Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

"Name" section

Could we delete at least some of the embarrassing gossip from the full page long name section? What’s the point of repeating who allegedly said what? For example, what is the purpose of the long quotation from Discoverer’s site (he’s not claming to be an expert of the naming rules, is he?). What is it the encyclopaedic value? There are many popular sites and blogs for Astronomy fans. We’re writing here an encyclopaedia. Regards Eurocommuter 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article is too much brown-centred. It should be reviewed. --Pedro 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. I was wondering what that long quotation is doing here, especially that the object has an official name now. Orionist 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• I pared the section down to what I think is the essential information that it contained.RandomCritic 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Good. But I think it could use a bit more paring. -- MiguelMunoz 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Xena

I do not think that there is any reason to give the nickname "Xena" any particular prominence. It is an historical footnote, a private in-joke and from an encyclopedic perspective best forgotten soon. People looking for "Xena" will be redirected to this article, and if they bother to read (or search) it they will find the relevant note. But the name "Xena" has no particular importance with regard to the object and doesn't need a mention among the basic facts about it. RandomCritic 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Im for this also, but perhaps we should retain it for a limited time (a week or so?) -- Nbound 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a half-dozen words in a lengthy intro, and there are references out there that refer to this object only as "Xena"; it's worth it, for now, to reassure readers they are in the right place. I'm sure there will be an obvious course of action in six months (which may be to remove); what's the rush? Septentrionalis 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was nicknamed Xena at the time it was announced, or shortly thereafter--so it was popularly known as Xena for more than a year. Between the announcement and the what's-a-planet debate, it got considerable media coverage during that year; many of those articles will continue to exist on the Web forever after, referring to the object only as Xena. I don't know why you wouldn't want to help out people who come across those references in years to come by quickly and simply clarifying that "Xena" is Eris. Nareek 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then they will search for Xena, upon coming to the Xena page there is a link up the top to redirect them to Eris already in place -- Nbound 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it really isn't that important, but a mention of the nickname should be included since it is an example of the Brown et al. group having to adapt to the controversy. Because Eris' status was in limbo for so long, and thus an official name could not be assigned, the discovery group publicized the nickname to avoid having to repeat 2003 UB313 in the press, which can be cumbersome. Perhaps the nickname can be mentioned in that context, but I agree, it does need any particular prominence. --Volcanopele 04:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Xena should be mentioned in the article and the disambiguation page. Like it or not, a lot of people called it Xena, and it is our duty to clarify that piece of knowledge to those who are not "in the know". --Exodio 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris name being Xena (although unoficially) is now part of History. Maybe every mention of it can go down to Name section or something less prominent, but it should be keeped.

While reading through the article I noticed that the nickname "Gabrielle" is mentioned for the moon Dysnomia in the discovery section

However that fact seems to come out of the blue as there is no mention in the article above that point as to why mentioning the nickname "Gabrielle" is relevant.

It would seem to me that reference to "Gabrielle" at that point should be deleted if the reference to "Xena" at the start of the article is deleted and the name "Gabrielle" only mentioned in the section of the article explaining the "Xena" name Garda40 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Featured Article Shot?

I came to this article because of its mention on Front Page News. When I read it, I immetiately thought it was of or near FA quality, so I came to the Talk page to find out if it was one. The objections from the prior nomination appear to have been largely satisfied. After the post-front-page-mention editing frenzy calms down, it should be ready for a final cleanup in preparation for another FA nomination. The graphics do need to be rearranged. By the way, the proposed new name is a better one for an FA (yes I voted). NOTE: I have NOT worked on this article ever. If a serious FA effort is made, I would be willing to help with some copy editing and the like (I'm not good with graphics, though). Finell (Talk) 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Portuguese version is a Featured Article; I think we could take some tips from them. --Merovingian - Talk 07:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't nominate it yet. Naming disputes etc. must be resolved first. The article is still too volatile.--JyriL ^talk 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think some of the arguments still lingering are grounds to delist it for GA, but I'm hesitant to do so unilaterally. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that. If you think this article should be delisted, be bold and go ahead but give good reasons why you came up with that decision.--JyriL ^talk 11:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A requirement for FA is the article be stable. With current news and protection of the article, the article is far from stable. True FA articles are under the radar. Electrawn 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, hold it until everything settles down, give it a few weeks. Tuvas 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's let it get stable again, then seek to have the article relisted. Hopefully I'll be wrong and everything will be peaceful. Kyaa the Catlord 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that we can edit the article again, I'm actually noticing alot of little things. I think the article should be re-GAed, then peer reviewed, and finally nominated for FA. But I'd have to vote against it right now, even if it was stable... Tuvas 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Removal

File:2003 UB313 distance comparison.jpg

Comparing the distances of the planets to the dwarf planets Pluto and Eris

I think that this image must be removed from the article. It doesn't give an obvious representation of the distances and it's not to scale for that matter. It only gives you a distorted idea about the solar system, and adds nothing to the already-image-cluttered article. Moreover, it has some copyright issue (click on it) and maybe deleted. If no one gives a good reason why this should stay, i'm going to remove it. Orionist 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It says that it is to scale. The planets and orbits are just at different scales. The fact that it shows the orbits in one ddimension rather than 2 or 3 is a minus, of course. And any copyvio should certainly be removed. Eluchil404 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, and it just doesn't seem to fit, I've been playing around with it without much luck. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Tuvas 06:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

mis-use of the term "Kuiper belt"

There is no way that (136199) Eris can be considered part of a belt, so this mention should be removed from the initial paragraph. Eris is in an odd, highly inclined orbit that is not similar to any other known object. If the term "Kuiper belt" is used at all, it should be used only to refer to the cubewanos (i.e., the main belt of transneptunian objects, much closer to Neptune than is Eris).

After studying the issue a bit, I agree. The correct term is "Scattered Disk". The largest KBO is truly Pluto, at least, the largest known. Most of the other objects approaching Pluto's side are actually in this scattered disk region. So, I agree with the assesment that any reference to Kuiper Belt Object should be changed to Scattered Disk. Tuvas 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Like Pluto, the new dwarf planet is a member of the Kuiper belt, a swarm of icy bodies beyond Neptune in orbit around the sun. Until this discovery Pluto was frequently described as "the largest Kuiper belt object" in addition to being a dwarf planet. Pluto is now the second largest Kuiper belt object, while this is the largest currently known. -- Michael Brown

We should avoid original research. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we not leave Dr Brown’s site alone? One page is maybe updated, another maybe it is not. Please read some normal peer-reviewed TNO papers and you’ll discover the following a) the terminology is vague and the first formal classification attempt comes from Deep Ecliptic Survey (see Elliot 2006 ref in the articles). b) The terminology has been evolving over the last few years so it is natural to find different terms in older sources. Consequently, I believe the best thing to do is to quote different terms/classification with sources (like I just did for Sedna in TNO article). Again, I feel we should really stop this ‘Brown said’; Dr. Brown has published more than few papers, please read them and quote them. Eurocommuter 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Example: from the introduction of the famous article about the sise (2nd ref in the article, The Astrophysical Journal, 643: L61–L63, (2006 May 20) The planetary-sized scattered Kuiper belt object 2003 UB313 was discovered..'. I hope it illustrates my point about spurious terminology skirmishes. Eurocommuter 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eurocommuter, please assume good faith. I think that you and I both agree that such definitions, when vague, should be treated as such and that reliable sources should be cited. The above posters were placing their own assessments on the definitions, which is original research. I may not be reading peer-reviewed journals all day, but I do know that barring a formal definition of the term, Wikipedia policy requires us to use sources and that Mike Brown's site does qualify. If at a later time the KBO/SDO are properly defined as separate, Brown will probably go along. Something like "Eris, which Brown classified as a Kuiper Belt object blah blah blah.... Other astronomers separate the Kuiper Belt from the objects in the scattered disk, and classify Eris among them." It's not like he's a backyard amateur, after all. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dhartung, it seems you misunderstood my comment, or my comment went beyond my intentions. Of course, I do assume good faith. My point was about the evolving terminology. This is a potential source of confusion for our readers, I believe and should probably be handled in the TNO article, actually. In a nutshell, but this is a simplification, some authors do not feel comfortable with the notion ‘’Kuiper Belt’’ and prefer to use ‘’trans-Neptunian objects’’. Others, do not make the distinction between them so you have ‘scattered Kuiper Belt’ in the quotation. Recent DES I quoted before puts Scattered-Near and Scattered-Extended as formally defined categories of KBO, because KBO=other authors trans-Neptunian in this paper (i.e. the term trans-Neptunian is never mentioned). Our articles do not yet represent sufficiently this trend.

Of course, we fully agree on the need for referencing. I would simply try to avoid putting so much stress on the terminology thinking precisely about the reader who came to the article following the news.

Finally, I’m not sure why you did you put your remark about "backyard amateur". My point was simply to make the difference between the authors’ (not only Dr Brown's) papers and their popular sites. Many others (Jewitt, Sheppard) are also making an excellent job making new discoveries available to the wide public. However, these sites are not necessarily intended (I presume) as a scientific reference (they provide links to the actual references). On this, my point was simple, whenever possible, as an encyclopaedia, let’s use (peer-reviewed) sources rather than popular sites. Regards Eurocommuter 21:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See Also section

In my mind at least, the see also section should contain links which are relevent, but not given a place in the main part of the article. Terms such as Pluto, Kuiper Belt Object, Scattered Disc region, etc, don't seem to have a place there. Am I wrong? Tuvas 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That is normal editing. I see no need to seek concensus for this. Finell (Talk) 06:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just a bit worried of starting a new edit war... Tuvas 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't think you need to worry about a war... the ranks have already been decimated by the deity wars and the Great Move Debate... however, that aside, the changes (I think) have now weakened the "See also" section. A lot of the links removed are relevant, especially for someone who's read down through the article and who may want to continue on to read about related subjects. (Yes, of course, you can click through above, but novice users may not think to search back through the document for a single word or phrase that will take them to the desired article.) It's very common in print articles to have "See also" terms at the end even though those terms have already been mentioned in the body of the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the things I removed can easily be found in the templates right below it, and were mentioned several times in the article. It just seems to be more tidy now, and if people want to know more about the other odds and ends, they can easily look down at the templates and keep searching. Tuvas 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I looked at the pictures, and moved them around a bit, and removed one that didn't seem to convey useful info. Do these changes seem alright? Tuvas 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was doing the same thing, i think i may have edited over your changes, we probably made the same moves but :P -- Nbound 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It just looks too crowded, I think we should trim a few of the pictures. I do think the still lapse picture of Eris needs to be removed, as well as a few of the pictures near the bottom, at least one of them... Personally, I'd choose the Distribution of trans-Neptunian Objects. I added Eris because there just isn't a picture in that part of the article, but I think we could do to remove a few others, in the more crowded places.Tuvas 06:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose:

• remove timelapse
• possibly move TNO distribution to classification section
• remove comparing distance pic

comments/critcisms? -- Nbound

I went ahead and removed ones with issues, either there was too many pictures, copyright issues, or other such things, and I think it looks better actually. I'm going to stop now though, I don't want to break the 3RR rule by accident... Tuvas 06:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

u'll only break it if your reverting possibly useful edits, we are cleaning up the article, all will be fine :) -- Nbound

File:2003 UB313 NASA illustration 3.jpg

I hate to open this can of worms again, but is the mythological picture necessary here? It is in the Eris (mythology) article, right up front, and the image of the mythological figure doesn't really illustrate anything about the celestial body. --Volcanopele 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As a replacement for that image, is there a nice artist rendering of the Eris (Erisian?) system? --Volcanopele 06:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Eris is more relevant in the name section, than a random rendering of the Erisian system -- Nbound 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what was present before the cleanup - perhaps it should be restored. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are gonna use a pic, the one from Dysnomia (moon)'s info box would be much better -- Nbound

I do agree, it's probably not nessicary, but, well, I just wanted something to break up the name section a bit, and I couldn't think of anything else that was relevant... If you have a better idea, I'd gladly take it, but I'd like to see something at least relevant to the naming... Tuvas 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I looked at the portuguese article, which is an FA, and you will also see the exact same picture on there, so, unless they copied us... Not to say that that should be the ultimate reference, but, I thought I'd mention it. Tuvas 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I have never seen an article on a solar system body with a picture of its namesake in the article. We've usually just left it to the article on the namesake to take of that. A picture of Eris isn't exactly relevant to the discussion of the celestial body Eris. Now, I understand that a random rendering of the Erisian system isn't relevant to that section (though might be useful elsewhere in the article, perhaps down in the Moon section), but I don't see the need for the Eris goddess picture. --Volcanopele 20:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely -- that's why we have hypertext. Readers interested in the goddess can follow the wikilink. It is not, however, directly relevant to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for GA again?

The article seems to fulfill the GA requirements and is looking better than ever, what do you guys think? -- Nbound 06:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Im going to post it up for GA -- Nbound

ipa

If we're going to use IPA, then it should be in a form that's internationally viewable. Please format so that the average joe on a public computer with an American, German, Korean, etc. keyboard can read the symbols with-out having to know how to do some sort of complicated stuff with the computer (that might not even be possible with-out admin rights). Kdammers 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

it reads fine for me, try changing your character encoding to unicode perhaps? (should be in view menu of browser) -- Nbound 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[ˈiɹɪs] should be transliterated <ee-ris>, not <eye-ris>, which would be [ˈaɪɹɪs], like the flower or the colored part of the eye. BirdValiant 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, somebody got rid of that already. Thanks. BirdValiant 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planet naming discussion started

This recent renaming has solved nothing! Even many of the supporters of this move wanted Pluto and 1 Ceres to conform to it. However, the Pluto page is now move-protected and the editors there seem dead-set against any move at this time. Also, 1 Ceres has not yet been moved. To deal with this issue, I have started the page Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming, so that all interest parties can discuss this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No surprises there! RandomCritic 02:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I delete...

Let me just ask: Why is there a Small Solar System Body footer on this page? The entire category of SSSBs just exists as something that Eris is not a part of. RandomCritic 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i beleive it is a remnant from pre-August 24th -- Nbound

On the adjectival form of Eris

For future reference: If the astronomical adjective meaning "of or related to the dwarf planet Eris" is formed in the same way as that of other astronomical objects with Latin and Greek names, it will be Eridian and not Erisian. This is because most such astronomical adjectives are formed by adding the suffix -ian to the noun stem, the basic meaning-bearing part of the word which comes before any inflectional endings. In Latin and Greek, it is very often different - sometimes strikingly so - from the nominative singular form which is usually quoted. It can be determined by looking at the genitive singular of the noun declension, which in Latin often ends in -is and in Greek in -os. Examples are shown below; the noun stem is the part before the dash.

Nominative	Genitive	English adjective
Mars	Mart-is	Martian
Jupiter	Jov-is	Jovian
Pluto	Pluton-is	Plutonian
Juno	Junon-is	Junonian
Pallas	Pallad-os	Palladian
Eris	Erid-os	Eridian (presumably)

Anyway, that's why I've been using Eridian instead of "Erisian" or something like that; to me, "Erisian" sounds like saying "Marsian" or "Jupiterian". RandomCritic 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Erisian has a history of being used for things related to Eris. Erisian mystery, Erisian movement, Erisian discordianism, these all have google hits while Eridian has not been used in this manner. Kyaa the Catlord 05:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all those refer to Eris (mythology) -- frequently the discordian Eris. Having a distinct adjective for the astronomical object is normal and from the point of view of clarity is a good thing -- nobody uses "Martian" to mean "related to the god Mars", and so there is no confusion.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned you can personally use what you like. I am just pointing out what the precedents are. Modern astronomers are sometimes not quite as linguistically keen as those of the past (who frequently wrote in Latin); so I have no idea what to expect them to come up with when they start looking for an adjective.RandomCritic 05:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Making up a new word would be silly, imho. Then again, it really isn't our decision. Kyaa the Catlord 06:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As RandomCritic says, being able to distinguish "Eridian moon" (Dysnomia) vs. "Erisian moon" (showing someone your butt with the Sacred Chao painted on it) is a good thing. DenisMoskowitz 12:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it was a mistype on the satellite footer as s and d are next to each other, but yeah your way would be correct. -- Nbound

Due to WP:NOT and WP:NOR, shouldn't new adjectives be kept off Wikipedia? --Kjoonlee 12:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the IAU's Committee for Small Body Nomenclature to ask what they recommended for an adjectival form of Eris. Their answer is that they are only responsible for the name of the object, and they do not prescribe adjectival forms: their specialty is astronomy, not linguistics. There is therefore no "official" adjectival formation, and one may do as one pleases; eventually there will be a linguistic consensus based on usage. Of the two astronomers on the Committee that I contacted, one suggested simply using "of Eris" in place of an adjective; the other remarked that there is an adjective "eristic" related to the Greek word eris. Neither of these was presented as an official statement by the committee, but as the views of the individuals concerned. As for Wikipedia, I expect it will conform to whatever terms appear in the scientific literature, if and when such terms are used. At present there would seem to be nothing, as the name is only four days old. RandomCritic 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• this has nothing to do with original research. That's a linguistic issue. Please someone confirm if it is "eridian" or "erisian" in mythology books concerning Eris. It would be very useful for other languages also. thx. --Pedro 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like OR to me. Someone else should do the confirming, and we should only add that if it comes from reliable sources. --Kjoonlee 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Eris" still wrong

The name itself is wrong, and both pronunciations are ridiculose. In Latin, it's Èris, and in English, it's Errees. That anyone would say ee-ris shows that one is a deaf and dim shithead—confer the Cockney. (see Talk:Untranslatability#disputed) -lysdexia 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

the one that most people seem to be using is "airris" -- Nbound 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The air sound at the front is surely because of a US accent. I'd have thought most British people would pronounce it similar to the pronunciation of "ferris" i.e. in ferris wheel - it's effecitvely the same way of speaking the word Eris, just with different accents. Richard B 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats the exact sound i meant airris and (f)erris sound exactly the same in AU english... (not US english! ='( ) -- Nbound 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to (a) comment on the pointlessness of this section, and (b) point out how ridiculous our angry friend's spelling is. It amuses me that one can be so pedantic about the pronunciation of obscure words when they are unable to spell common words. aLii 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to point that this should not be confused with Iris - goddess of rainbow (in which honour named element Iridium).--Nixer 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet footer

Why don't we have the standard minor planet footer on this page (i.e. the one that would link to minor planets 136198 and 136200)? Since Eris has a minor planet number, it is a minor planet thus we should have the footer. Chaos syndrome 11:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, adding now -- Nbound 11:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Symbol for Eris

There is a debate: [1] and a petition http://www.petitiononline.com/ffhoeris/petition.html and an astrological site [2] all working right now to develop an 'official' symbol (to be adopted by whomever wants to use it) for the dwarf planet Eris. Right now, we all seem to agree on the Five Fingered Hand of Eris as the best symbol to use, since it is somewhat in line with the other astrological/planetary symbols. I mention and do not add this information to the page because it is still undecided. But then again, you're dealing with Discordians. --Travlr23 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decides this sort of thing, anyway? Is the IAU responsible for that, as well? In other words, how will we know when there's a official decision? Is it even important enough to warrant official decision, or will other people (astrologers) come up with some consensus?

Anyway, I think it is reasonable to assume this five fingered hand symbol as a serious contender, since it seems to be pretty much the only candidate, discordian or not.

Orbit

The text in the orbit section states that Eris does not cross the orbit of Neptune. However, the illustration in that section seems to show it crossing Neptunes orbit. Which is correct? Kaldari 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't cross Neptune's orbit. The periastron is further out than the apastron of Neptune. The issue with the image is a projection issue - the orbit has been projected down into the plane of Neptune's orbit, and since Eris is in an inclined orbit, it appears to cross Neptune. Chaos syndrome 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Centralized Discussion at Dwarf Planet/Naming

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming

How many arcsecs?

I know nothing about astronomy, but after reading this sentence: -

the team's automatic image-searching software excluded all objects moving at less than 1.5 arcseconds per hour to reduce the number of false positives returned. When 90377 Sedna was discovered, it was moving at 1.75 arcsec/h, and in light of that the team reanalyzed their old data,

my question is how many arcsec/h was Eris appear to be moving across the sky? It the sentance would be more meaningful if this info was added. Parasite 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

GA On hold

Hey... I put the Good Article nom. on hold because there is currently a small dispute going on and a naming dispute so in my opinion that should be clarified before going further. Except that, I think the article fullfills the GA criteria and if it would be me, it would be GA. --Deenoe 10:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rundown of current disputes:

Eridian vs Erisian (probably going to last until the IAU says what to use)

See above. The IAU is not going to say what to use. In any case neither form appears in the text and the current version of our infobox doesn't require it. So no dispute. RandomCritic 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You just love to argue with me, don't you? :P If the IAU isn't going to make a ruling on this, I agree that we need to wait on whatever other scientific consensus comes out with the correct answer to Eris/dian. Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

naming dispute for dwarf planets

These are the two I've seen. There's some minor issues with the lead, but those don't seem to be too important. Kyaa the Catlord 10:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In Russian it's Erida, Ceres is Cerera, Pallas is Pallada and Venus is Venera.--Nixer 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay for Russian. There is already a "of Eris" word available. Creating a new neologism is silly. Not that I don't fully foresee this being done, but that's because, in large part, scientists are silly too. Kyaa the Catlord 14:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyhows, when the disputes will be resolved, it would be my pleasure (or anyone) to give it the Good Article status. --Deenoe 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New Template for dwarf planet names

(from Talk:Dwarf planet) You can now enter {{dp|Name}} and it will automatically bring up the correct minor planet number without you needing to look it up, but it will display only as the name. E.g. {{dp|Ceres}} will give Ceres i.e. [[1 Ceres|Ceres]].

These can be used mid-article to provide links to the correct article titles, without using redirects and saving time writing minor planet numbers in.

Only covers the dwarf planets - {{dp|Pluto}} will link to [[134340 Pluto|Pluto]] at the moment - just in case it ever changes - but you wouldn't need to currently use the template for links to the Pluto article - it's just at Pluto

The template can of course be amended if the naming convention changes e.g. if the IAU issues a new dwarf planet catalogue system - meaning that no links would have to be changed - just the template. Richard B 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

so, if I understand the first line correctly, the dwarf planet can be called either "eh-ris" or "ee-ris"? 128.12.103.11 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

sounds right... basically one emphasises the 'E' and the other doesnt... read the IPA page if u havent already :) - Nbound 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

link to naming convention being removed

Ryulong has been removing the wikilink to the appropriate section on astronomical naming conventions, claiming, completely without any cogent argument, that such linking is "ridiculous".

I have added the link back. I am now asking Ryulong for his direct argument why this link to another article that explains the naming system in use by the IAU and directly relevant to this article, is in some way "ridiculous". Lacking such, to any rational reader and writer of these articles, a reference to an "official designation" can tolerate a wikilink to the corresponding article that explains as much. mdf 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion began some time ago, when Paul_venter was continually adding these links in the lead. I felt that the links - initially, just to a long list of numerical asteroid designations - were inappropriate and confusing. He and I discussed it at some length, and we weren't able to agree. I stopped removing the links because I didn't want to get into an edit war with him. However, there are now several editors disagreeing with putting such links at that point in the article. Therefore, I think the onus is now for you and Paul to convince the others as to why it should be added - rather than for us to convince you why it shouldn't. (Just my two cents.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit in question makes no reference to any of the above details: it simply strips the informational wikilink around the phrase "official designation", dismissing it as "ridiculous". The phrase was wikilinked for exactly the same reason that I recently wikilinked the word "acetaldehyde": the referenced page is directly relevant. Is that sufficient explanation? Note that I find it hard to go on further, simply because to do so will just insult most people's intelligence. Isn't this, like, obvious? mdf 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the "naming" page as a link (I think I originally created it to try ty accomodate Paul_venter), I don't know if it is needed in the lead. However, that's something for the group to decide. What are your thoughts on linking the number to a long list of asteroids, as Paul seems to want to do? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. Well, that is just needlessly gratuitous. As for the it being "needed in the lead", no opinion on that, except that I'll say that wherever that "136199 Eris" makes it's first or second appearance, I think it makes a great deal of sense that a link to the naming scheme be nearby. mdf 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Move

How can this page be moved while it is still marked as protected? Maybe the admin who moved it and the admin who protected it could have had a chat before jerking this article around one more time? RandomCritic 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You know full well who moved this page and why. You even added an immediate request for the page to be moved back on WP:RM before posting here. This page was moved partly because of majority vote, and partly — I suspect — because it was the right thing to do. The article should stay in its current location unless a good argument can be made to move it to Eris and move the disambiguation page elsewhere. aLii 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it should be moved to Eris and disambiguation should be moved elsewhere for the sake of having one style with Pluto and Ceres. Eris should not be discriminated! TestPilot 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we just let things rest for a month ro so? I would like to see a consensus to give "dwarf planets" the same status and planets before we do that. However, I cannot see that "dwarf planets" being permanently on that footing. There most likely will soon be over a dozen of these objects, and they will fade from people's consciousness over time. The only thing that makes them more noteworthy now (if they are) is the recent media attention over their designation. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why the hell was Ceres moved? Ryūlóng 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That move was done by an over-enthusiastic admin who figured that 1 Ceres being a "dwarf planet" meant that it automatically trumped the godess Ceres for naming priority. The page move was done without notice or debate, and after I protested at talk:1 Ceres (which was at [[talk:Ceres]] at that time), the move was reversed. --EMS | Talk 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ceres was moved from 1 Ceres because a newbie moved the goddess' page to Ceres (mythology), and he then performed a copy-paste move to move 1 Ceres to Ceres, which was then histmerged. Ryūlóng 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even all the planets proper get preferred non-disambiguated status. Mercury, anyone? Discordianism makes Eris far more notable than a dwarf planet. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercury is disambiguated due to the element of the same name, and as far as I am aware no other element is disambiguated. Atomic1609 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Now that an admin has moved this page, I'm assuming that the discussion on the article moving is over -- at least on this Talk page -- and I've archived the discussion. It's the third one in the box above. RandomCritic 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 05:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Pass

Has I said before, I put on hold the GA to wait until naming and other disputes has been resolved. I now passed the GA because the article is stable, it conforms to all the criterias and the disputes has been resolved. Good job to everyone who worked on the article, even if they only changed or added a word. --Deenoe 01:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New poll on naming dispute

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discordian naming campaign

The text has been removed (again) - this was decided upon quite some time ago as not being appropriate for the article, but it continues to resurface again and again. Yes, there's a link, but that only serves to suggest that the campaign existed. It certainly doesn't warrant including speculative text in an encyclopedia article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it was noted that neither Mike or the IAU have mentioned the Discordian's actions in official statements. Based on talking with Mike, the naming was entirely due to Eris' being the goddess of discord (and the terrible pun of Dysnomia). This is not an official statement, however. Michaelbusch 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One last (please oh please) poll

Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. Because an important option was left out of the last poll. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Ceres move

Following the discussion and supermajority/consensus established on Talk: Dwarf planet/Naming there is a proposed move for 1 Ceres to be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet) on the Talk: 1 Ceres page. Those Eris editors who wish for a policy one way or another on the overall naming scheme for dwarf planets should participate there. Thanks. The Enlightened 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical_objects). Now, I'm not saying we necessarily SHOULD use this - it's a proposed guideline, after all. But we probably should discuss it, since we are going against it. It seems to make a clear case for Pluto staying where it is. What about Ceres (one of its examples, though before the reorginisation) and Eris? Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

September 2006 archive

Older discussions have been moved to the September 2006 archive, up top. RandomCritic 06:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

isn't it time to re-nominate this article to Featured Article status? Orionist 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed symbols

The one proposed in september 2005 in Poland . Plase list here the other proposed symbols. Anika 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- svg format. GrzegorzWu 08:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is most unlikely that the IAU will nominate a symbol for the object. Such additions would be unfounded speculation. Michaelbusch 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.zanestein.com/Trans-pluto.htm#UB313 - it would be nice if the IAU officially recognized symbols for the various planets and dwarf planets. Ofcourse, not that the IAU need do it... astologers invented on for Pluto they're quite happy with, ignoring the PL symbol. But, as IAUPAC gives symbols for elements, IAU should give a symbol to Eris. 132.205.44.128

If a symbol (or many symbols) become generally associated, we should probably mention it here. 132.205.44.128 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen for a few decades: The symbols just aren't used much anymore, so there's no strong push to get one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Astrologers are the only ones who routinely insert Eris into their charts, so they were in need for handy symbol. And so far only minority of them is doing this at all. GrzegorzWu 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Erisian/Discordian community has been pushing for "The Five Fingered Hand Of Eris" to become the official symbol of the planet Eris. Assorted online petitions have been started and the 'historical' symbol of the Erisian movement seems to be far more appropriate than the glyph referenced above from the Polish source. http://www.moldred.org/images/designs017.JPG shows the symbol as shown in The Principia Discordia. --Razmear 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Apple of Eris/Apple of Discord" symbol is, likewise (and unsurprisingly) advocated by Discordians and Erisians as a possible glyph for the dwarf planet. A completely unofficial variant of the apple-glyph can be found here: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/astrology/eris-glyph.php 24.21.201.230 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The official symbol candidate is: http://www.suberic.net/~dmm/graphics/astro/img/big/Eris.png I attempted to upload the public domain image, but got errors. http://www.suberic.net/~dmm/graphics/moons/ shows the proposed symbols for both Eris and Dysnomia. --Razmear 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the IAU will not assign symbols to additional objects. Michaelbusch 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Those are the images I created. I'm not sure my Dysnomia symbol is proposed by anyone but me. Obviously none of these are worth adding to the article unless using Eris in astrology becomes much more widespread, and even then it would probably end up in a section of Astrology rather than here. As for the Polish symbol, I've seen that symbol used to mean Earth, so it would be strange to have it suddenly refer to Eris. DenisMoskowitz 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. BTW, Razmear, the proposed "Five Fingered Hand of Eris" and another proposed symbol, the "Eye of Providence", have already been uploaded in nice SVG format: and . _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The current stable of symbols is:

• 

Shouldn't we omit the symbol from 2060 Chiron as well, then? Urhixidur 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should. They are not being used by anyone, and have no historical significance. Michaelbusch 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that is not true. They are used by astrologers --and only by astrologers. A paragraph in the text (rather than an infobox entry) is warranted, methinks. Urhixidur 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the level of usage of the symbols by astrologers, but unless they are widespread, I think Wikipedia:Notability needs to be considered. If the proposed symbols have simply been proposed and don't have widespread usage or significant history, then they are not notable. Michaelbusch 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Although these symbols are not used by astronomers, they do continue to be used by astrologers. Astrologers were the original astronomers...I don't see a problem with a small sub-section or paragraph alluding to the symbol. Probable placement would be in name section as a symbol is a suitable substitution for a name (pictoglyphs are an example of this.) Abyssoft 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the Chiron symbol is a topic of discussion on the Eris page, but: use of the Chiron symbol is pretty much universal among astrologers who use Chiron at all, which is many of them. It's certainly popular enough to be notable. Use of Eris in astrology is much, much less common, and there's no consensus among astrologers as to what symbol to use for it - so my opinion would be that including a symbol is inappropriate for Eris at this time, but appropriate for Chiron. 67.158.73.188 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the crux of the matter: 'continue to be used'. The astrologers only started cooking up symbols for the thing last year. There is no long-term history of use. That is why I worry about notability. Michaelbusch 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On 6 June 2007 CharliTa added a symbol to the infobox again. As we've discussed, this doesn't appear to have any official endorsement, certainly not among the IAU, and so does not belong in the infobox. As astrologers don't seem to agree among themselves what if any symbol this newly discovered body should have, I also question the notability and whether this isn't a form of original research, or at least promotion of a "favorite" symbol. Either way it doesn't seeme to go in the infobox. Plus it was huge. Thoughts?Derek Balsam^(talk) 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What you did was clearly the right thing - no symbol is widely used enough to appear on this article. (That symbol and others already appear in the astrological symbols page.) DenisMoskowitz 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it isn't Wikipedia's role to "assign" a symbol. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change image to this

Far better than current image. Zazaban 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an image of Eris. It is a copy of a map of Pluto. While the two may look similar, we can't misrepresent one as the other. There is no map of Eris yet because to make such a map requires a lot of data and post-processing. Michaelbusch 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

spelling, pronunciation wrong

Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 6#"Eris" still wrong: This is not English, and neither is mest of what English-speakkrs speak. They don't know how to spell or speak. ("unable" hah! un-ebùl?? You mean deabil? ungainsly? The world doesn't know a thing about English.) -lysdexia 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Hèris, by the way. That's Herrese in English. -lysdexia

Request for comment

I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep any comments on this issue on Talk:Pluto Bluap 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Eris

This is in response to User:Sturmde's comment "εr- pronunciation is predominant and that of the discoverers, and is correct as the Greek has initial epsilon rather than an initial eta.". First, I know of no survey that would demonstrate that the "erris" pronunciation is more prevalent than the "eeris" pronunciation; or that the latter is "chiefly British". Second, the "erris" pronunciation is not "correct" in terms of Sturmde's reasoning; the quantity of the Greek (or Latin) vowel has nothing to do with the traditional English pronunciation of classical names. Venus: short e in Latin, long in English. Ceres: short e in Latin, long in English. Rhea: epsilon in Greek, long e in English. Themis: epsilon in Greek, long e in English. Thetis: epsilon in Greek, long e in English. English vowel qualities depend upon stress and position, not the values of original Greek or Latin vowels. "Erris" will be "correct" when English-speakers start saying "Vennus" (or "wennoose") for "Venus". RandomCritic 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As a UK person, I say "erris", not "eeris" Bluap 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I get what RandomCritic was arguing (that the "correct" pronunciation isn't that of Greek?), but I'm Canadian, and I pronounce it air-is. And while there may be no survey, I'm guessing that that's the more common pronunciation in English. Lexicon (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RandomCritic is correct about vowel length in English Greco-Latinate words. But while the rules generally hold for polysyllabic words, they have more exceptions with shorter words. There aren't many words ending in stressed -eris in English: in fact, the OED has just four. The longer words, "iberis" and "meliceris", have long vowels, /aɪˈbɪərɪs, ˈmɛlɪˈsɪərɪs/ (but note plural "melicerides" /mɛlɪˈsɛrɪdiːz/); "pteris" has both, /ˈptɛrɪs, ˈtɪərɪs/ (this shows that /ɪər/ is more anglicized); while "meris" has only a short e, /ˈmɛrɪs/. Likewise, words in stressed -era, -ero are generally long when Greco-Latin, but occasionally short when the word is short. The American Heritage dictionary has both /ˈɪərɪs/ and /ˈɛrəs/ for Eris, whereas Encyclopedia Mythica has only the more anglicized /ˈɪərəs/. E.M., by the way, is the source the IAU cites for the pronunciation[3]; note however that the IAU does not issue pronunciation guidelines, and is simply using the same sources we are to give a recommendation; it's not likely astronomers refer to it for such matters. My guess is that people will generally pronounce Eris the way they do era, but maybe Bluap doesn't? kwami 08:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just realised Eris is a character on a current TV cartoon series. From the title of the episode To Eris is Human, it would seem the pronunciation they use is /ˈɛr.ɨs/. If this show is at all influential, it might influence the pronunciation of people born after c. 1990. kwami 08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. You're right. Youtube is your friend. Eris also appears in Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, and, at least according to Brad Pitt, her name is pronounced /ˈɛr.ɨs/. An episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a character named Eris, whose name was meant to homage the Greek goddess. It was pronounced /ˈɛr.ɨs/ then. Also according to Youtube, Robert Anton Wilson, a practicing Discordian, pronounced her name /ˈɛr.iːs/ ("err-eece", with the accent on the second syllable), which is probably close to how the Greeks originally pronounced it. So in a way RandomCritic is right; we English speakers have found our own way to pronounce it. Serendipodous 05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Temperature

The info box says that Eris has a surface temperature of -30 Kelvin. The Kelvin scale doesn't go below zero, so this is wrong. Probably it's supposed to be -30C or ~243K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.161.125 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

No, it says ~30. The ~ denotes approximate. The surface temperature is indeed roughly 30 K. -30 C would be completely absurd. Michaelbusch 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So it does - sorry, misread that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.161.125 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Speaking of temperature, did anyone else notice that in the Thermal measurement segment, it implies that the temperature of the side facing us (presumable the warmer side) is (currently) somewhere between 23 and 27 K, but that in the Surface and atmosphere section it states that the temperature varies between 30 and 56 K? I don't understand the apparent contradiction here. (I understand that Eris is near its perihelion and so will be warmer, but that doesn't explain the gap between 23-27 and 30. Also, why are those numbers reversed in the Surface and atmosphere section? I.e., why does it say between 56 and 30 K instead of vice-versa? It just seems odd.) Benhocking 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Moons?

Hi. I know Eris has one confirmed moon, but I wanted to ask, what are those two blothces in the main image? One is to the upper left of the Eris, and appeares faint and round. The other one appeares below the Eris, and appeares faint and elongated. Can someone tell me what they are? Are they moons, stars, comets, gas, galaxies, illusions, gravitational lensing, other KBOs, or something else? Could someone identify them, and should they be in the main article? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the upper left is a background star, the lower right a background galaxy. The non-circularity of Eris' image is due to artifacts of the adaptive optics. This really isn't notable, because the background will be different in every image of the object. Michaelbusch 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Or they could be image flares. With pictures like this, you sometimes get odd lights, rflecting off objects, bending round strong magnetic or gravitational fields. Or as you say, they could be stars/galaxies. In all honesty, they're probably stars, but the flares are a possibility. NIN 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sun pic

why does the main picture make eris look like a sun? plz explain on the main article in the caption thank you

This is caused by flare artifacts, (a type of image proccessing leftover) when images are proccess it leaves these defects in many cases. Abyssoft 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) As Abyssoft said, it's to do with the image processing. It is a slightly *dodgy* picture but of course pictures of Eris are limited. NIN 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

2003 UB313

User:The Tom's recent edit raises a good point about the name 2003 UB₃₁₃. Given that it is now close to a year since the name "Eris" was given, is it time to remove "2003 UB₃₁₃" from the lead? (It is already well-documented in the "Name" section.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It hadn't been there for a good few months, and I don't really think it absolutely needs to be there, but the point was made by someone over on the Featured article nomination that it should be included there.

Just pondering it now, and one thought that crossed my mind is that the object did get a fair bit of press under its provisional designation, so theoretically a reader might be researching TNOs in assorted sources elsewhere and could benefit from the immediate clarification via this article that this "Eris" object they've come across and this "2003 UB313" object they've also read about are one and the same. Other than that sort of circumstance, I think we're pretty well covered with the nomenclature section and in the sidebar, so the lead might be overkill. The Tom 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pluto larger???

Should pluto be considered larger, becuase since pluto is considered a binary planet (pluto and charon orbit each other)and pluto plus charons size/mass exceeds eris's. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.--Cbennett0811 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Even with a 2400 km diameter, Eris's volumn and mass is no less than that of Pluto and Charon combined. Besides, the recent analysis of Spitzer data indicates 2400 km is actually the lowest possible figure, with Eris most likely being considerably larger. J P 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)J P

thanks for your response --Cbennett0811 21:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthest Known object in the solar system?

It may be the furthest known planet (including dwarf); but what about the comets they are definately "objects" and most of their orbits I believe would take them out much further for most of the time. Do they not count as many known comets come in closer on their orbits? But Eris too comes closer than Neptune. What counts as an object (presumably anything including comets). What counts as the Solar System? (I thought comets were incuded, the comet and solar system system articles say they are) What counts as furthest out for an eccentric orbit? mean distance? maximum distance? Is the statement wrong or maybe needs re-wording?

Carlwev 03:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll add "large". Serendipodous 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comets never been seen at such distance. They only estimated to have orbits there.--Dojarca 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sedna is further out in any case.

Does this statement need editing. Sedna must count as being a further out TNO. --Overpet 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Eris is currently much farther. From JPL HORIZONS, on 31 August 2007, Sun-Sedna range = 88.38 AU, Sun-Eris range = 96.81 AU. Deuar 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature

So it's named Eris, is it discordant? - 2-16 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. But it did cause discord. Serendipodous 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pluto's naming

Pluto was NOT named after the cartoon dog, as the article suggests (even though it is a quote.) I am writing: '...INCORRECTLY stated: Pluto was named after a cartoon, right?' just letting you know to make sure it's not vandalism. NIN 23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, well in case you do decide to do that, let me put in my humble opinion that Mike Brown was, well, joking, as evidenced by his subsequent comment that "this part is actually true." Serendipodous 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight Change

I changed "stimulated the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term "planet" more accurately" to read, "stimulated the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term "planet" more narrowly". I did so because the original quote assumed a previous standard of accuracy that was only created with the actual change in terminology.

agreed. Serendipodous 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I believe you are the one who changed it further. Just wanted to say that its a good edit, much better wording than what I had come up with.

Could anyone do the math?

I've been trying but I keep collapsing under the weight of the numbers.

The figures, according to the most recent info are:

Radius of Eris: 1.1 to 1.5 x 10^8 cm according to the measurements by Spitzer (see article)

Assuming Eris is a sphere, which is fair enough, that places limits on Eris's volume as between 5.572 x 10^24 cm^3 and 14.137 x 10^24 cm^3

The mass of Eris is 27 percent greater than Pluto. Pluto's mass is 1.31 x 10^24 g (according to List of solar system objects by mass), which makes Eris's mass 1.6637 x 10^24 g

According to my calculations, this leads to a possible density range of between 0.298582197 and 0.117684091 g/cm^3

But this seems ludicrously low. What have I done wrong? Serendipodous 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your masses for Pluto are off by a factor of 10. Pluto is of order 10^22 kg . Earth and Venus are of order 10^24 kg. Thus, this translates to a CGS mass of 1.66 x 10^25 g ;-) Tigerhawkvok 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. How like me to get 1.31 confused with 13.1

This, ladies in gentlemen, is why I write science articles on Wikipedia instead of Nature.

Still, that gives us a fairly wide range of densities

2.98582197 and 1.17684091 g/cm^3

According to the formula, the most likely radius for Eris 1.3 x 10^8. That would yield a density of 1.80 g/cm^3, which again seems low when compared to Pluto's density of 2.03. Serendipodous 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Averaging out the values of Spitzer and Hubble would place the radius of Eris at 1250 km. This value results in a density of a bit over 2.0 g/cm^3, right on par with the values of Pluto and Triton. J P 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

There's a new picture of Eris & moon with a NASA tag which looks much better than the current one - can be seen here [4] from this page [5]. With the NASA tag, I guess it might be public domain. Anyway, I'll let someone more knowledgeable than I to investigate, FU it, and post. The Yeti 23:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep; it's NASA, so it's public. Good call; looks much nicer. Swapped the older Eris image out with it. Thanks! Serendipodous 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The pic showing the orbit of the moon would probably go well on the Dysnomia (moon) page too :) The Yeti 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Current location.

"Their current location is some 97 AU from the Sun, or roughly three times that of Pluto." What exactly is meant by that statement? Couldn't it be made clearer? --Overpet 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; my bad. Fixed. :) Serendipodous 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An "AU" is one Astronomical Unit, equal to the distance between the Sun (Sol) and the Earth (Terra). So 97 AU would be 97 times the distance from Sol to Terra. Dmoorefield68 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Main picture

Can the Keck Observatory produce that kind of images for objects so far away like Eris? I think only the Hubble would be capable, following the source link seems to link to a Hubble source, and not a Keck Observatory one. Not sure though. cheers-to-all 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran a google search, and came up with this webpage, which cites the photograph as being taken by the Keck Observatory. Other sites say the same thing. Vsst 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

how about this [6] the picture is from here and it clearly states "Hubble view". --cheers-to-all 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's both. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/eris.html>. NASA is probably right about their own picture. Werothegreat 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But it seems clear that the image we are now using is from Hubble. The Keck image linked above is a different picture. --Aranae 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I just changed the caption accordingly. Vsst 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

furthest "large object"?

it says "it is currently the most distant known large object from the Sun in the solar system." what does this mean? define "large object".. 131.111.24.187 09:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, not a comet? :-) Really that does need clarification. EDIT: Clarified. Serendipodous 09:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

HIstory

I just checked the history recently, and found that someone has reverted vandalism, claiming that it was I who put it there. I would never do such a thing, and, if you look at the history, it is obvious that the editor who's edit was reverted was 203.214.110.143 (see diffs), not me. Perhaps this isn't the place to say this, but I can't make myself leave people thinking I'm a vandal. Vsst 14:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reversion I saw with your name attached to it, said that it was reverting back to your version. Of course, I only looked at the last 200 diffs. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about this mess. I misread the edit summary, and needlessly bothered several users before I realized my mistake. Vsst 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Orbital characteristics - important mistake with perhaps wider ramifications

The orbital characteristics given cannot be right - the angular-momentum-per-unit-mass (i.e. distance x [transverse] velocity) at perihelion and aphelion are different by a factor of more than 1.5.

I think the error is that the maximum and minimum speeds given are simply those for a circular orbit at respectively the Eris perihelion and Eris aphelion distances from the sun. (Or in fact not even correct for that - but bearing approx. the same [inverse-square-root] dependency on distance as for that calculation, rather than the correct [inverse-linear] dependency on distance required of the "perihelion vs. aphelion of same orbit" case.) This calculation method, and its results, are wildly wrong for a significantly non-circular orbit.

Does anyone have a more reliable source for an orbital characteristics citation? (And more worryingly, does the currently cited source maybe make this error for *every* non-circular orbit it indexes, perhaps infecting much of the astronomy corner of Wikipedia? *goes to check around*) Iain David Stewart 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the average orbital speed appears to check out with the formula at the end of orbital speed, so I'm guessing orbital parameters are OK. The minimum and maximum are way off from the formulas over at the top of orbital speed (I get 2.2530 km/s and 5.8189 km/s). Personally, I'd remove all three numbers - it's just an exercise in mathematics and from my experience the orbital speeds are never themselves referenced. Such "data" are a beatuful opportunity for misinformation and cluttering. Incidentally, a discussion on these kind of topics is currently underway at Template talk:Infobox Planet#Proposed cleanup/additions, you might be interested. Deuar 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that, though this information is somewhat obscure, some people somewhere might want or need to find it, and it doesn't really take up much room. I agree that it is easy to end up with misinformation, but that is the nature of wikipedia, and I think it would be better to make sure the information is accurate than simply delete it. Vsst 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Proserpina vs. Eris naming

The problem is that the name for the planet is either set by public or by the discoverer. In the year 2005 the consesus was for the name Proserpina/Persephone, voiced in polls on astronomy related sites by few thousands of people. In this recommendation IAU ignored official name for Uranus (Georgium Sidonium), in doing so officially once again admitted that the rule 'by the public' is to be followed.

Due to the recommendation given by IAU in Prague, August 2006 on it's status, the IAU followed instead the rule that comets and asteroids are named by discoverer. And more, to please the discoverer and make him 'swallow' this non-planetary status, the AIU own previous recommendations on naming of such objects were put apart completely. Although IAU backed the name oficially, it is still recommendation only. Further more, outside astronomical circles IAU has no credibility to foister names on planets. And the correct information is that this name was given solely by discoverer. Lack of this info in the text of the article is obvious bias againt NPOV. And more important, it omits credit where the credit is due. GrzegorzWu 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. The article makes it perfectly clear that the name Eris was proposed by its discoverers. And there are three listed discoverers of Eris; Brown, Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz, not Brown alone. The IAU barely existed the last time a candidate planet was discovered, and had no standard policy for dealing with it. The last planet, Pluto, was named by its discoverers, so whether planet or not, Brown and his team naming Eris was not a deviation. And I'm not sure what you're saying about the IAU's power. The IAU's purpose, its job, basically, is to deterine the official names and classifications of astronomical objects. Without some kind of universally accepted standard, science across nations would not work. Whether the domestic dog is called a dog, (English) hund, (German) cão (Portuguese) perro (Spanish) or gou (Mandarin), its scientific name is still Canis lupus familiaris. Scientific papers published using Chinese characters still have to call a dog Canis lupus familiaris. That is its agreed name. Such is the case with the IAU. The IAU and only the IAU, has the authority to dictate which terminology is accepted in published scientific papers. Brown has submitted names for 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9, two exceptionally large Kuiper belt objects, but he will not reveal them until they receive full IAU endorsement, and continues to refer to them by their serial numbers. Serendi^podous 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0810_050810_new_planet_2.html 83.24.246.73 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What does that article have to do with anything? That article was released before the name was confirmed. Brown himself decided on the name Eris, whatever he may have said beforehand. And anyway, it's just a public straw poll. How does it reflect on what Eris should or should not be named? Serendi^podous 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The availability of free web address was the only reason behind this name, nothing else. Brown made good joke on his fellow colleagues from the commision of IAU <rotfl>. GrzegorzWu 08:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wha? I don't get you at all. Brown's webpage is called "planetlila" after his daughter, not Eris. Serendi^podous 08:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown's page (registered by him after issuing the name to IAU but before official annoucement by IAU of the name "Eris"), and used since in official Caltech materials is http://www.planeteris.com . BTW suporters of the name "Proserpina" from astrological circles made this year similar move with http://www.planetproserpina.com . GrzegorzWu 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. A couple of astrologers were upset that Brown decided to name the planet Eris instead of Proserpina, so they mirrored his homepage and gave it another web address? So what? Brown discovered the object, Brown gets to name it. Even astrologers seem to have accepted that judging by this page. Serendi^podous 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... http://www.planetproserpina.com seems to be just a link to Brown's page, it's just kept in frames. Wrong or mangled redirect? The name Proserpina is used among astrologers too, in printed books too (http://www.jarekgronert.pl). GrzegorzWu 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And so? What of it? What is wrong with this article? Serendi^podous 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Canis lupus familiaris is a Latin name and any paper (for instance in Russian) should use this name (and Latin alphabet) to refer to the animal. Another situation with Eris which is English name and cannot be expanded into other languages. Russian for example would call it "Erida" (which is the name of the same deity in Russian) and Chinese/Japan name would be completely different (just as in case with Pluto which is named after local deities in those languages).--Dojarca 08:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the IAU's job is still the enforcement of official scientific standards. The IAU still has to rule on whether Indians can call Pluto Yama, or Chinese can call it Underworld King Star.Serendi^podous 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Underworld King Star" is just a literal English translation of the Chinese calque of the name "Pluto" - that is, it isn't a different name from "Pluto" any more than Russian "Erida" is a different name than "Eris". Chinese for Eris might be "Strife Queen Star", for example (I'm sure it already has a form in Chinese, but that's beyond my dictionaries!) kwami 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'Xena' nickname

It is revisionist history to completely efface all memory that this was once called "Xena" (after Planet X).131.96.70.140 08:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike named it Xena for humor value - it had little to do with Planet X. And that story is in the article. Michaelbusch 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Discordian reference

I think that the Discordian's role in naming the planet should be metioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.42.156 (talk • contribs)

They had no role in naming it. It just so happens that the goddess Mike Brown chose to name it after is also one adopted by the Discordians. Serendi^podous 09:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I don't understand why Eris was ruled to be a dwarf planet instead of the next planet. After all, it's bigger than Pluto, and its moon, Dysnomia, is nowhere near as big in comparison to it as Charon is to Pluto. Can someone explain why it's a dwarf planet?

The short answer (if there is such a thing with Pluto) is because Eris is smaller than the Planet astronomers thought Pluto was back in the 1930's through the 1950's. Back when Pluto was discovered they thought it was larger than the Earth and perhaps as large as Neptune. (Pluto from a 1959 Book) -- Kheider (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't strictly true; Pluto was demoted because it was part of a population of similar objects. For a cute (if rather condescending) summation of the issue see Why Isn't Pluto a Planet Any More? Serendi^podous 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats Eris sign?

SO FAR I SEEN A SIGN FOR SUN, MERCURY, VENUS, EARTH, MARS, JUPITER, SATURN, URANUS, NEPTUNE, PLUTO, AND CERUS. WHATS ERIS SIGN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eris doesn't have one. Nowadays astronomers don't really need symbols to represent planetary objects anymore, though astrologers are naturally interested. Serendi^podous 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

- this symbol was used in at least four printed astrology books in Poland (http://www.jarekgronert.pl/ Jarosław Gronert "Astrologia od poczatku", "Strategia kosmosu", http://piotrpiotrowski.blog.onet.pl/ Piotr Piotrowski "Lilith - Czarny Księżyc", "Przesłanie Chirona"). GrzegorzWu (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

protection

can we remove the protection now? Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We can, but all of the (dwarf) planet articles attract constant vandalism. There are very few anonymous edits other than vandalism; also, all these articles are FA, which means that they no longer need much input. There's also the problem of having the "best" of wikipedia being full of nonsense. Even if it's for a few minutes, that's the only version some readers will see. Why keep a star on an article that starts off with "Fred sucks"? kwami (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

what does FA mean? you said all the articles are FA and you did not need to abriviate you had much more space . id like to know what FA means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.107.14 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Featured Article". -RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Eris Aphelion and Perihelion dates?

"Eris came to perihelion between 1698[22]-1699,[23] aphelion around 1977,[23] and will return to perihelion around 2256[23] to 2258.[24]"

I checked these sources and I don't find these dates quoted anywhere. Where did they come up with these dates from? Please tell me. Thank You. Maldek (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NASA's ephemeris generator is set to default on Mars, but can be set to Eris, and the time span can be set to any period desired. Ref 24 does mention that perihelion passage will take place in 2258. Serendi^podous 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

According to (Ref 22: Lowell Orbit Fit): "Time of Perihelion: 2341442.0799". Using a Julian Date Converter, you get the year 1698. -- Kheider (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Horizons is the only one that lists an Aphelion (furthest from Sun) I will show how to re-generate that result.

• 1) Go to Horizons (This link should force Eris as the Target Body.)
• 2) Make sure Ephemeris Type is set to: OBSERVER (default)
• 3) Set Observer Location to @sun (for center of the sun)
• 4) Set Time Span for 1977-01-01 to 1978-01-01
• 5) Click Generate Table
• 6) Look for a deldot (change of direction) of 0.0000. Currently Aphelion shows as 1977-Mar-15.

• As an added bonus look at the top box. It shows "TP= 2256-Feb-28.7024295" (Perihelion) -- Kheider (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

so, how many planets r there anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkall (talk • contribs)

Eight. At the moment.Serendi^podous 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

plutoid?

Since there was no discussion, I automatically reverted the recent move of this article to Eris (plutoid). Now that I read the background of plutoid, I'm not opposed, but still leery of major changes to FA articles & sparking edit wars. Is this move something we all want? kwami (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Eris is better known by the public as a dwarf planet than a plutoid. A "dwarf planet" at least uses the word planet and plutoid sounds too much like the 2006 Word of the Year: "Plutoed". Plutoid is a basically useless category that does not even need to exist! This is as bad as the whole minor planet vs asteroid discussion. -- Kheider (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But the term "dwarf planet" is so new that's hardly an issue. Pluto is even better known to the public as a planet, but we don't keep that definition. I guess the question is whether we keep up with the IAU, and if we don't, what the lag time should be. kwami (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to move it, we should also consider moving (136472) 2005 FY₉ "Easterbunny", (136108) 2003 EL61₆₁ "Santa", and 90377 Sedna, which are plutoids "for naming purposes". kwami (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are NOT classified as plutoids or dwarf planets AT THIS time! -- Kheider (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the move; "plutoid" is a sub-category of "dwarf planet". Pluto and Eris are the only official members of the sub-category at this time, so we can't move the others. As well, moving Pluto and Eris would only confuse the issue, just as it would if we moved Earth etc. to "Earth (terrestrial planet)" and Jupiter etc. to "Jupiter (gas giant)". --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Mike Brown has his thoughts about the label up on his blog. I'm inclined to agree with his sentiment that it's existence is something of a sop to the "poor Pluto" crowd. The fact that for the forseeable future the set of dwarf planets will equal the set of plutoids plus Ceres makes it hard to see both terms ever entering common use simultaneously. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's probably more neat and tidy to keep "dwarf planet" as the more privileged categorization... obviously, we should note "plutoid" status whereever appropriate in articles, but I don't think it needs to show up in ledes or as title disambiguations.

There are two nitpicky things that caught my eye when closely reading the IAU presser, though. One, it says "The two known and named plutoids are Pluto and Eris.". Could that be taken to mean that 2005 FY₉ and 2003 EL₆₁ are indeed plutoids, effective immediately, albeit plutoids that can't be presently described as "known and ***named***"? (Going against this reading is the fact that Sedna seems to meet the H<+1 and "having a name" requirements, but doesn't get a mention.)(D'oh, Sedna's H is officially 1.6, not 0.2 as the plutoid article says)

Secondly, invoking H<+1 as a provisional lower size cutoff that allows us to presume hydrostatic equilibrium is quite a conservative line in the sand, and probably intentionally so. There's pretty strong certainty that, say, Quaoar, is in hydrostatic equilibrium, but it is nonetheless too dim to get over that absolute magnitude line. Clearly, in the name of getting the naming ball moving on some of the bigger fellers out there, it make sense that some sort of safe line be drawn in the sand first, and then thereafter a more scientific basis for calculating hydrostaticity be determined.

Now, does this H<+1 carry over to getting "dwarf planet" status? That is to say, does this definition mean 2005 FY₉ meets the requirement of being both a plutoid and a dwarf planet on the basis of its absolute magnitude, or that it only meets the plutoid requirement and the floor of the dwarf planet club remains an as-of-yet undetermined? The Tom (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I like the name. I've always disliked "dwarf planet", not because of any sentimentality that Pluto got plutoed (I was cheering it on), but because grammatically a "dwarf planet" is a kind of planet, while semantically it is not a planet. Such self-contradiction is ridiculous. "Plutoid" doesn't have any planetary pretensions. kwami (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the "dwarf planet" fudge is irritating, although it bears noting that "minor planets" aren't "planets," either, and that apparent contradiction hasn't ever seemed to raise hackles over the past few centuries. (Indeed, maybe the term for "dwarf planets" should have been "major minor planets" :)) I think it might have been Brown, actually, who noted that the obvious term for the dwarf planet category has been under our noses for years, namely "planetoids," but it somehow eluded everyone amidst the politicking at the IAU GA. The Tom (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That would have been better, but 'planetoid' has long meant 'asteroid', so it would have required redefinition. Maybe they were worried about the confusion that would cause. kwami (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(moved from Clarification): Currently, there are three celestial bodies that have been redefined by the IAU (in an 11 June 2008 International Astronomical Union meeting of its Executive Committee in Oslo) as dwarf planets, and two of which has been reclassified as a subset known as plutoids:

UB313 (also known as a plutoid, informally known as Xena, and now formally known as Eris); Pluto also known as a plutoid; Ceres remains in the category of dwarf planet.

The Wiki article should reflect the decisions of the IAU. -- Tdb123

This is already discussed in the Plutoid section. It remains to be seen if the general public or astronomers will adopt the term plutoid since it is merely a sub category of 'dwarf planet'. The category Plutoid was created in 2006,^{(Resolution 6)} it just was not named until recently.^{(Plutoid chosen as name)} -- Kheider (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely move the article because of the IAU's decision. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In 2006 we moved it to 'Dwarf Planet' per Resolution 5. There have been no new resolutions. This is actually OLD STUFF. The definition of 'Dwarf Planet' has not changed.

Are you suggesting that we move Pluto and Eris to Plutoid and give the casual reader the impression that Ceres is the only 'dwarf planet' in the solar system? Ceres is a rocky dwarf and Pluto and Eris are spherical ice dwarfs. -- Kheider (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I had to fix the IPA for the English "r". Also, find me a source as this [ɪə] is not possible for English phonology for an initial e- Azalea pomp (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted. This is the standard pronunciation. Please follow the link to the IPA key, or the ref. to the dictionary entry. (I would have preferred /ˈiːrɪs/, but /ɪər/ is the convention that was settled on, due to objections from RP speakers.) kwami (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, very odd, this may be the first English word I have seen with /ɪə/. The "r" is English is still [ɹ] and for sure not [r]. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the vowel in Eris is the same as the vowel in "pier". So yes, [ɪə] is correct, but surely this is the only Er- word pronounced as [ɪə] in English? lol Azalea pomp (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, /r/ is not [r], it's [ɹʷ]. But that's irrelevant in a phonemic notation. We could write it /♣/ if we wanted; it's just a convention. The conventional transcription for English ar is /r/, and that's what's used in thousands of wikipedia articles. kwami (talk)

If we are using IPA, we still shouldn't use [r] as that is sloppy. If everything is supposed to be transcribed in IPA, than the /r/ can still only mean the alveolar trill. Isn't this wikipedia's policy to transcribe everything in IPA. For example, we always include a narrow transcription for allophones. We don't transcribe Japanese Sushi as /susi/, do we? Going back to the English "r", I assume the American r is more rounded than the British r.

It's common IPA convention to transcribe any rhotic with /r/ in a sufficiently broad transcription. And yes, we would transcribe sushi as /susi/, as long as we're linked to an article that explains what the realizations of Japanese phonemes are. We would normally transcribe it as something like [sɯɕi] only because we can't count on reader familiarity with Japanese phonology. kwami (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As for other English words that start with this rhotic vowel, there's ear /ˈɪər/, and of course here in aitch-dropping dialects. Era has both of the pronunciations we attribute to Eris, as do quite a few -eris words. The American Heritage dictionary has both /ˈɪərɪs/ and /ˈɛrəs/, whereas Encyclopedia Mythica has only the more anglicized /ˈɪərəs/. kwami (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"ear" does not surprise me as it is spelled "ea" and ends in and "r", but era does. I guess I learned something new about Standard English. :) Azalea pomp (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Penultimate vowels in open syllables in Classical vocab are pronounced "long", though it seems this is often optional before /r/. kwami (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure era is NOT pronounced ear + [ə] -24.4.217.72 (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My old Webster's shows "era" being pronounced with a long "e". Many pronounce it with a short "e", as if it were spelled "air-uh", but that's not listed as an alternate pronunciation. They show "era" being not quite the same as "ear-uh". Long-e they equate to the first e in "eve", and "ear" they rhyme with "here". But is "era" really pronounced "ee-ruh" nowadays? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Eridian

The adjectival form of Eris being Eridian was discussed previously- no citation was given but it was argued convincingly based on precedent. Does someone just need to blog that discussion and cite themselves, or should we rewrite the sentence as "The adjective form of Eris is believed to be Eridian, based on precedent with Martian, Jovian, and other planetary adjectives."? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are irregularities in common Latinate names, but generally we get our noun form from the nominative stem and our adj. form from the genitive stem. Slavic languages use the genitive for both. For example, English 'Pallas', adj. 'Palladian', has the d in Slavic. For Eris, the Slavic wikis also use the d form. I think we need to use the regular form (Eridian) unless we have evidence that the irregular form (Erisian) is the one in use. We only see that in Discordianism, not astronomy. kwami (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We could just link to Wiktionary, though I dispute the claim that Eridian is only the adj. form of the dwarf planet. kwami (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)