Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Upper limit on diameter

Spitzer's website says that it failed to detect 2003UB313 becouse of an error in the targeting parameters. That means there is no definite upper limit for its diameter. Actually assuming that it has an albedo of 0.3, the same as Pluto's, a reasonable assumption since their spectrum is similar, we'd get a diameter of about 4.8 kms, well above the maximum currently mentioned in the article.

First of all a little nitpick: The correct name is 2003 UB₃₁₃. I realize that it was written without the space and the subscripting on the Spitzer web site, but I think that it would nice not to propogate their errors.

Beyond that, this is very, very interesting. We obviously need to get more information, and then update this article. (I could not get at Dr. Brown's web site this afternoon to verify your 4800km figure, but I am willing to believe it.) --EMS | Talk 22:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

EMS, not every editor will know how to make the subscript properly, and the ASCII version has appeared in many, many newspaper articles. If Spitzer and even Brown himself can write it that way, there's no reason to call it an "error". The IAU says When possible, these additional numbers should be indicated using subscript characters. [1] That, to me, is a recommendation. --Dhartung | Talk 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Pluto's albedo is 0.6, not 0.3. The equation goes as follows:

$D={\frac {1329}{\sqrt {p}}}10^{-0.2H}$

where D = diameter, p = albedo and H = absolute magnitude.

2003 UB₃₁₃'s H=-1.2, and if p=0.3 diameter would be 4200 km. If p=0.6, diameter would be about 3000 km. If you are lazy enough not to calculate it by yourself, you can use this javascript page.--Jyril 08:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hubblesite mentions a new estimate of Xena's diameter, at 1,490 miles ± 60 miles. That's approx. 2397.410 km ± 96.540 km. I suspect 2400 km ± 100 km was the original estimate which was converted to miles. --KJ 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Brown's updates

He added more about the name, and announced more information soon on the hacking incident Paul Dehaye 05:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! kwami

Just added quite a lot more on "Why does it take so long to announce those discoveries?" and a little bit on the name: "Yet another committee of the IAU which approves names for features on major planets and satellites has suggested that if the object is declared a major planet the naming falls strictly to them, and they have suggested that the name should continue the Greco-Roman tradition of the previous planets. We have a couple of interesting choices in mind in that case, though it is not clear that we as the discoverers will necessarily have a say in this case." Paul Dehaye 06:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It has a moon! Check Brown's website

Which of course is code-named Gabrielle. kwami

A Greco-Roman name for 2003 UB313

From the official website:

"...and they have suggested that the name should continue the Greco-Roman tradition of the previous planets. We have a couple of interesting choices in mind in that case."

Does anyone better versed in Greco-Roman mythology than I am know what these could be? There can't be that many creation gods left...

If it's a planet, it doesn't need to be a creation god. Could be even be Persephone; it's up to them to decide if the name conflict is important enough to choose something else. kwami 05:35, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

The creation gods rule is for minor planets. The major planetary features committee doesn't have to follow that rule, nor are they bound as much by the uniqueness rule, though it still may influence them. Almost (?) all the remaining Greco-Roman gods have been given to asteroids. But the IAU hasn't yet decided which committee gets the object. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely they won't want to break the example set by Pluto (the first object found in a 2:3 Neptune resonance) by naming a an object beyond the influence of Neptune after something other than a creation god.

http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/MPdesignation.html

What example? Pluto got its name as a god of the underworld.

Again, that is a rule for minor planets. Only if the Committee on Small Body Nomenclature is given jurisdiction will that rule apply; it's their own rule. It doesn't apply to the Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature [2]. And suggestions given on this page are speculative chitchat; Brown's team has already proposed a name. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

ppl, plz see this: Roman_mythology. And plz forget the name of rocks. it is bigger than Pluto, so it must have the name of an important god. Surely, the best would be Proserpine due to the orbit of this planet. Although I like the name Ataegina more, this is the name of Proserpina in Lusitania. But it was a different goddess previously, So Proserpina or Persephone fits pretty well. if not, I think Apollo is very sonorous, even if it is a sun god. It deserves to be the name of a planet. Bacchus would also be a nice name, because the planet seems drunk due to its orbit. But we need to know more about the planet to name it, namely the colour of the surface. If it is dark it should have the name of an underworld god, if not, we could name it even with names of sun gods. The distance from the sun isn't that important. What was important for naming was their appearance in the sky or if they were fast or not. Saturn was very slow in the sky, that's why it was named Saturn (the god of time). Mercury was very fast, so it was named after the fastest god - the messenger of the gods... Mars is red, so it gained the name of the God of War. Venus was very beautiful, so it was named after the Goddess of Beauty... the distance doesn't really tell a lot about what name it should have. Although being so far and remote, maybe the underworld names seem more appropriate. But it shouldn't be a rule. --Pedro 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I like Cerberus for the same reason given in the New Scientist article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7811 --noösfractal 16:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Eris? Dave 03:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Terminus is available, and it's the name of a major Roman god, too. Terminus was the God of Boundaries and Limits. As such, it's a great name. Not that our debate here bears any weight. :)--Firsfron 03:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• My God, there was even a god for boundaries? (Know I know why there is a saint for everything!) I hope there will be more planets, 12! 12 is a perfect number... no more than that. So terminus isnt a good name, because there maybe more planets. Names Like Terminus, Fortuna, Felicitas, etc. shouldnt be used, because it sounds like ordinary words in some languages. In Romance languages old Latin terminations are translated to Late latin, so Terminus becomes Termino, and it is literally "the end" - "Planet the end". In English there's no such problem. Although Terminus sounds great untranslated. Cerberus seems cool. But it isnt a major god... it is just a hound. Although a planet with that name would be cool. But it is more a name for a moon, than a planet.-Pedro 05:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I may be incorrect, I heard somewhere that Terminus was another aspect of Pluto kind of like Dis. If that's so, then calling the planet Terminus would be kind of redundant.
  • why does he prefer Persephone and not proserpine? It Pluto was named Hades, then it would be nice. But if we are talking about the planet and the relation with Pluto it will create a small confusion.

Why? Because Dr. Brown is educated in the classics, and knows that Pluto is also Greek name that the Romans adopted in place of their own native Orcus/Dis. (Hence why I was pleased as punch when Drs. Brown and Trujillo put Orcus on 2004 DW. 90482_Orcus Would it be so bad to put Dis on UB?) In any event, using Persephone would be fine, save for the existence of a planetoid with that name already. Uranus is more Greek than Roman also, and I don't hear anyone complaining. The best name is a creation god name, yet to be used for anything: Vulcan . --Sturmde 00:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Uranus is also a Roman god. Ouranus was the Greek God it is like the goodess Maia and Apollo, often with similar names but also with some different for the same diety. Persephone isnt a Roman name like the rest. Major Greco-Roman gods: Jupiter (Zeus), Juno (Hera), Minerva (Athena), Mars (Ares), Vesta (Hestia), Saturn (Kronos), Vulcan (Hephaistos), Cupid (Eros), and Neptune (Poseidon), Bacchus (Dionysus), Diana (Artemis), Proserpina or Proserpine (Persephone), . The bold ones werent used in planets. The name that the planets receives is also important for astrology, teaching mythology and for neo-paganism. So planets have popular importance that transcends astronomers.

The 12 Olympian gods: Zeus, Hera/Juno, Poseidon, Ares, Hermes, Hephaestus/Vulcan, Aphrodite, Athena/Minerva, Apollo, and Artemis/Diana are always considered Olympians. Hestia/ Vesta, Demeter/Ceres (this shouldnt be used, Ceres is too big, is a planetoid), Dionysus/Bacchus, and Hades are the variable gods among the Twelve.

The name should be a name of a god common to these two ancient cultures, and the name of a major god (aka Olympian). So Bacchus is a good name because it is also variable like Pluto. Bacchus is also a god of mystery.---Pedro 10:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, "Uranus" is just the Latin pronunciation of the Greek god Ouranos. The equivalent Roman god was Caelus. kwami 11:26, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

• I've read more than once that Uranus was also a Roman diety, not everything is in wikipedia kwami. The mythology sections are even a little poor.~If They pronunced Uranus instead of Ouranos didnt that meant something?--Pedro 11:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it means they spoke different languages, that's all. Greek ou = Latin ū. Just different spelling conventions. Latin nominative masculine singular -us is likewise the equivalent of Greek nominative masculine singular -os. Otherwise the pronunciation's the same. The OED has the etymology of Uranus as

adopted from Latin Ūranus, adopted from Greek Ουρανός husband of Gæa (Earth) and father of Cronos (Saturn)

That's pretty Greek! Saying that Ūranus and Ουρανός are different gods is like saying English and Spanish Christians have different gods, because one worships "Jeezus" while the other worships "Haysoos". Also, Cassell's New Latin Dictionary lists Saturn, but not Cronos or Uranus.

• The grand old man of astrology Dane Rudhyar proposed the name Proserpine for this planet beyond Pluto in book titled The Galactic Dimension of Astrology published in 1975.---[User: Steve Nelson] 23 September 2005

Persephone or Proserpine

Yes, these names fits pretty well (even in astrology and pagan religions), but...

Pluto (Hades) was the god of war.

Persephone was the goddess of Spring, wife of Hades (Pluto). Planet Persephone passes half of her life near Pluto, like the goddess did in mythology.

Proserpine (Persephone) was the goddess of Spring, wife of Pluto. Planet Proserpine passes half of her time near Pluto, like the goddess did in mythology.

I don't know what fits best: Persephone sounds better, but proserpine fits better. --Pedro 21:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Pluto was the King of the Dead and god of material riches, not the god of war; that was Ares. --The Great Honker 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the appropriate IAU committee will duly consult this Talk page before making its decision. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Hey what's wrong in talking about it? o.O Maybe tell will you don't know that. But that's not the issue... --Pedro 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for general chatter -- they're here to discuss issues relevant to improving the page. I'm sure it's essentially harmless, but this isn't the "2003 UB313 BBS". As the naming question is entirely out of our hands, it serves no purpose to speculate, and makes the task of finding relevant discussion on the page that much harder. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• This subject is related. And if they choose the name Persephone it will be very useful to the article as it will create some confusion in the public interested in mythology and its relation to the planets. tenho dito e escrito! -Pedro 21:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope

Does anybody know when the scientists will get observing time on the planet with the Hubble Space Telescope? bob rulz 21:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

He said "soon", and it's only been a few days. In astronomy, that's a blink of an eye! I can't wait for all the "Are we there yet?" Talk messages on the New Horizons page ... --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hubble has already observed it (see Daily Report #3919). Unfortunately, the main goal of the observations was to search possible satellites, so it may be that Hubble can't resolve the disk well (that requires a special trick).--Jyril 13:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, that was an observation of 2003 QW90. 2003 UB313 is pencilled for early December (see [3])

It's actually not the Hubble Telescope observations that most people are waiting for, it's the Spitzer Telescopic observations which will settle the size of UB313. And those observations will be made at the end of this month. Have patience... :)--Firsfron 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Scattered disk object definition

This isn't purely related to 2003 UB₃₁₃, but I figured this was the most watchlisted TNO page and most likely spot to spark a bit of input from the assorted eggheads drifting about :)

Anyway, I think it's relatively well-accepted that TNO, KBO etc. are purely location-based definitions of objects, rather than saying anything in particular about the physical nature of the body. Objects get tagged based purely on their orbits at this current moment in time—Triton may well be a kissing-cousin with Quaoar in terms of physical makeup and may have happily spun around the sun as a bigger-than-pluto TNO for the solar system's first two billion years, but on account of its current orbit around Neptune it can't be considered a TNO anymore. Likewise, a 500-kilometer long replica of a twinkie left by an advanced alien species to orbit the sun in a circular orbit 44 AU out is a TNO, regardless of the fact its origins and geological makeup are nothing like the more typical "ubersnowball" TNO. A parallel lexicon based on physical makeup will presumably come in time as we gain a better sense of these things, so the day might come where we call Triton, Chiron, Pluto and 2003 UB₃₁₃ "Edgeworthoids" or "Brown-Luu Bodies" or something on account of their icy status, while excluding the aforementioned space twinkie.

(aside: I went through some interesting TNO literature in the various astronomical journals my university library has subscriptions to, and it seems that there is an emerging sense that there are two distinct kinds of these objects in physical/spectrographic terms (dubbed "hot TNOs" and "cold TNOs" thus far), which has interesting implications in terms of how close to the sun they formed and whether they've been moved out or in since then. Unfortunately, can't post it. It also contained some of the most truly terrifying-looking calculus I've ever seen in my life.)

I put together the {{TNO}} template (link here) right after 2003 UB₃₁₃'s announcement because I was personally a little fuzzy as to what term (TNO, KBO, SDO, plutino, centaur) was a subset of what. It took a fair bit of reading buried explanations closely to get a general sense of the russian doll arrangement, and ultimately I relied on the explanation offered in Solar system:

Kuiper belt objects have orbits lying between 30 and 50 AU (astronomical units, an AU is approximately equal to the mean distance between Earth and Sun). This is thought to be the origin for short-period comets. Pluto is sometimes classified as a Kuiper belt object in addition to or instead of as planet, and the Kuiper belt objects with Pluto-like orbits are called Plutinos. The remaining Kuiper belt objects are classified as Cubewanos in the main belt and scattered disk objects in the outer fringes.

This conception is borne out by the tree structure of the template, in which SDOs are shown as a subset of KBOs. By extension, then, the "geographic region" ("spatial region?") of the scattered disk is within the "geographic region" of the (Edgeworth-) Kuiper Belt. This is a bit like saying "Hong Kong objects" are a subset of "Asia objects" and hence "Hong Kong" is within "Asia."

The problem is that I've now come across a fair number of sources that treat the "Scattered disk" and "Kuiper belt" as mutually-exclusive chunks of space—they state the belt proper is basically bounded by the plutinos on the inner edge (a ~ 40 AU) and the twotinos (a ~ 50) on the outer edge with the "classical" belt objects (alias cubewanos) in the middle (a ~ 45 AU); and the scattered disk is a much larger area whose objects have a values greater than 50 and more eliptical and inclined orbits. (This doesn't mean that the KB and the SD can't overlap, as some SDOs have perihelions in the high thirties). The "Sedna-is-an-inner-Oort-object" proponents place an upper limit on SDO status by saying that an object ceases to be a member of the scattered disk club if its orbit is so distant that interactions with Neptune cease to be a consideration in terms of orbital stability.

I've also seen (in some of the aforementioned scary papers, although not all, as well as elsewhere on the web) the term "scattered Kuiper belt object" used an umbrella term for centaurs plus SDOs, with the implication being both belonged in the "main" Kuiper belt but got hurled out. Of course, such a designation seems contingent upon hypothesis.

So I'm curious if there's a general satisfaction with how WP currently describes the SDOs. Reflecting the Kuiper Belt != Scattered Disk school of thought would effectively mean moving SDOs one step up the tree as a subcategory of TNO in their own right. Does anyone else, possibly those who lurk among us with a professional background in planetary astronomy, have any input?

Links: [4] [5] [6]

-The Tom 22:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I can only notice the lack of response to this query. I have done a little looking around, including at your links. I think that you are right in that the difference between Centaurs and SDOs is in how they got scattered. However, if one is willing to consider TNO's to be a category then Centaurs do not fit because they are not trans-Neptunian. So my advice is to leave well enough alone until and unless someone makes a good case for changing things and/or there is an official IAU ruling which justifies it. --EMS | Talk 04:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response. Anyway, yes, so long as we use TNO as one of the more "root" level umbrella terms (way to mix nerdy metaphors, Tom), we can't use the term scattered kuiper belt object as a subset of it because that include objects that were scattered so they were no longer "trans-Neptunian" (the Centaurs). TNO, rightly or wrongly, remains the most frequently-used term and kicking it out of our sorting hierarchy in Wikipedia is a non-starter—fine, new thinking seems to find the Neptune's-orbit-delimiter to be somewhat arbitrary and underinclusive, but we don't remake taxonomy systems here, we just report what's in place. Until a substantive majority of the relevant academia or an IAU ruling comes up with a new taxonomy, no changes.

What I'm more specifically proposing is that we instead nudge "scattered disk" a level up so that it is no longer a subset of "kuiper belt" but instead just one level underneath the "transneptunian" umbrella. This isn't really a matter of official IAU definitions because as far as I can tell, an agreed-upon sorting hierarchy within the TNO population doesn't exist. The IAU hasn't even made an ironclad ruling on the (Edgeworth-)/Kuiper naming debate. As best as I can tell, the academic community hasn't been treating the scattered disk as a subset of the kuiper belt, and I think we should follow suit on Wikipedia. -The Tom 23:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I've made most of the relevant changes. Hope this won't ruffle too many feathers -The Tom 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

2006?

User 62.252.0.7 added something about the definition of the word 'Planet' to come out in 2006. Is there a source for this?--Firsfron 05:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The IAU now says that the definition of a planet will be announced early September 2006. I've added the updated infor to the article. Source: [7].--Tachyon01 4:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, progress! Last time I heard they were to decide in September who and how the definion of planet should be decided.--Jyril 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Publication submitted to ApJL

The paper has been submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters, a peer-reviewed journal in the US. Claims include that it has a similar IR spectrum to Pluto's, and its brightness implies it is much larger than Pluto (for any reasonable albedo).

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf

--zandperl 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Imaging

Has Spitzer imaged this object yet?

It was imaged by Spitzer in August 25/26th. One earlier observation attempt failed due to misdirection of the telescope. No results are yet available.--Jyril 09:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that it would be hard to image using infrared technology if its so cold. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why it's taking the Spitzer people so long to announce whether they saw the thing or not. --Reyk 7:13, September 6, 2005 (GMT+10)

They have a year before the data becomes public, so we could be waiting that long for it. I'd assume they're waiting to write a paper about it, but we should see some preliminary results in the next month or two. Shaggy 02:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

An article on New Scientist indicates that Hubble has imaged 2003 UB₃₁₃, giving an albedo of .92 and a diameter of ~2400 km. [8] shaggy 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the Hubble data is is still being evaluated. Brown is saying that the measurements by the University of Bonn scientists are solid. Further, per the Nature article, Brown says the "preliminary findings on 25 January at a public meeting at Foothill College in Los Altos Hill, California, suggesting that UB313 was just a few percent larger than Pluto, he now says that measurement is wrong. "It was an extremely preliminary estimate." [[9]] Tachyon01 6 February 2006.

Nature exlink now subscription only

The nature exlink http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050801/full/050801-2.html is now paid subscribers-only. I think this makes is no longer a "valuable service to our readers" (per Wikipedia:External links), so I'm going to remove it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, remove it. Thanks! --Pedro 14:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rotation period of 2003 UB313

IAUC 8596 (subscription required, won't be public for a long time) contains the following text:

if the variations are due to rotation, then the period exceeds 8 hr.

However, the observed variation might be due to other effects, such

as unknown color terms. [10]

--Jyril 11:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The > 8 hr rotation period is highly speculative at best, and according to IAUC 8596 is valid only if the "observed variation" is not "due to other effects, such as unknown color terms". I am in favor of deleting the rotation period until more or better data is obtained.

--Japaget 15:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

data are lysdexia 01:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Planet naming definition

We appear to be entering endgame in terms of some sort of decision being made of the definition of planet. Space.com has a story out today, as does Nature, although I can't seem to persuade my university library's proxy to let me have a look at their article. -The Tom 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say we're entering a post-definition-of-planet phase. They can't agree, so they're going to cop out. ;-) Really, they're saying that such a definition is scientifically meaningless, which is basically the argument of the demote-Pluto faction (i.e., that to call Pluto a planet means you have to call a lot of other things planets, too). I'm surprised they couldn't agree on a simpler breakdown than the Space article suggests, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Historic Planet? Planetary Mass object? cisjovian planet? LOLOL and the planets known as transneptunian objects... some astronomers must stop taking drugs :P "Earth is a cisjovian planet also known as a planetary mass object." LOL! astronomy should change the name to circusnomy -Pedro 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Astronomy, and other sciences, have been through such revolutions before. I'm sure they'll weather this one and your children and mine will grow up knowing the new terminology. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm?

The article says that the observations were made on October 21 2003 or October 31, in two different places.

And in this paragraph:

"Pluto's reddish colour is believe to be due to deposits of tholins on its surface, and where these deposits darken the surface, the lower albedo leads to higher temperatures and the evaporation of methane deposits. In contrast, 2003 UB313 is far enough away from the Sun that methane can condense onto its surface even where the albedo is high."

shouldn't that last "high" be "low"? Ken Arromdee 15:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• the albedo is higher if it is lower than 4, and low if it is higher than 4 for instance. For instance: albedo of 14 is lower than one of 8.-Pedro 00:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that you're not confusing albedo with magnitude? Albedo, which describes the reflectivity of a surface, can get only values between 0 (perfectly black body, 0% of light is reflected) and 1 (perfect mirror, 100% of light is reflected). For example, a very dark asteroid may have low albedo of 0.03. The best reflecting body, Enceladus, has an extremely high albedo of 0.99. --Jyril 12:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it. The first sentence says that low albedo leads to higher temperatures. The second sentence says that methane condenses "even where the albedo is high", implying that higher albedo leads to higher temperatures but that methane condenses despite that. Regardless of what "high albedo" means, these two sentences can't possibly both be correct--they contradict each other. Ken Arromdee 16:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, there's a contradiction. The sentence makes much more sense as I changed "high" to "low": Unlike on Pluto, methane condenses *even* on the low albedo (warmer) areas because of the lower temperatures on 2003 UB₃₁₃. --Jyril 18:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, I fixed the October 31 to 21. The discoverers' site and their paper mention only the 21. The 31 mistake isn't original to Wikipedia and appears in several news articles. Ken Arromdee 19:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I was confusing ;)- Pedro 14:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Moon - A Redirect or a Page?

Talk:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1

I would like to make a page at S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 for the moon. Should it be a redirect or a separate page? I would say having it be a separate page would be somewhat silly, but it appears that all of Jupiter's 63 moons have their own pages too... so why not? --Ctachme 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until it is confirmed, and an orbit worked out. After all, that would be the required for assigning it a name. kwami 07:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• The french seem to have a page for it. fr:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 132.205.45.110 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but the data sheet is full of question marks! Maybe not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but close. kwami 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a Portuguese page: pt:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 132.205.45.148 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's an Italian page: it:S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1 132.205.93.88 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New photo?

The discovery photo of Gabrielle would make a beautiful intro photo at the top of our article. However, I'm not familiar with the copyright issues involved, though I assume they're similar to the other photos we've used. Could someone who knows what they're doing upload it? kwami 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is not a NASA image and Keck images are not copyright-free so I don't think we can use it.--Jyril 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

See the copyright notice for Image:Animation_showing_movement_of_2003_UB313.gif. Basically someone needs to contact Michael Brown and get his permission to release this photo too. --EMS | Talk 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The image is attributed to the Keck Observatory, since they are the ones who took the photo. On their website it specificially states the image can be used for any educational purpose as long as its not for commercial purposes. I went ahead and uploaed it with a fairuse tag, but if someone wanted to double check it, that might be nice.--ScottyBoy900Q 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Though Hubble will image it soon and hopefully they'll make a press release of it as soon as possible. Then we would have better and copyright free image.--Jyril 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lila name

"Planet Lila" (named after Michael Brown's newborn daughter, Lilah)

There's no relation between this name and Gabrielle's sister having the same name, is there? Andjam 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably just a coincidence.--Jyril 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Gabrielle is the companion of Xena in a TV series. I knew this by a Portuguese news cast, and they say that the planet is Xena. o.O This planet without a name will be very confusing. Great news, BTW. -Pedro 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, and although I have no impact on decisions, were that to be reversed, I would name the object "Ymir", of whom you can read more here http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/ymir.html

I agree- Ymir would be a good name for the planet. And then the moon would inevitably be called Audumla. --Reyk

Ymir's taken by a moon, though -The Tom 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would love a mythical name that is related to the planet and to the other planets, I hope they always try to keep the astrological planetary relation. If the planet is named Persephone or Proserpine, then the moon's name should be one of her children, or the name of her mother, Demeter. In the sence that Demeter is taking care of her daughter, even when she goes closer to planet Pluto (Proserpine's husband). Although I still prefer the name for the planet Bacchus or Apollo - major gods, but without a planet. Lets wait, although the confusion among journalists and the audicience is already made. -Pedro 21:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To be blunt about it, 2003 UB₃₁₃ is now being called "Xena" in the media, since that code name is the only moniker that anyone in a position to name it has assigned it. Let's just say that the discovery of the moon (and its being code-named "Gabriellle") has forced the issue. If the IAU wants to have any say in this business, it needs to get its act together now. Otherwise 2003 UB₃₁₃ being called Xena will be done deal and the best that can be hoped for would be for the object to be known as Xena/<IAU-name> in the future. --EMS | Talk 02:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, who's ready for some convoluted reasoning? I know I am! The three chemical elements, uranium, neptunium and plutonium, are named after planets- after that they ran out of planets to name the elements after. So it seems a good bet that the next element to be named will be named after 2003UB313. That means if 2003UB313 is officialy named Xena, the new element would be Xenium. But that's no good because it's a trademark. So Xena's out. Reyk 10:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Or they could go the other way, and name 2003 UB313 after the next element past Plutonium, which is Americium. So maybe they should name it America! (Kidding, kidding, although I bet some people would like that. :P) --Patteroast 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is high time we dip into our modern mythos for these names. I see nothing wrong with Xena/Gabrielle for the new planet and its moon, and I like the unofficial Buffy which has been applied to an object with a strange orbit inclined 47 degrees to the plane of the solar system yet nearly circular. In the latter case (if more objects with like orbits are found) naming said objects Willow, Xander, Tara, Spike, etc. BipolarBear 12:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're serious? No, it won't happen. Xena isn't even an acceptable Main belt asteroid name, even though naming those objects is very liberal. Problem is, Xena is a registered trademark. Yeah, and really stupid name for a planet (or for an important asteroid, too). Sorry the ranting, I see every time red when the name X... is mentioned.--Jyril 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm entirely serious. There are so many objects needing names that I see nothing wrong with dipping into MODERN mythos. I say the IAU and company are infectected with a severe case of snobbery. BipolarBear 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Large TNOs must be named after creation deities. Xena is not a creation deity, so the name wouldn't be accepted by the IAU. You're free to call it whatever you like, but the IAU is the body responsible for astronomical nomenclature, and so it is the IAU's name that will become the scientific standard. If you don't like it, go to school for astronomy, get you doctorate, and become a member of the IAU. That's the only way you're going to change anything. A talk page on Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss this. shaggy 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If they ever start using such names, I'll need a Sic-Sac. - Aerobird 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So? If Xena ends up being called a "planet" (it's larger than Pluto, a "planet" and not a "Large TNO named after a creation deity") that may not apply. There IS precedent for naming large bodies after fictional characters, namely all of the moons of Uranus. They take their names from Shakespeare and Alexander Pope characters. BipolarBear 10:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If 2003 UB₃₁₃ is named Xena I've lost my faith in humanity.--Jyril 10:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• lol. If it is declared a planet it wont be named Xena, for sure, it is impossible. If it is declared a minor planet... noone really cares about minor planets, so why not? --Pedro 11:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

2003 UB₃₁₃ is way too important to name after a joke. A small main belt asteroid called Xena? No problem, except that it is a trademark name (or is only the long name Xena: Warrior Princes ™?).--Jyril 12:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and the moon

Would it be possible/desirable to amend the infobox so it shows a satellite under physical characteristics? I see someone's listed 'number of satellites=1' in the edit box for this article, but it's not in the minor planet template, so it doesn't display. --Berek 11:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I was the one who put that datum in, and didn't have time to mess with it when it didn't display. I think we should probably address this on the template talk page. kwami 08:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should add a second infobox for the moon. 132.205.46.166 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a better idea (using a smaller infobox, obviously). Changing the minor planet template to add a "natural satellites" entry or some such would be a major pain, because there are hundreds of pages that would need to be fixed...Maybe a bot could do it, though?

Urhixidur 23:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Albedo

From the article: "In fact, its albedo is almost certainly less than 1.0". Almost certainly? I daresay completely certainly. It is pretty impossible for any object to reflect all light that is thrown upon it, or am I wrong? I suggest that we adapt this sentence. Caesarion 14:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

But what if it is a perfect mirror? ;)--Jyril 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

We know it is not a perfect mirror because the reflective spectrum shows absortion, similar to Pluto.

No problem, after my remark Jyril did modifie the statement, and his question here must be considered a joke, of course... Caesarion 14:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it just me perceiving that Wikipedia is not completely neutral about discovery dispute. The article 2003 UB313 is just mentioning 2003 EL61 as another one discovered on the same day, and there is no word about Ortiz at all. OTOH the EL61 article clearly states "Credit for the discovery is sharply disputed between two different groups (Ortiz et al. in Andalucía, Spain and Brown et al. at Caltech in the United States)."

My personal opinion is that currently article does not conform to Wikipedia principle for neutrality covering U.S. team designation as one-and-only, and disputing Spanish team designation. Thus I've added a section about the dispute. -- Bggoldie 10:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just deleted it. That info belongs in the EL61 article, correct? kwami 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I do completely agree. See http://www.spaceobs.com/perso/textes/planetsandasteroids.htm for a complete discussion on Brown's "clean" procedures

Possibility of names

Does any body have a clue what they might name Xena & Gabrielle? — Hurricane Devon ^{(Talk, e-Mail)} 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If 2003 UB₃₁₃ is declared a planet, it will probably get a Greco-Roman name, most probably some deity related to the underworld. Otherwise it will be named after a creation deity, I think. No Scattered disk objects have been yet named, though (if Sedna is not counted). Until its planethood is decided, it won't receive a name. S/2005 2003 UB₃₁₃ 1 will most probably named after someone related to 2003 UB₃₁₃. If the object won't receive planetary status, it will be named by Mike Brown and his colleagues, who have already submitted the name to the IAU. If it becomes a planet, the IAU will decide the name. Mike Brown won't reveal the name beforehand (they did reveal the name Sedna too early, which was against rules and that annoyed some).--Jyril 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If 2003 UB₃₁₃ is declared a planet and gets a Greco-Roman name, it could be named Erebus, Tartarus, or even Hades. I know the name Erebus is not taken, but I'm not sure about the other two. J P 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Hades is valid, because it is the Greek name for Pluto. Proserpina/Persephone might be good (plus she was an important goddess). There are also many other minor netherworld gods/goddesses in these mythologies whose names could be used. Conflicts with asteroid names may be inavoidable (Persephone is already the name of an asteroid). However, all this is pure speculation. Let's wait and see what happens. The next IAU general assembly will be held in August, 2006, and I'm really disappointed if the issue is not solved by then.--Jyril 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Persephone and Proserpine are taken by asteroids but the planet could be called Kore which is an alternate name for Persephone that has not been taken, like Orcus which is an alternate name for Hades and was used for another recently discovered planetoid.

What about Cerberus, the three-headed dog that resides in Hades? Proserpina is a wonderful name, and I can't see why they couldn't rename the asteroids which already have the name Proserpina. Also, what about Orpheus & Eurydice? their myth involves the underworld. --Revolución hablar ver 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the rules allow for the renaming of an object, not to mention the confusion that would result. - Aerobird 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Article name

No, no, no! Not everybody can see subscript, you know. On my computer it looks like "2003 UB(square, square, square). I believe there was a huge issue on this that said it should not be moved to the subscripted title. It's probably archived now (hey, what happened to the archive?). bob rulz 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New Horizons flyby?

Is there any word yet on whether the just-launched New Horizons Pluto probe could also visit 2003 UB313 after its Pluto flyby? I read that NASA is considering visits to other Kuiper-belt objects after Pluto in 2015.

I highly doubt it. The chances that Pluto and UB313 are perfectly aligned is very slim. They'll choose Kuiper Belt objects that are on the same trajectory as Pluto. bob rulz 06:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No way. See Michael Brown's website. The illustrations of the orbits of Pluto and 2003 UB₃₁₃ show that they are currently 120° apart with respect to the Sun. New Horizons cannot produce the delta-V needed to redirect itself to 2003 UB₃₁₃, and Pluto's gravitational field is way too weak to send it in that direction. --EMS | Talk 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

About a year ago, there was talk of launching a second New Horizons spacecraft to Uranus and some other binary KBO. This was before 2003 UB313 was discovered. It so happens to be that a second New Horizons spacecraft could be launched on a Uranus-2003 UB313 mission if launched between 2007-2009. I wonder if mission planners have yet pondered this idea.... 207.200.116.200 18:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that 2003 UB313 is currently around 97 AU from the sun, as opposed to Pluto's 33 AU, I highly doubt that they would consider the idea, since flight times would probably be at least 30 to 40 years. A 2003 UB313 mission would probably require propulsion technologies that have not been flight-tested yet. JamesFox 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

is this a planet

[11]

Is this the 10th planet or a minor planet?

The decision on that is still pending. The definition of a planet is not clear cut so it's going to be a little while before a decision is made whether to call this a 10th planet or a minor planet. If this does become a minor planet, Pluto may be downgraded. - JVG 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See definition of planet. In an nutshell, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is trying to decided what to do about 2003 UB₃₁₃ and Pluto. What has happenned in that between 1930 and 1992, Pluto was the only object of its kind known. However, starting in 1992 simlar objects began to be found, and today over 1,000 trans-Neptunian objects are known. So Pluto and 20003 UB₃₁₃ are now known to be only part of a much larger population, just as Ceres (which was originally considered to be planet too) is now just the largest member of the asteroid belt. That is why the IAU needs to decide what to do. --EMS | Talk 17:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that asteroids 1-4 were considered planets for half a century before being downgraded, the case against Pluto is compelling. Of course, the other way to do it, is to readmit those four and anything larger than the smallest. Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

for what I recently read in the last IAU meeting composed of 19 members anyone could vote more than once:

• support for UB 303 and Pluto being planets (objects larger than Pluto) 11/19 58%
• UB303, Pluto and others (new planet catagorization) 8/19 42%
• support for none being planets (reducing to 8 planet) 6/19 32%

It will probably be declared a planet, for several reasons. Of the four asteroids, only Ceres should be declared a planet, at least it should be separated from the rest of the asteroids, that we popularly imagine as flying rock mountains. But that will increase too much the number of planets. I think only objects larger than Pluto should be planets, objects larger than Mimas should be considered planetoids, as it is now becoming popular. "Planetoid Ceres", sounds nice and fits pretty well in the popular imagination, and one immediately sees it is a small planet, but "asteroid", it does not fit. --Pedro 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "small world" for these objects, as in the "small world Ceres". Thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Jonathunder 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the asteroids and these trans-Neptunian objects are all minor planets. So the real debate is whether 2003 UB₃₁₃ should be considered a major planet or not, and in either case why. Personally, as part of a population of similar objects, I think not, but we will see with the IAU decides. --EMS | Talk 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the most recent size measurements are confirmed, I don't see why 2003 UB₃₁₃ wouldn't become a major planet, especially if it ends up at the uppermost end of that size range. I mean, how could astronomers not call an object the size of our moon a planet? Now, the real question may become what to do about Pluto, but that may be a horse of a different color. J P 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see no problem with Pluto being a planet, and honestly, with the telescopes we have today, it is rather strange that some people don't see it as a planet, and prefer to see its strange orbits rather than the object itself, we now have instruments that are able too see these objects in detail, and not just its orbit. Pluto ao UB303 are ice planets (like there are the gas (giants) planets and the terrestial planets). Pluto was previously alone, now it isnt. Some people say, there are many smaller objects "like" pluto in the kuiper belt, but in the Earth's orbit there are also objects "like" Earth wondering around, namelly NEOs. The solar system is not what we used to believe it was. Science should not go along with prejudice. Astrologist and horoscope fans would love 12 planets. BTW, to what sign this world was assigned to? --Pedro 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • some preliminar observations stick it to Taurus. 195.205.221.99 09:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  NEO's are nowhere near as big as the Earth. Indeed, for some people the term "planet" is reserved for those objects that gravitationally dominate their orbital neighborhood. The Earth does that. Asteroids do not. Alone, Pluto would, but now we find that it is part of a large number of objects of similar size in various but related orbits, many of which are in resonance with Neptune (including Pluto and 2003 UB₃₁₃). As part of a large population of similar objected in similar orbits, I cannot in good faith accept any Kuiper belt object as a planet. Even so, the IAU has the final say in this. --EMS | Talk 17:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good point! But they are all planets (wonderers in Earth's skies). These objects does what the name "planet" is about, you just have an idealization of a planet, which does not meet the name itself. So the roundness criteria would be the best to distinguish the planets from the asteroids (I think the term minor planet to name rocks isn't the best- my POV). But we would have several planets (and I think this is the real problem). About resonance: if you start jumping instead of walking that won't transform you in a kangaroo, you will still be a person. A crazy one, though. LOL--Pedro 13:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  Even stars are "planets" by that definition. The difference is that their proper motion is usually so small that it is undetectable by naked eye observation (and the exceptions so far have been too dim to be seen with one's naked eye). I do agree that what I am defining is the criteria for a "major planet", but those are the ones being refered to when we say just "planet" by convention. (Note for example that "2003 UB₃₁₃" is a "temporary" minor planet designation.) --EMS | Talk 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Article in Nature

This article in Nature, published Feb 1, needs to be incorporated into this article. I'm not a regular editor on this page, but it seems that some of the information on this page is now incorrect.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolute magnitude?

This article states that the absolute magnitude of the planet is minus 1.2. This can't be correct, because this means that it should be visible (in a Sirius-like manner) at a distance of 10 pc. -- Maclaine 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Objects in the solar system have a different scale for absolute magnitude. It's how bright the object would appear one AU from earth and one AU from the sun, at a Sun-object-earth angle of zero degrees. It's an impossible configuration, but it yields the simplest calculations. It would be just as bright as sirius.shaggy 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of this different scale. Maclaine 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

I noticed that despite the tag, this isn't on the Featured Article Canidates page, and the "talk" page has a number of "objections". Should this be nominated for AID? - Aerobird 03:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Has the article failed the nomination, or why it is no longer listed in the FAC page?--Jyril 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us go for a concise lead section

I am going to try to get the lead section to be concise. -- 68.122.239.95 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Article

[12] Interesting article. Should we include some of these names (the serious ones, like Cerberus, not Bob) in the article? --Revolución hablar ver 19:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think so. Naming has never been a public-input process except when the astronomers have wanted it to be, so what one magazine (albeit a reputable one) managed to dredge up in a reader-response exercise is sorta irrelevant. The Tom 19:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Cerberus? I don't recall any asteroids named after Cerberus. --Revolución hablar ver 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn it... 1865 Cerberus. --Revolución hablar ver 20:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of naming it Galileo or Dekatos (which I assume is greek for 10, as in 10th planet) Hopefully no asteroids have been named Galileo. --Revolución hablar ver 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's 697 Galilea...

Urhixidur 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there are Egyptian gods we could use. HD 209458 b has been unofficially named "Osiris", but the fact that's it's not official makes it possible for Xena to be named Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld. --Revolución hablar ver 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already sort of taken by HD 209458 b, though. Proserpine would have been a nice name, too bad all the really big Greco-Roman names are taken :(.PhoenixSeraph 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Epoch

Either the Julian date or the "normal" date is wrong. JD 2453800.5 is actually March 6 2006, not 2005. Alternatively, March 6 2005 is JD 2453435.5.--SiriusB 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I checked the orbital elements against the MPEC list of Centaurs and SDOs, and it appears that the proper epoch is march 6, 2006. I have corrected the error. shaggy 21:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Shrinking planet

If this article is correct, we need to update this page: Proposed 10th Planet Shrinks Under Hubble's Gaze Rmhermen 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

- I'd like to be bold to edit this document, but while I am not I guess it makes sense to add a note that the article might be outdated. Done that. - An

Xena

Please don't let this beutiful planet be named Xena. It's too cool to be named that. Instead it should be named after gods from different cultures, like the other planets.

Xena was a codename of sorts for it. It's not going to be named Xena. It says that right there in the article. bob rulz 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of this rather silly debate betwixed all the scientists and so called "exsperts" debating, the world is already calling it Xena, and it's moon Gabrielle, It indeed rather looks now as though this has been settled on it's name by the populous and popular demand!...ergo, "it is going to be called Xena because it IS being called Xena.",therefore being what it is called, it is what it is called...therefore it is what it's called, Xena!(cathytreks 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

A columnist for Science told me that the discoverers actually do want it to be called Xena... but that's just hearsay in any court of law. Zzzzzzzzzzz 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like the discoverer himself doesn't know that[13]: "We use these names internally simply because they are easier to say and remember [...]. There is no chance whatsoever that these will become the permanent names of these objects!"--JyriL ^talk 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to have a planet named after a TV character, and Xena is not all together a bad name (as least it's not called SpongeBob). We have moved on, names based on mythology appeal to very little of the populace today. Unless they call it based on something from reproductive anatomy, Xena will by far be the most popular name then anything they decide on. Then the academic world will have to convince the masses to use whatever term they come up with, or accept Xena as an unchangeable reality. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

SpongeBob sounds better.--JyriL ^talk 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Has NASA listed regions?

Luna, Terra has sections such as Tesla. Has NASA or any other government/space program named the regions of Xena? --Cyberman 03:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA or other governmental organization/space agency don't name regions on celestial objects, only the IAU can do that. And no, because any surface features haven't been resolved on the object. Remember that only extremely crude maps of Pluto can be created from the Hubble images, and 2003 UB₃₁₃ is three times further away. 2003 UB₃₁₃ isn't even two pixels wide in the Hubble images!--JyriL ^talk 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Word name

When will this planet get an official word name?? Georgia guy 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• By popular acclaim it pretty much looks like it WILL be called Xena...in fact!, I just read it in the new issue of SPACE magazine, it's like I said above, and the discoverer usualy gets to pick its name and Xena is what he chose! (happily I might add!) (cathytreks 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Well, how is the initial X pronounced?? Georgia guy 16:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As in the mythological greek warrior princess's name Xena it is pronounced with a "z" pronounce like "zena", as in the greek all words starting with an "X" are. (fun..huh?  :)

(cathytreks 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

From Mike Brown's webpage: There is no chance whatsoever that these [Xena & Gabrielle] will become the permanent names of these objects! 'Xena' was used as an internal codename before the object was published and received a designation. Mike Brown used this name in public because he thought that the object would be named soon after its discovery, given that it is so important. However, it is not clear if it will be a planet, so the IAU must decide first if it will be a planet or not. If it becomes a planet, the naming will be decided by the IAU. If not, Mike Brown has already a name for it. But it will not be Xena. It is a familiar name and that's why people started using it. BTW, 'Xena' has no mythological background whatsoever; she was invented for the Hercules TV series.--JyriL ^talk 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Regardless of your restating what has been already been mistated by the snob's and "know-it-all's" it is being called Xena and it's moon Gabrielle by the masses, and it is sticking!...In spite of or perhaps because of those who seek otherwise, btw, looking up in the greek studies I find reference's all over the place to the name of Xena, a popular name between the 3rd and 4th century's A.D., One might also find interesting that the television series Xena actually outrated and outlasted it's progenitor Hercules, having run #1 in syndicated first run episodes from 1995-2001, while Herc only ran from 1993-1997! Perhaps men are still intimidated by Xena, hence all the fuss they are making over the 10th planet Xena and it's moon, Gabrielle!!! Xena will stick as the new name, at least in every single poll taken of importance! pay attention WIKI's! regards

(cathytreks 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

And I suppose you just know better than all of us? It's already been stated over and over again that it's not going to be named Xena. Xena has no mythological background whatsoever. Please check out the Xena article, where it explicity states "Xena of Amphipolis is a fictional character in the television series Xena: Warrior Princess and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys." and "Xena first appeared on the Hercules: The Legendary Journeys television series (in the episode The Warrior Princess airing in March 1995),". Also this "The show credited Xena (or her friends and associates) with a central role in many events in history and mythology." In addition, what does the fact that Xena lasted longer than Hercules have to do with anything whatsoever? bob rulz 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • temper temper mon Cap'itan! (Q from Star trek Next Gen?)....Please don't take this so personaly Bob,as I was merely stating the "facts" of the situation, regardless of what that poorly written Xena article here at wiki states or mistates from its rather non NPOV.

The fact that "IT IS" with CAPITAL letters being refered to by the world...as a whole...as "THE PLANET XENA & HER MOON GABRIELLE" is an established fact whether you personaly like it or not, and that is a NPOV fact to boot.,So whatever you or all the other exsperts here say to the contrary, you can't change "the public opinion" of the world as a whole who are now and in the future going to continue to be calling it Xena!

ohhh...and the "xena lasting longer than herc thing"...that was just a bit of trivia thrown in for fun! really! So please have a fantastic day or night whether we agree or not, and as my good Rabbi would say, Shalom! Cathy (cathytreks 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Just because people refer to it as Xena doesn't mean that it's the official name. It doesn't have an official name, hence why it's still at 2003 UB313. bob rulz 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Agreed... see? we reach!...it was only the point that the populace as a whole seem to "like" the name Xena for it I was pointing out...taken as a whole...not what all the great rocket scientist's and brainiac's like for it or not, I bear no one any bad feelings, and am facinated by their discovery and the fun debate that seems to be going on over its presumed and assumed named UB313/Xena and it's cute little moon, Gabrielle? or whatever.

(smiles across the miles) (cathytreks 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

How about we cool this discussion down until the IAU comes up with a name for 2003 UB313? It's all fruitless speculation and name-dropping until then, anyway. The decision could take awhile, as they first need to decide on its status as a planet (or not)... — QuantumEleven 07:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Gabby

Could someone add an infobox for the moon, Gabrielle? 132.205.93.88 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See [[14]] 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What year??

What year do you think this planet will have an official word name?? Georgia guy 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The IAU will decide by the end of August on its status and name. Will probably be announced in early September. Aquirata 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the IAU fully appreciates the urgency of this situation. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What urgency?!?! The planet/KBO is not going anywhere! --BerserkerBen 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The object does not have a hurry, nor does it disappear, but we the people on earth have a hurry anyway. If it takes a long time, the informal name "Xena" will be more and more established. Media is often already using it as if it was official. Besides we are plain impatient. One more planet is a big thing for those interested in astronomy. /BIL 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well according to the IAU it is a dwarf planet, among others Ceres and Pluto recognized already, and Eris is the official name as of 13 Sept 2006. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

I thought this planet already had a name - Sedna (the Inuit goddess of ice or something). Michaelritchie200 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sedna is a completely different object. Check 90377 Sedna. It's a different Kuiper Belt object that was discovered earlier and is still much smaller than Pluto. bob rulz 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda funny how the object immediately acquired a identifying word which is universally recognized by the general public: "Xena." And yet, reports that it is named Xena are "totally incorrect." As are reports that it is a planet. In fact now even Pluto is no longer a planet. Funny things, these names are... Timothy Horrigan Timothy Horrigan 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why 2003 UB₃₁₃ should be named as soon as possible to get the name right (though it seems it may take some time, worst case scenario is that it'll be named in the next IAU meeting in 2009). To put things in perspective, it took decades Uranus to get its name. Neptune's situation was slightly better, but it either wasn't named immediately.--JyriL ^talk 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Binary minor planet?

This is in the category Binary minor planet. Is the moon actually big enough for that? It seems a rather big stretch. 132.205.93.88 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

image

Is this image the moon of Xena (Gabrielle), or is it Xena and Gabrielle?

It is a very poor resolution (what's the point with that?) artwork image of the pair.--JyriL ^talk 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Date

Wouldn't the Discovery Date be January 5, 2005, not October 2003? The image was taken in 2003, but the "planet"/SDO wasn't recognized to exist by the team in any form until January 2005. Some moons were discovered by the Voyagers years after the fact, but they don't bear the "discovery date" of the day their photos are taken, they bear the discovery date of when they were realized to exist --Thirdmoon 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but the date we list here is the one listed by the MPC. The article makes this clear in any case.

Urhixidur 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious Significance?

I know that this is nothing to do with the science of 'Xena' but are there any groups out there claiming that there is any religious significance to people finding this planet. For example, is anybody linking it to any old prophecy?

perfectblue 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

not that I know of ST47 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is more about the discovery of Sedna, but we might be able to expect astrologers to offer a similar response to UB. I did a Google search for "astrology and UB313" and got loads of results. Tfleming 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just googled "Bible" and "UB313" and got this site. sure there are plenty more such sites out there... Tfleming 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet?

I heard on the IRC that they decided this was a planet - is that true yet ST47 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but it will be according to the new proposed definition of planet. The IAU will vote on it on August 24.[15]--JyriL ^talk 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Now classified as a a dwarf planet, as are Pluto and Ceres so far. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Gabrielle_(Xena)"

"Xena"; "Ceres", "1 Ceres".

Hilarious & silly.

Miles O'Brien [ Miles_O'Brien_(journalist) ], cnn, speaking with Neil deGrasse Tyson, announced this mnemonic:

"My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas,..."

"Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto,..."

"...'chovies eXtra."

Hopiakuta 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet Name

Xena? They should name it Chuck Norris. FireSpike 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I say Planet ZZ-Top, because it spins, and all this science is about to put me to sleep. Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs an etymological discussion: Who or waht was Eris? Kdammers 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See here and here for more information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Most distant objects?

The article states:

"2003 UB313 orbits the Sun in a region of space known as the scattered disc accompanied by at least one moon; the pair are currently the most distant known objects in the solar system."

I thought Sedna was more distant. --Aranae 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sedna's usually more distant in its orbit than 2003 UB313, but it was discovered at its closest point to the sun, which is closer than 2003 UB313. --Patteroast

The statement is grossly ambiguous. It ought to be removed, or rephrased to account for its ambiguity. Simply put, Sedna is located at about 90 AU, which is closing to its perihelion. Eris, however, is closing to its aphilion at about 97 AU. Which means right now, it's farther from the sun than any other body. If we look at the solar system with respect to any time reference, Sedna's at its aphilion the farthest known object in the solar system. Echternacht 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris is not the most distant object in orbit around the Sun, or even the most distant known object. There are many known comets that are further out.Michaelbusch 05:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The image accompanying the section on "Orbit" suggests that 2003 UB313 actually crosses to within Neptune's orbit during part of its revolution. Does anyone know how accurate this portrayal is? Perhaps this could also influence the naming. Perhaps Charon can be renamed Pershepone as a companion to Pluto and 2003UB313 named Charon named after the boatman that took people from the world out to the Hades. yeah, yeah, long shot, I know... Tfleming 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the image is that 2003 UB313 is not in the ecliptic, so for the time that it looks as if it's inside Neptune's orbit, it's actually high 'above' (or 'below') it. It's hard to explain in words, but you can play around with the Java applet at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/2003ub313.html Henry^Flower 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Regardless of its inclination to the ecliptic, does anyone know how close UB comes to the Sun? It is ever closer than Pluto or Neptune? (I've long understood that Pluto does this, but maybe someone can confirm that for me as well...) Tfleming 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

UB313's is 37.77 AU from the Sun at its closest approach, which is still beyond Neptune's orbit. The Tom 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Naming Possibilities

First of all, all of the names of the planets are Roman names, although both Uranus and Pluto are also often considered Greek; however, it doesn't make sense to say that the aforementioned planets are named after the Greek gods, as it wouldn't fit with the rest of the planets. Although I prefer the Greek names, I would only support the naming of planets after Greek deities if the other planets' names were changed (Jupiter to Zeus, Saturn to Kronos, Venus to Aphrodite, etc.).Therefore, it would make much more sense to name the planet Proserpine. An alternate spelling, which would avoid the inconvenience of having a planet and asteroid with the same name, is Proserpina, the latter spelling being the one used by Thomas Bullfinch.

Keeping the name Xena would be strange, to say the least, considering that Xena has no mythological background and was invented for the sole object of profit, and so it makes it rather crass to place her name amongst the name of the supreme Roman deities, not to mention possibly offensive to Hellenic polytheists. If people argue for naming the planet Xena for the sake of equal gender rights or something similar, remember that there are many other important Roman goddesses to name it after (Proserpine, for instance).

Of course, there are other deities to name Xena after. First of all, in keeping with the pattern established so far, I think it would be best to name planets after Roman deities, instead of, say, Inuit or Native American deities, as given the large amount of divine beings in Roman mythology (including ones beyond the Olympians). Because we haven't run out of them yet, it would make sense to name Xena after a major deity. And because there are currently seven planets named after male deities (with Earth being gender-neutral)out of nine, or eight out of twelve in the new line-up (the non-male names being Ceres, Earth, UB313, and Venus, with a total of only two female names out of twelve), I believe that it should be named after a female deity. My favorite, as I have previously emphasized, is Proserpina (as Proserpine is taken). However, there are other possibilities; Gaia (or rather Terra, her Roman equivalent) would be awkward and confusing, as Gaia is Mother Earth, but Juno/Hera is a possibility, as is Diana/Artemis, as both were often presented as "cold" goddesses, although not to the extent that Proserpina was. There is also Minerva/Athena; the distant planet could be representative of deep thought that was Minerva's domain. Vesta/Hestia is another possibility, as the dignified Vesta was constantly trying to distance herself from her feuding, dysfunctional family, much as the new planet seems to be distancing itself from the other planets. Outside the category of the Olympians, we could also include Ops/Rhea, the mother of the Olympians, as she distanced herself from her husband Saturn/Kronos after he began devouring their children, much like the planet is far away from Saturn. Trivia/Hecate is yet another possibility, as Trivia was the dark goddess of witchcraft, crossroads, and the harvest moon, and was a major deity.--The Great Honker 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Self-Correction: Vesta wouldn't be a good name for the planet, as it is already the name of a space object that would be on the IAU's watchlist of possible planets.--The Great Honker 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhea is a moon of Saturn, and calling the planet "Trivia" would elicit guffaws not unlike those from the planet with the obscene name.

But that aside, Wikipedia is not the place to voice such suggestions, as they cannot be used to improve the article. Petition the IAU if you want anyone to do anything with them (but they probably have their own ideas). JRM · Talk 10:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's fun and interesting to speculate here, and this kind of information will likely be inserted into the page next month. :P I like Proserpina too, and the mythology fits nicely especially with her being grouped with Ceres as well as the underworld, except that her mommy Ceres would be so much smaller that her.--Hawkian 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• If Rhea is a moon of Saturn, then that obviously wouldn't be a good name for UB313. However, I don't think that Trivia would be a horrible name, given that she was a very powerful goddess, not to mention an underworld deity who, with Proserpina, Ceres, and herself, respectively, formed the Robert Graves maiden-nymph-crone triad, and was herself a triple-goddess, being represented as physically three-sided. And how do you petition the IAU anyway?--The Great Honker 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Presumably you'd need to be a member of the IAU, or know someone in it. My statement was shorthand for "your suggestions are probably not heard anywhere, but if they are heard anywhere, then certainly not here". But Wikipedia has been the origin of weirder things, so who knows. JRM · Talk 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The discoverer gets to suggest a name, not the public. More to the point, suggesting names here is off topic. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another note that is admittedly somewhat irrelevant: Uranus is supposed to be pronounced "yur-annus," with the emphasis on the first syllable, so the joke doesn't work anyway.--The Great Honker 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm, nice try. How the word is supposed to be pronounced isn't very relevant, though. The pronunciation that elicits titters from English adolescents is rather more widespread. JRM · Talk 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Great Honkermade a good statement, but in Latin languages, Earth is Terra, thus a Roman goddess. If the new categorization of planets is accepted, both Proserpina and Proserpine can be used. The definition will also remove the "minor planet" term from asteroids, they will be just space objects aka junk aka LTO (life-threatening objects) :P

the twelve olympians (greek): Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Ares, Hermes, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Athena, Apollo, and Artemis are always considered Olympians. Hebe, Helios, Hestia, Demeter, Dionysus, Hades, and Persephone.

• Thus UB313 can be named (using Roman names): Vulcan, Minerva, Apollo, Diana and Bacchus and the obvious Proserpina. All fantastic names from famous and interresting gods. I hope those that are considered planets will have a greco-Roman name, thus names like Quaoar are interresting but not for planets - planets were named like that because of religion and tradition, these aren't just names. UB313 can also be named Minerva because it was because of it that men finally figured out what is a planet. Bacchus should be given to a planet that has the weirdest orbit, because it is the drunken god: maybe to Sedna. Vulcan to one that has criovulcanism or is reddish. etc. Keep astronomy interesting. --Pedro 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Proserpina would be a very cool name, whether it actually becomes a planet or not. bob rulz 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I forgot Juno, given that 3 Juno will be classified as a minor body of the SS. Thus four girls and 3 boys of Mount Olympus need a home planet. -Pedro 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

26 Proserpina is already taken. Hopquick 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Special symbol?

Does "Xena" have a special symbol to represent it like most other planets have?? If so, please add it to the enttry!--Sonjaaa 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Xena is neither a real mythological figure, nor is it the name of this planet. bob rulz 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU may or may not decide on an astronomical symbol for 2003 UB313 if it decides whether it is a planet or not. That has not been disclosed. It has been disclosed that the body will not be named Xena, no matter how it may be classified. That should be clear from this article. In addition, the IAU will not decide on an astrological symbol, obviously; the IAU are scientists and the planetary classification question has nothing to do with the superstition known as astrology. If astrologers want to use a symbol the IAU decides on (if they do), then that is their prerogative. Derek Balsam 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=167

It should be named Chuck Norris, and the symbol should look something like this: File:Texasflaginstate.png. FireSpike 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think astrologists will use it. Every science or pseudoscience must be based on something. Since astrology is not based on observations or scientific calculations it must be based on tradition. For that reason they have usually not even included Uranus. Some may, some use intuition more than tradition. BIL 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue that astrology is accurate or anything, but could you at least be accurate ABOUT it, if you're going to talk about it? "They have usually not even included Uranus" is wrong - the only time they did NOT was before its discovery. They use it now; it "rules" Aquarius. Astrologers simialarly do not "use intutition more than tradition", though I find it odd that you state that, given that your previous argument seemed to state "they only don't count these planets because it's not in their little worldview", which would seem to contradict it. Anyway, they actually have formulas to calculate horoscopes and such - not that it's alleged effects are based on anything save for folkloric associations, but they DO use formulas, NOT just "intuitiion". I'd argue that using traditional formulas to arrive at a conclusion even without knowing what the hell they were based on is FAR more "traditional" than it is "intuitional". Similarly, you can't expect them to except every known astronomical object in our system, as there are thousands and thousands of them and most are comparitively small or newly-discovered like UB313 is - and therefore either not considered large enough to have a significant effect, or not yet included because they haven't gotten the chance to address it yet (though it would be interesting/funny to see them start accepting just about everything and start arguing that only someone with "considerable knowledge" could decipher it all, heh). Despite some astrologers' claims that it's an "art", it's actually a combination of folklore and mathematical pseudo-science that semi-led to the creation of astronomy, similar to the no-longer-used alchemy, which was the precursor to modern chemistry. Again - it uses formulas based on planetary paths and folkloric associations, NOT intuition. I'm not saying that what they do with these calculations is science (obviously, it's not an empirical science), but your comment very much implies that they do not consider newly-discovered objects in their calculations, which is simply NOT true, otherwise why would Neptune (which was NOT an anciently-known planet) "rule" Pisces or Pluto (only discovered this century!) rule Scorpio, or, contrary to your implications about Uranus, Uranus "rule" Aquarius? The VAST majority of modern astrologers use the more newly-discovered planets in their little calculations, and I'm sure these large, Pluto-sized-or-larger objects in the Kuiper Belt will considered for inclusion as well. Who knows, maybe it'll finally be 100% accurate once they're counted in :P (/jk). 63.21.80.43 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodicity

This user has been adding comments to several articles about (his?) a new bodes law. His claims of notability have been in the form of saying that his webpage has been up for a while (though no claims of traffic and external links are made). Just as an FYI, here's his edit history [16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs).

It seems that 71.215.54.11 and PlanetCeres are of like mind on this issue, as both are repeatedly inserting this material into numerous articles. The articles include Planet, Definition of planet, 2006 redefinition of planet, 1 Ceres, 2003 UB313, and Titius-Bode law. PlanetCeres also deleted Mckaysalisbury's comment above, which has now been restored. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Quanor

What happened to it being referred to as Quanor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfleming (talk • contribs) .

The name is Quaoar, not Quanor, and it refers to a completely different space object.--The Great Honker 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See 50000 Quaoar. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

When will it be named?

Any estimate on when it is expected to receive its final and official name?--Sonjaaa 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• We will find out on the August 24th. If it is deemed a planet, by the adoption of the planet definition proposal, it will receive its name right away. Tachyon01 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No it won't (probably). But let's hope they hurry the decision. If it becomes a planet, I don't know how they will proceed—IAU hasn't named a planet yet. If the draft proporsal is accepted, they'll better to figure out the proceedings. If it doesn't, Mike Brown et al. already have submitted a name for it to the committee which supervises the naming of minor planets. Without the definition of a planet controversy, it would have been named a long ago. In fact, Mike Brown thought it will be declared a planet within months after the discovery announcement. To save media from using the horrible designation 2003 UB₃₁₃, he gave it the (temporary) nickname "Xena".--JyriL ^talk 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• IAU hasn't named a planet but will name this one (if it is one), not Mike Brown. Tachyon01 is correct. --Pedro 22:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that. Mike Brown can suggest the name only if it doesn't become a planet. However, the IAU won't name it during this meeting (if I understood it correctly).--JyriL ^talk 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Classification

2003 UB₃₁₃ is presently classified as a scattered disk object (SDO)...

This sentence is somewhat misleading. Even if it becomes a planet, it still remains a SDO (like the planet Pluto is a KBO).--JyriL ^talk 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is full of wording like that: "is presently classified", "The object currently has the provisional designation", etc. The words "presently" and "currently" are superfluous and misleading. The sentences are just fine -- true, accurate, and verifiable -- without those words. The words actually make the article less accurate by implying a prediction of future events, as you rightly point out.Derek Balsam 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• 16:41, 22 August 2006 Derek Balsam (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - Brown et al. formally call it a "scattered Kuiper Belt object" in their paper.) who is Brown to formally classify something?! "scattered Kuiper Belt object" as far as I know is just an informall catagorization. --Pedro 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Who is Brown to formally classify something?" Not sure I follow you. By 'formally classify', I simply mean that Brown et al. used the term "scattered Kuiper Belt object" in a published, peer reviewed scientific paper (The Astrophysical Journal, 643: L61–L63, 2006 May 20 - See References section of main article), which is the standard as far as we at Wikipedia should be concerned. For readers of Wikipedia, that is a formal statement of science to which we should not add weasel words which could give an incorrect impression to laypeople. "Informally" and "unofficially" suggest usages such as the name Xena, which is a good example of informal usage outside of science proper. But characterizing 2003UB313 as a scattered disk object is not informal at all, as evidenced by citation to a verifiable scientific source.Derek Balsam 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Persephone

There's no way this planet won't be Persephone if it becomes planetary. I mean, Ceres, Pluto, and Charon are all in the story of the marraige of Persephone and Hades, and Ceres is Seph's mom. It just seems odd that they haven't thought of a name yet, and this one makes most sense to me. -Kamikazetomato 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard that it can't be called Persephone, because of the asteroid 399 Persephone, orbiting outside Mars. Two minor planets can't have the same name. The same problem for several roman names. If UB313 is not a proper planet, there is more freedom in naming. BIL 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it has been determined whether dwarf planets will follow the planet rules or the minor planet rules. In fact, the IAU calls it a "new category", so this is still an interesting story. [17]--Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Romanized version of Persephone then?

The Roman name for Persephone is Proserpine, alternately spelled Proserpina. In addition to those, Kore was a Greek name often used for Persephone.--The Great Honker 18:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding, but I did hear on CNN recently that they did intend to make the dwarf planets have similar names, just like how Jupiter's moons each are named after a character in a myth largely involving Zues (perhaps even his mistresses, which is why there are so many moons.) -Kamikazetomato 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

399 Persephone and 26 Proserpina are taken. Game Over. Hopquick 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Proserpine and Kore are still possibilities :-) -- Nbound 04:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Planet/Dwarf planet

If the phrase "dwarf planet" contains the word "planet", then what makes the term not a planet?? Any clarification on terminology?? Georgia guy 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're being too literal about it. The IAU says those terms are what they are. Planets and Dwarf planets are two different things. Kind of like "holes" and "black holes". Derek Balsam 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU discussed calling "planets" instead "classical planets", meaning both types would be "planets", but that language was voted down. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

can an admin please move it to 2003 UB313

Article needs to be moved to 2003 UB313!! "Xena" is just a nickname for now.--Sonjaaa 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be at 2003 UB313. Whatever is decided on, please settle on something. I've been trying to fix double redirects only to find myself having to start over again before I can even finish. Unless you're going to move it back to 2003 UB313 where it started and belongs, please discuss a move like that here first. --Aranae 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This object will never, never, be named "Xena".--JyriL ^talk 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I move-protected the article now. It was being moved back and forth without any discussions that I can see. Shanes 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation??

What is the most correct pronunciation? Is it "two thousand and three, yoo bee, three one three" or "... three hundred and thirteen" or ?--Sonjaaa 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard both, as well as "yoo bee three-thirteen." I think Brown used three-one-three in an interview I heard, if that's of any help. The Tom 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an IPA pronunciation of Eris, the now official name, would ease some confusion. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass

Is the mass really unknown? It is easy to calculate the mass from the distance to the sattelite and from the period of the satellite's orbit.--Nixer 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Calculation would be easy, but we don't know the orbit of the satellite...--JyriL ^talk 14:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to require more accurate measurement of the orbital inclination, especially for such a distant object. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing sites, changing cites

Note 8 currently links to Mike Brown's page. The note is attached to an old quote of his. However, the quoted bit has now been deleted from the page. I think it'd be nicer to change note 8 into a {{cite web}} template, with a proper access date. --Kjoonlee 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done for note 8. --Kjoonlee 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearing the Neighborhood

It's orbit is almost completely void of other objects, unlike Pluto. I wonder if the IAU has to eat some crow... 70.177.71.206 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its in the scattered disk, its planetary discriminant is about .10 - thus not a planet -- Nbound 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are these underestimates for Pluto and Xena due to our limited knowledge of what's in the Kuiper Belt and beyond? I suspect we have a reasonable idea of what massive objects are in the vicinity of Ceres, but we are still determining what's in the vicinity of Pluto and Xena. --Aranae 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We know for FACT that pluto shares its orbit with many large objects... check out the page on the kuiper belt. As for Xena in the scattered disk, there are plenty of objects out the already discovered that would void its status, and we havent even found anywhere near all of them -- Nbound 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed my point. I agree that there are many objects within Pluto's orbit. What I'm saying is that many of these objects were discovered very recently and there are likely to be more on the way. We know even less about what's going on way out at Xena. The region around Ceres, on the other hand is much better mapped. I'm curious if these values are likely to decrease much (separating Pluto and Xena even further from the 8 planets) or if the values will stay roughly the same even with more objects discovered? --Aranae 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah id say they'll fall even more as more and more objects are found due to better tech and/or time -- Nbound 06:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)