert an invisible /ɪ/ please post it.--SiriusB (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We're mixing up both phonetic vs. phonemic and English vs. Hawaiian. The English phonemic pronunciation is /haʊˈmeɪə/, according to how those IPA symbols are defined for English at the link. The English phonetic pronunciation varies by dialect. The Hawaiian phonemic pronunciation is /hauˈmea/. The only way that /e/ is going to be long is if we've miswritten the name and it's actually Haumēa. However, this transcription is inappropriate, because we have no reason to suppose that readers of this article will be familiar with Hawaiian phonology. For example, few will know that Hawaiian /ea/ is pronounced [ɛja]. Unless we link to the phonology article, or are in a context where the phonology is particularly relevant, we transcribe foreign pronunciations phonetically, not phonemically. We also have people erroneously putting the English diphthong /aʊ/ in the Hawaiian. Hawaiian does not have an /aʊ/ or /ʊ/. Phonetically, the Hawaiian pronunciation is [hɐuˈmɛja], according to our Hawaiian phonology article and the grammatical and lexical references it uses. If that's wrong, we need references to that effect and then we need to fix the phonology article. kwami (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what exactly is the difference between phonetic and phonemic? I had ever understood the IPA transcription as an average (in order to eliminate local dialects), and that the IPA symbols indicate the exakt pronounciation, i.a. every symbol refers to a sound, and any phonetic sequence can be read as a sequence of sounds. I had also understood that Kalathalan's suggestion of the actual pronounciation does not have any /ɪ/ or /j/ sound between /e/ and /a/ (thus being equal to the German pronounciation). I think that, without the help of a native Hawaiian-speaking user we won't solve this problem.

BTW Concerning the /ʊ/ you may be right since I had misinterpreted that sound (now I've looked it up anf found that is isn't the same as a shortly spoken /u/ but rather a shortly spoken /o/). I would even disagree with Wikipedia:IPA for German that the German disphtong "au" is pronounced as /aʊ/ rather than /au/. However, in a diphtong the difference is very slight as many Germans pronounce "Kakao" (German for Cocoa) wrongly like /ka'kau/ rather than (also probably wrong) /ka'kao/ or /ka'kaʊ/ (the /ʊ/ is indeed similar to a very shortly spoken /o/, at least in Germany).--SiriusB (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

People pronounce things in all sorts of odd ways. I've heard a German-speaker pronounce Chernobyl as if that English transcription were a German transcription, when the correct German trnscription would be something like Tschernobil. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dojarca put a citation tag on the Hawaiian pronunciation. Since I highly doubt we're going to find a citation for this particular word, I simply deleted it. However, we only need citations for things that are likely to be challenged, and any Hawaiian grammar will substantiate it. If someone wants to restore it, do it without the citation tag. kwami (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very important because this affects Russian pronounciation and spelling. If it is pronounced [hɐuˈmɛja], it should be written "Хаумея" in Russian, but if it pronounced [hɐuˈmɛa], it should be written as "Хаумеa" and pronounced accordingly. Some users in Russian Wikipedia claim there is no [ja] diphtong in Hawaiian, so it should be Хаумеа in Russian (unlike Рея for Rhea and Гигея for Hygea). There is ongoing edit war now in Russian Wikipedia over this issue and the article has been blocked.--Dojarca (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's immaterial to this article. Russian 'pedists should be using better sources. The Hawaiian language article has reliable refs which quite clearly state that Hawaiian has an epenthetic [j] between /e/ and /a/. It's not a diphthong. However, that doesn't mean it should be written that way in Russian. Are Russian transcriptions based on the minutiae of pronunciation, or on the basic phonemic representation of a word? Phonemically, it's /haumea/. However, phonemically Classical Greek Rhea is /rea:/, and I doubt anyone knows whether or not that was pronounced [reja:], so it seems to me that Russian Рея is just a guess. (Hygiea is different: the English spelling is unreliable; the Greek was Hygeia or Hygieia, and thus Russian Гигея is fully justified.) kwami (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)