Talk:List of possible dwarf planets/Template talk

bolding

If we're going to put Eris and Makemake in bold for having achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, then we need to do the same for all TNO's larger than Vesta. None of them have been proven. kwami (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not read this comment earlier. I'm moving your post and my answer from my talk page here, so that we have the discussion at one place: --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

If we describe the table as having dwarf planets in bold, then your revert is fine. But currently we say that bold = hydro. equilibrium. Objects aren't in hydro. equilibrium "by definition" because they're dwarf planets, they're dwarf planets by definition because they're in hydro. equilibrium. Eris is assumed to be in hydro. equilibrium because it's more massive than Pluto, and Makemake and E61 are assumed it be in hydro. equilibrium beckfdjndgbijnfbginjifgbningfbjingfbinjifg bingo ause their absolute magnitudes are less than 1. Many others are assumed to be in hydro. equilibrium as well, but we have no problem italicizing them. What we could do is say that bold = hydro. equilibrium or an assumption of hydro. equilibrium for naming purposes. However, if we did that, we would need to bold E61 as well. Or we could say bold = hydro. equilibrium or accepted as a dwarf planet by the IAU, in which case we would not need to bold E61. kwami (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get your point. My reasoning is the following: 1. IAU classifies Eris, Pluto and Makemake as dwarf planets. 2. By IAU, an object is a dwarf planet, if it has achieved hydro. equilibrium (+not having cleared the neighbourhood). It follows logically from 1. and 2. that Eris, Pluto and Makemake have achieved hydro. equilibrium (in IAU's opinion, of course). I don't know any source which disagrees with this. However, IAU does not (yet) classify EL61 as either dwarf planet or as having reached hydrostatic equilibrium. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Now that the IAU recognises Haumea/EL61 as a dwarf planet as well, I support bolding it as well, by above reasoning.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to state that bold means either that a body is known to be in eq, or is assumed to be in eq. The assumption is based on magnitude! There are many other bodies which are assumed to be in eq. which we don't bold, because they aren't bright enough. So bolding no longer means the body is known to be in eq, but that it is either known to be in eq or has an absolute mag. less than 1. I'll add a title line to make this explicit. kwami (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree. It's a difference if the IAU "assumes" an object to be in eq., or if you or I "assume" this for some other object. The IAU is the official institution on these matters. No-one can really prove an object to be in hydr. eq. - could you prove this for Pluto? Or even for Earth? It might be round by pure coincidence, not because of its large mass.

By the way, the magnitude condition only determines the naming process, not the question whether the object is really a dwarf planet. Note that Ceres has a much lower magnitude than 1.0 (around 3.0).

If you think Wikipedia should include more (or less) dwarf planets than the five "IAU-approved" dwarf planets, please argue your point in the dwarf planet article. (Personally I would agree that many more objects should be considered dwarf planets, but my POV does not belong into an encyclopedia.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"the magnitude condition only determines the naming process, not the question whether the object is really a dwarf planet." Exactly. Therefore we shouldn't mix up the two without at least telling our readers that's what we're doing. kwami (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not mixing up the two. The IAU has named Haumea and Makemake "as if they were dwarf planets", and (at the same time) has declared that they are indeed dwarf planets. (See http://iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0807/ for Haumea, which also lists the other four dwarf planets.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is mixing them up. Declaring something by fiat is not evidence that it is so. The definition of a DP is not any object that the IAU declares is a DP, it's based on geology. Ceres and Pluto have been imaged well enough to show that they're in equilibrium and therefore are DPs. Makemake and Haumea are only assumed to be in equilibrium. I don't expect this to be wrong, but there's a fundamental difference between the two. In the nuclide table, we distinguish between the decay rates of nuclides which have been measured in the lab vs. those which have only been calculated. It's the same concept here. kwami (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If anything, then IAU is mixing them up. But it's not our task to correct their "mistakes". Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about truth (WP: Verifiability)! We have the best possible source (IAU) saying they are dwarf planets, we have (to my knowledge) no scientist disagreeing with this statement, so we positively have to accept this statement as a fact. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)