Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

resonance

Kheider added a link claiming Eris "may" be in a 17:5 resonance with Neptune, but in the text we say it's in a free orbit. The site doesn't look particularly reliable to me, so I didn't want to fix the text to match. I'd imagine the JPL folks have figured out whether or not Eris is in resonance by now. kwami (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The possible "17:5 resonance" external link has been in this article since 10 August 2005. All I did was reword it since it will require more observations to confirm if it exists. Until we have more than "the appearance of a resonance", I kind of prefer the link in the external links. Otherwise we have to carefully word it is a possible resonance. I suspect that they will need several more years of observations to confirm if these resonances exist. Makemake has an orbit quality of 2 and Eris has an orbit quality of 3.
-- Kheider (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A good example of a very poorly know orbit is 2006 QH181 with only 10 observations over 2 oppositions and an orbit quality of 8. -- Kheider (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but if the orbits are not sufficiently secured to determine whether or not they're in resonance, I don't think we should state that they aren't in resonance as we currently do. kwami (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Brown just replied to my e-mail. The jury is still out, but there is a good chance that Eris and Makemake are in resonance with Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me! Let's put some cautious wording in the text. This is interesting enough not to hide in the footnotes. kwami (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We're going to need better refs though. Serendi^podous 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this paper the resonance is 2:7. Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That may just be a rounded off number; the difference between 2/7 and 5/17 is 1/119. Serendi^podous 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's probably why nothing's been published yet. A 1:2 resonance is pretty easy to demonstrate, but the higher the integers become, the more tightly they're packed together, and the easier it is to confuse them, or to see a resonance where there is none. kwami (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful! Having just read Emel’yanenko's 2007 paper "Resonant Motion of Trans-Neptunian Objects in High-Eccentricity Orbits" (subscription required); if I am reading the table correctly, the odds of Eris being in the 7:2 resonance is less than <1%. (The right most column lists the "probability" that the object is in libration for the tested resonance. For example many of the objects are 100% 5:2 resonance.) -- Kheider (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Errors in orbital dimensions.

The data present aphelion, perihelion and semimajor axes in AU and km. Do the arithmetic: given 1 AU = 1.5 x 10^8 km, the km distances given are wrong by a factor of 10. All should be n x 10^10, not n x 10^9. The alternative explanation that the AU measures are wrong, is not consistent with Kepler's second law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.223.141.143 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch your decimal places:

97.56 * AU = 1.45E+10 = 14.5E+9.

37.77 * AU = 5650311550 km = 5.6E+9

67.66 * AU = 1E+10 km = 10E+9

-- Kheider (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kheider. But I'm pretty sure someone changed the position of the d.p.s between your post and mine.

Discovery date versusu automatically made photo date

The human operated and robotically operated observatories make a lot of pictures of the sky. But "first spotted" date is a date when either automatic system make a beep "something to watch on this picture" or human eye make the same discovery. In this case such beep (first automatically, than fast confirmed by human) took place on 5th January 2005. Within short period from this date the earlier image of this object from 1989 was also found. GrzegorzWu (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is There a Mission planned to visit Eris?

Obviously this is not a soapbox but I didnt know where else to ask. If this question could be answered Id be much satisfied.Aquarius2283 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It's fairly similar to Pluto, to which we already have a mission on the way, and is three times further away, so any flight to Eris would take ~30 years. Serendi^podous 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Triton if you want a generic preview of what Pluto and Eris could look like. -- Kheider (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually taking 30 plus years to get there is false its closer to 26 years Eris got its farthest distance from the sun (97.539 AU) on August 19 ,1978 and stayed at this distance till August 23 1979 a entire year later. and its not 3 times as far as pluto its a strange fraction that closely resembles a third. Pluto is 31.758 AU and eris is 96.685 AU from the sun regardless my point is getting there takes alot less time than 30+ years technology has improved since the first deep space probe left the earth in 1973. regardless. the USA is the only nation so far to go beyond Mars no other country has even visited Jupiter yet. im a american and some times i take my countres space program for granted but rest asured if americans want to see Eris before the 22nd century it will get done.

Actually rocket technolgy and gravity assists have not changed very much in the last 30 years. For the record, Eris came to aphelion on 1977-Mar-14 around 08UT @ 97.5782AU (using JPL Horizons data from 2009-Nov-04 with 475 observations). Even Mike Brown thinks money can be better spent than sending a probe to Eris. -- Kheider (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lila

I've just revised the naming section based on some info I gathered from Govert Schilling's book, "The Search For Planet X". In it, he says that Mike Brown did indeed intend to name Eris "Lila", but changed his story to avoid offending astronomers, who would have been angry at the thought of him releasing the name before it had been accepted by the IAU. Since the book is clearly drawn from interviews with the people involved, I'm pretty sure that Brown himself is the source for this, and, now that it's in print in an internationally available book, the cat, by now, is certainly out of the bag. But I would prefer a comment by Brown himself, as he might not be too happy to see the story plastered all over the internet. Still, if this is true, it means that our previous draft was incorrect, and the truth is the truth. Serendi^podous 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I pretty much doubt this story. I cannot imagine Brown would be so selfish to name such an important object after his daughter (well, almost), nor that he would change the name just because he had "released" the name too early. The Haumea dispute shows that he does not shy away from controversies with his colleagues. He never mentions anything like this in his blog either. Is this Govert Schilling a reliable source? And could you provide the relevant text passages from the book that you used as a source? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I got the book at a reference library, so I don't have it to hand, but yes, I could do that. Serendi^podous 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When will Eris be closer than Pluto?

Eris coming closer to the Sun than Pluto in about 800 years.

I wonder when (if at all) Eris will next come closer to the Sun than Pluto. After all, its perihelion is much smaller than Pluto's aphelion. However, at the next time Eris reaches its perihelion (2258), Pluto will be close to its perihelion too (perihelion in 2270), so that it remains closer to the Sun than Eris.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct next time Eris comes to perihelion, Pluto will stay just inside of it. But in ~800 years (the following cycle), Pluto will not. -- Kheider (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Eris coming closer to the Sun than Pluto in about 800 years.

Thanks for the answer. I'll add this trivium to the article. (Or is it considered OR?) If you could extend your graph to the left to the present, I would like to add it to the article as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is plot #2... -- Kheider (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Eris will never come closer to the sun then pluto because it takes Eris 560 years to go around the sun!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8chick (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Eris's closest distance from the Sun is closer than Pluto's farthest distance from the Sun. Ergo, at some point in their orbits they would have to cross paths, as the graph to the side shows they do.Serendi^podous 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Page layout

Why is this Infobox layed out inline instead of not layed out with article text along left side? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Name

Not that it's really relevant, although Eris is a great name, I think it's moon could have had a better name than Dysnomia. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 14:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, maybe you can discover your own moon sometime. Serendi^podous 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

True Magic. Technical recllasification and how to make 4 planets disappear.

Eris is not the 10th planet as your improper edit suggests. Besides all currently classified dwarf planets are closer to the Sun than Eris is. -- Kheider (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It obviously is, also since the same article mentions it. This was the planet that create the "dawrf" planet retroactive defention. Proximity to the sun got nothing to do with it, and it is already mentioned that it is the farthest.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor planets (asteroids) are not classified as real planets. Think of the term "dwarf planet" as a compound noun. *If* dwarf planets were counted as real planets, Ceres would be the 8th planet discovered (1801), Neptune the 9th (1846), and Pluto the 10th (1930). -- Kheider (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, you are using modern terminology that has existed for less than 3 years to reshape history dating back centuries. Ceres was never considered a planet by anyone. Humanity has grown around a 9 planet system, evolving religious myths and astroligical symbolisms. Actually, only a few years ago a "new one" has been found orbiting our sun. It was actually larger in mass than Pluto which was already considered a planet for 80 years. Due to the estimation that more "trans pluto objects" will be discovered, a new classification of planets was formulated to help shape future findings. This rule-of-thumb, although useful does not propagate back in time to all of the culture of this planet to tell them that actually some of the planets that they saw are now technically "non-planets" so as to rewrite the colletive memory...:) Don't forget, wikipedia is a global endeavor..

From 1801 until about 1850 many asteroids where treated as planets.[1][2] Since Pluto has only been known for 80 years, why should science care how modern myths and religion classify the object Pluto? In 2006 the IAU created a new category of objects and decided to call them "dwarf planets". Sorry, but you really need to do more reading on the subject. -- Kheider (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Planets are visible heavenly bodies circling the sun, those that can only be traced through radio telescopes or by the pertubation they make on other planet's orbit are traditionally considered non-planet sollar objects (like TNO's), since they can not be observed without special means. If you take this western standardization and apply it globally, not only will you contradict thousands of years of human cultural evolution, and tradition, but you would have effectively reduced the number of planets to five.. Now, I am not trying to engage in a technical debate, rather this is a cultural obfuscation issue. Kind of like what Americans think about Iraq, not as a cradle for at least 3 world-civilization, but a harbour of "terror" or "WMD's". some believe, that these zeitgesits are threatening Wikipedia's legitimacy and accuracy. We are here to serve the global population, not the hegemony of European/empire grade US technocracies. For thousands of years, cultures around the world have observed the plantery system, built pyramids, establish religions and astrological signs, wrote myths and encourage the very foundation of science. The ego of a small group of bureaucrats can not eradicate half of the planets in our sollar system by declarying them as non-planets, although they certainly have the audacity. If anything, as a physicist, this reminds me of another zeitgeist such as the flu-scare or the tap-water scare. Both capitalistically motivated, yet got nothing to do with reality. Sometimes the sheepish behaviour of humanity scares me by the magnitude of it's mental manipulation. making up new symbols can confuse the mind for their meaning. "Black is the new Pink", and you got your self a fashion trend shared by millions. Yet black and pink are not the same colour, nor did Iraq have any weapons of mass destruction. and yet, almost million people died by that lie. Personally, I believe that as custodians of knowledge we have a responsibility to not be swayed by these local waves of mass-hallucinations, and be true to history and reality of all humanity. If one believes that since 2006 half the planets have gone missing, due to becoming "asteroids", then the alien federation told me otherwise.. :)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since 1930 only one planet (Pluto) has been removed from the list of official planets. -- Kheider (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And another 5 planets have been demoted by the wikipedia's technocracy. I don't mind the definition of "dwarf planets",perhaps it is helpful. I oppose the retroactive classification of human history and scientific tradition. This deceptive spirit of renaming articles in the wikipedia from "planets" to something else. Our tradition is to serve the essence of what will carry the message across in the spirit that reflects our collective history. some would see a demoting of 5 planets to whatever kind of new terminology

(trans neptunian obeject type IIa) as something that does not serve our interest.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceres was considered a planet for about 50 years along with several other members of the asteroid belt. Pluto was considered a planet for about 80 years, although the discovery of the Kuiper Belt in 1992 started shedding doubt. Eris, Haumea, and Makemake have never officially been considered planets. As soon as Eris was discovered, the whole debate was thrown into question and the result was the IAU classification. I think it's disingenuous to talk about thousands of years of history when we're talking about things discovered at most 200 years ago. Disputing the classification of dwarf planet is fine, but a there's no historical argument for Eris being a planet. There is a historical argument for Ceres and Pluto being planets, as they were both considered to be at different times. Also, talking about a reclassification going against 'scientific tradition' doesn't make any sense to me. Science is all about learning more and more accurately describing things. Reclassifying things based on new information is completely scientific. --Patteroast (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, much as the world not being flat was known and lost through the ages, so were the planets. Many cultures, even including ancient sumerian, have known about 8 or even 10 planets since before Christ was it's memes were conceived. So, although same argument goes to Pluto and Ceres that is a minor point. The problem with this reclassification is the over emphasize it might receive from technical zealous, who are denominating more than half of whole the planets. some of which dating more than 200 years. even in western culture.

Secondly, I was talking about Wikipedia tradition and vision. Documenting and augmenting human knowledge aspiring to a neutral point of view. Science has crazes and trends much like any other human institution that is authority based. conforming the public to race theories, global cooling or quantum telepathy.. all I'm saying is that we have to stand vigilant and try to avoid these traps. I all for each article to have as much information as possible, under all cllassifications. Yet, we have more than 4 or 5 planets. I mean, we can and always have been watching them in the night skies.

Hence, I've augmented the article's header section with a compromising articulation. .--Procrastinating@^talk2me 06:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop. Just please stop insisting Eris is a planet against consensus and against what all the sources say. Your opinion that this whole planet/dwarf planet nomenclature stuff is a passing fad that will blow over is just that, your opinion. Wikipedia is in the business of accurately and faithfully describing what the sources say, and we should not be advance a different position just because you personally think it would be better. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for trans-neptunian objects

In the section "Name" sub-section "Choosing an official name" of the article it mentions "IAU regulations require a name from creation mythology for objects with orbital stability beyond Neptune’s orbit". However on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Small_Body_Nomenclature#Minor_planets it says that these objects are given mythological names associated with the underworld. I checked the URL cited in the article and the part where the "creation mythology" came up was only referring to the naming of a planet proper. Can someone please check the validity of the "creation mythology" reference in this article? 222.153.242.198 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that Plutinos were to be given underworld names and members of the classical Kuiper Belt ("Cubewanos") were to be given creation names. I could be wrong, and even if I'm not I don't think it's been strictly followed. Either way, I don't know where the Scattered Disc falls for naming... --Patteroast (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A loophole

This isn't soapboxing as I'm addressing the article content. Eris was discovered in January 2005, declared the 10th planet and its size - based upon the then-current definition of planet - would bear out that an object larger than Pluto would be justified as being dubbed Planet 10. The IAU didn't come up with its official definition of planet for more than a year. That means for a period of about 18 months Eris fell under the same rule of thumb that resulted in Pluto being declared a planet back in 1930. Therefore, would it not be correct that say that Eris was, for a period of 18 months, the Solar System's 10th known planet? As I say, this isn't soapboxing. But I think if it was declared a planet under the old rule, it qualifies as being described as the former 10th planet in the article just as Pluto qualifies as being described as the former 9th planet... 68.146.81.123 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead already mentions that NASA called it the 10th planet for a time. I think that's enough. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Actually Pluto was declared a planet in 1930 on the assumption that is could be 8 times more massive than the Earth and that it was perturbing the orbit of Neptune and Uranus. -- Kheider (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As I recall, once the scientists figured out how small Pluto actually was, they concluded there must be something else out there, much bigger, and not yet discovered. Given that Eris is a dwarf planet also, presumably they still think that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • I've tweaked the language slightly to (hopefully) address this from the perspective that NASA using the term doesn't mean the same as it formally being designated as a planet. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't officially anything from its discovery until the adoption of the definition of planet. It was in limbo awaiting a decision. There simply was no "old rule". They just made it up as they went along. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading! - 9th largest.

"...and the ninth largest body known to orbit the Sun directly." This really needs to be changed, IMHO. It is profoundly misleading since most people will not know how vital to the truth of the sentence fragement the word "directly" is. I guess that "directly" means that the 7 larger satellites that orbit Earth, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, orbit the Sun "indirectly"? I am not even an amateur astronomer so I am willing to accept that the term "directly" has special significance in solar system astronomy, if it does. But the use of Jargon in the introduction is inappropriate. Eris is the 17th most massive (known) body in the Solar System. This has importance, IMHO, about the same as that it is the 9th largest planet and largest dwarf planet (known). Since I think it should be changed, here is my suggestion: Eris, formal designation 136199 Eris, is the largest known dwarf planet in the Solar System, the 17th largest (known) object in the Solar System, and the ninth-largest body known to orbit the Sun directly. It orbits the Sun at an average distance of 10.1 billion kilometers compared to Pluto's 5.9 billion km orbit. Anyway, let the deciders decide and the wordsmiths polish it up anyway they like. Thanks for opportunity to nit-pick.69.40.247.11 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But moons do orbit the Sun indirectly. They orbit objects that orbit the Sun, so they also orbit the Sun. Titan's year is as long as Saturn's. Serendi^podous 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nitpick: 'year' often refers to orbital period. You could easily say that a 'year' on Titan is the time it takes to orbit Saturn (about 16 days). Coincidentally, Titan's rotation period (or 'day') is the same length. More to the point, I don't think the '9th largest directly orbiting the Sun' section is unclear... it's the next largest thing other than the planets to orbit the Sun, and that's a notable fact. --Patteroast (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Our moon does actually orbit the sun directly. It's subject to the sun's gravity more than earth's, & its orbit relative to the sun always curves the same way. Peter jackson (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Except the object at the centre of its orbit is Terra, not Sol. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Relative to Earth, its motion is centred on Earth. Relative to the Sun, its motion is centred on the Sun. Relative to the centre of the galaxy, its motion is centred on the centre of the galaxy. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Relative to the content of this article, your opinion is not relevant. If you want to argue that satellites orbit the sun directly, you'll need to find a few papers, articles, books, etc. that back up your claim. KTHXBAI shaggy (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, while Luna's orbit is, indeed, relative to Earth centered on Earth, and relative to the Sun centered on the Sun, Earth's orbit relative to Luna is not centered on Luna. The "lowest level" of orbit for Luna centers on Earth. And, therefore, it directly orbits Earth, not the Sun, whereas Earth's "lowest level" or orbit centers on Sol, so it directly orbits the Sun, not the galaxy. The sun, meanwhile, directly obits the galactic core, to continue the example. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't cite you any references for this at present (apart from Isaac Asimov, a non-specialist) but I'm sure some astronomers regard our moon as a twin planet for the reasons I mentioned above. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the original proposal by the IAU definition committee, [3], included the concept of a twin planet, though applied to Charon rather than our moon. This is enough to establish that your concept of orbits would not necessarily be regarded as conclusive by all astronomers. Peter jackson (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, none of this opining and speculation matters, and we can just leave the article the way it is for now. shaggy (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Earth-Moon system ... can [indeed] be considered as a double planet ...": Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Institute of Physics, Bristol/Philadelphia/Nature Publishing, London/New York/Tokyo, 2001, Volume 2, page 1759; Canopus Encyclopedia of Astronomy, 2004, page 274 [the wording is almost identical, so perhaps these were written by the same contributor] Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What does treating the Earth-moon system as a double planet have to do with Eris? We seem to be getting off topic. -- Kheider (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Because, from that point of view, Eris wouldn't be the 9th largest. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those issues where everyone knows what is meant by "the 9th largest to orbit directly", but if you actually think of it scientifically, it's hard to define exactly what you mean by that. Technically any planet with a satellite orbits the sun with a "wobble" as the planet and satellite both rotate around a common centre of gravity. Similarly, the satellite itself orbits the sun with a wobble. The reason we regard the planet as orbiting directly and the satellite as indirectly, is simply because the centre of gravity is usually deep within the core of the planet, quite close to (but not identical to) the gravitational centre of the planet, meaning the wobble on the planet is small while the wobble on the satellite is large.

What all that means for the article, I'm not too sure. We should go with whatever is verifiable in reputable sources, I guess. At present the "ninth-largest body known to orbit the Sun directly" sentence appears to be unreferenced, which obviously isn't acceptable for a Featured Article! Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Eris orbits the Sun as the primary, where-as books refer to the 8 planets as the primaries that the 7 largest moons orbit. Yes, Earth's moon is somewhat of a freak, but last time I checked schools still teach that "the moon" goes around the Earth. We could mention Eris as the 17th most massive body in the Solar System (Sun + 8 planets + 7 moons), if we need to change the intro. -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there disagreement between the text and the diagram?

Just curious. Is there a disparity in this article regarding how far Eris is from the sun? In the Orbit section it states that its aphelion is 97.5 AU. But in an accompanying diagram TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg the semi-major axis is about 67 or 68 AU. Since this should be equivalent to the farthest it gets from the sun shouldn't these numbers be about the same? What am I doing wrong? 67.83.211.83 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

semi-major axis is not the same as aphelion, since no object has the Sun at the exact centre of its orbit. Serendi^podous 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to think about that...

I did find (in a Wikipedia Dwarf Planet List) that Eris' MEAN distance from the sun is "67.668" AU. But then is the diagram correct (under "Main graph," see link to TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg‎ above) in saying that the "Distance along horizonatal axis" of the chart is the "semi-major axis" of the object? I mean, the Sun not being "at the exact centre of its orbit" notwithstanding. This diagram is a real beauty. If I knew how to ask the author (Eurocommuter) I would... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.211.83 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-major axis is the average distance from the Sun, where-as aphelion is the furthest distance from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your clarification - I understand now and I stand corrected!67.83.211.83 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Size, mass and density

We have a great big section called that, good. It's misleadingly titled, though - 95 per cent of it talks about Eris' diameter (which is certainly an interesting subject), while Eris' mass gets one very short mention and Eris' density is not mentioned at all. In fact, Eris' density isn't given or estimated anywhere in the article. Sideways713 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

good point. Added a mention of density. Serendi^podous 22:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eris occults a star, diameter measured

Preliminary estimations give a maximum diameter of 2320 km, very close that of Pluto's [4]. The higher mass means the dwarf planet is compositionally very different from Pluto. — JyriL ^talk 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Info added. Serendi^podous 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In this usage should Occultation link to Occultation or to Occultation#Occultations by asteroids? -- Kheider (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless you want to merge asteroid with minor planet, I'd say leave it. Serendi^podous 08:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I could change the subsection to "#Occultations by minor planets", but since the section above it is "Occultation by planets", I will leave it for now.-- Kheider (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

More links:

• Occultation of asteroid 136199 Eris - November 6th 2010 2h15 (the largest Eris we can get from our observations is still smaller than the smallest Pluto)
• The Eris stellar occultation of 6 November 2010
• Sky & Tel article: Eris Gets Dwarfed
• Wikisky location showing mag17 star -- Kheider (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Pluto Might be Bigger, But Eris is More Massive (12 Nov 2010)
• Dwarf planets are crazy (in a head-on collision Pluto would suffer the brunt of the damage)
• Pluto still may be the biggest dwarf planet (with pro and anti-"Pluto hugging" comments)
• How big is Pluto, anyway? (Mike Brown on 22 Nov 2010 ==> Pluto: 2330 ± 50 km; Eris 2330 ± 30 km)

Thanks for the links. But the Sky&Tel article seems to have Pluto's size wrong: it has a radius of 1153±10 km, not 1172±10 km, according to our (referenced) Pluto article. So their implication of Eris (claimed there as r≤1170km) being smaller than Pluto seems to be still dubious at present knowledge... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that the size debate is dubious, but IMHO Eris should no longer be stated as the largest known TNO as if it is an obvious fact. -- Kheider (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's still the most massive, whatever its radius. Serendi^podous 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please wait until the researchers have had a chance to reduce their data completely, combine it, and publish it. These changes are highly premature, and are entirely based on commentary on the preliminary results. At the moment, there are three things that can be said: a) an occultation was predicted, b) it was successfully observed, c) it suggests a size that is at the low end of the current error bars. None of that should be cited to ref 40. I think it is okay to also mention the implication of higher density -> different composition to similarly-sized Pluto, because that's the key implication of the result. The Eris larger/Pluto larger is not something that should be hashed out here, particularly given this kind of ongoing discussion on the size of Pluto. Iridia (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake!

This has gone way too far. So far we have a set of extremely preliminary results that haven't even seen the inside of a peer-reviewed journal, giving a diameter for Eris that may or may not be smaller than Pluto, for which we don't have a precise diameter either. Why are we rewriting these articles to suggest that Eris is smaller than Pluto, when we have no confirmed evidence that it is? Serendi^podous 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As for "placed an upper limit on Eris's diameter of 2320 km", first, the ref doesn't say that. Second, since you're measuring a cord, don't occultations give lower limits? — kwami (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it. Serendi^podous 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you only have one Chord (astronomy), than yes, it would be a lower limit. But when you have widely separated chords, you are more likely to get a better result (especially when dealing with an assumed sphere). The Eris occultation produced 3 chords, but 2 of them where from the same location. So in theory, if the data is good, the results should be decent. -- Kheider (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with Another Article

This article claims that Eris is the farthest known object in the Solar System excluding comets. This is in conflict with the article on 90377 Sedna, which claims the same thing. Please amend one or both articles to explain.96.230.207.125 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Sedna article states that it is the furthest object when it's at the far portion of its orbit. But it happens to be at the near portion of its orbit. Even though on average, Sedna is further away, currently Eris is. --Patteroast (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tm, Gm, Mm, km

For publicly well known bodies such as Pluto and Eris, I would be inclined to use km since I think it would be easiest for the layperson to understand. They known that the Sun is 1.496×10⁸ km and that the moon is 384,399 km. For objects directly orbiting the Sun, I think AU should be listed first since that is what reliable references will generally use. -- Kheider (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I agree. Serendi^podous 09:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that AU should have primacy. I'm agnostic on which (if any) SI units should be used, but if any are used they should keep the same unit within a domain. I.e., don't use both Gm and Tm for different solar orbits, stick to one or the other for all. Tbayboy (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, I'd only ever use km and/or AU for Solar System sizes and distances. I've never seen Tm or Gm being used outside Wikipedia articles.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You might agree, but that doesn't make it right! You wouldn't use kilobytes to indicate storage capacity of a modern disk drive, and no-one does. They all use Gigabytes or Terabytes. It's the same with metres. This is an encyclopedia, it should at least try and make proper use of whatever systems it uses in its articles. So, spelling should be correct, grammar should be correct and weights and measures should be used correctly. If you want to use S.I, use it correctly. Earth is (appx) 149 Gm from the sun, or 149e9 m maybe. 149e6 km is just plain wrong! So is 149 Mkm. However, I do agree with all the other posters here who note that A.U is very much used by astronomers for solar-system measurements. So let's put A.U first on distance indications, but *please* can we do it right and follow up with Mm, Gm or Tm as appropriate? Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Disk drives are marketed in GB and TB. In astronomy they really only use AU and Kelvin. Just the other day I misread a Celsius reading thinking it was a Kelvin reading. Ugh. Too many units is more confusing than useful. If a reader will not take the time to convert the units, they (IMHO) are not really that interested. -- Kheider (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicking (cause you knew this): Secondary (moon) orbits are in km (not AU), but I've never seen Mm even though Mm would be the most natural scale. And body size is always km or m, never Mm. Mass is usually kg, solar masses (even for tiny asteroids!), jovian masses, or sometimes earth masses. Light years and parsecs for the larger scale. I've seen Ga (giga-years) in papers. Tbayboy (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Solex by Aldo Vitagliano uses Gm for distances to objects in the solar system. But that certainly does not qualify as common usage. -- Kheider (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AU would be the most obvious choice, as it's unit-independent. The average American doesn't know the mean kilometers we are from the sun, but we do know it's 93 million miles, which is equally an incomprehensible distance if you stop and think about it. AU is easier to relate to in terms of conceptualizing the relative positions of solar system objects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable to care what "the average American" (or any other nationality) knew before he/she reads something on Wikipedia. People consult an encyclopedia in order to learn new stuff! Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But the units simply aren't used. We go by what our sources do, not what you think it would be best for them to do. — kwami (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Since both Eris and Pluto were discovered by Americans, I think it is okay to use both km and miles, but yes km seems to be the first thing mentioned nowadays. Kheider, I didn't think you were harsh about my Eris edits. I was glad my changes led to the elimination of the statement that Eris is larger than Pluto; it being changed to Eris is more massive than Pluto, so I am glad my edits brought about a change in the article on Eris and those of its three discoverers. When Bruno Sicardy of the Paris Observatory publishes his highly anticipated scientific paper on the recent stellar occultation of Eris observed from Chile, the open question regarding which dwarf planet is larger may be settled. Alan Stern of the New Horizons missions told me that Pluto's diamater will, barring a mishap, be measured when the probe arrives at Pluto in July 2015, by the way. Maybe someday NASA or some other Earthling agency will send a probe to Eris, too. That would be nice, but hopefully, the question will be closed by the end of July 2015, for all practical purposes. Not sure which end the tildes are supposed to be on, so I am putting them on both ends of my name. Sowff (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We simply try not to clutter the articles with too many conversions. If we treat Fahrenheit and/or miles as special in any scientific articles then we would have to do it in all the articles and the Wikipedia consensus (politically correct or not) has been not to do it since it interferes with the flow of sentences and clutters infoboxes. I have converted to miles in some of my stub/start class articles (for example:(237442) 1999 TA10), but it is nice to keep the "Featured Articles" free from excessive cluttering of conversions. In the past I have seen editors with good intentions come in and convert every measurement they see into 2 or 3 formats. (Yikes) Then a 3rd person will come along and convert the "Converted F" back into Celsius, adding 1 or 2 significant figures, and then the reference (assuming it was in C) does not even match the article.

As far as Pluto is concerned, I myself believe Pluto is 2360km in diameter and that Eris is likely closer to 2330km, but thinking that does not really make it true. Besides Pluto's temporary atmosphere from the perihelion passage in 1989 could be throwing off some of the measurements. Sadly, even after New Horizons visits Pluto in 2015, we will still need a another occultation by Eris that shows consistent results around 2300km before the case can be closed. -- Kheider (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Diameter

The lead says, "It is estimated to be approximately 2300–2400 km in diameter", while the infobox first lists a radius estimate of 1300. Well, 2 × 1300 = 2600. Shouldn't the estimate in the lead be 2300–2600 km? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Spitzer estimate should probably be removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, there are no recent peer-reviewed papers on the exact size of Eris. So yes, you can get different estimates from different sources. In the 2007 Spitzer results the lower bound is closer to 2*1200. We still have these measurements problem even with Pluto, but to a lesser extent. -- Kheider (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Classification of TNOs: SDO vs. Detached TNO

CalRis (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC): I already posted this question [[5]], but didn't get an answer. Perhaps this place is more appropriate. I'm wondering about the orbital classification of Eris as a SDO-object (and the general classification scheme adopted by Wikipedia for TNOs). I am aware that the MPC lists it as an SDO. I'm only an astronomy aficionado, but the MPC's classification seems not entirely reliable. For example, according to the minor planet center, Sedna has the orbit type "Centaur", which is of course absurd (according to JPL's Small-Body Database Browser perihelion is 76 AU, aphelion is 995 AU). If you look at its "Centaur" list and briefly check its orbital elements (q, Q, a), you will find that there are other objects the classification of which seems rather doubtful (far too large q).

Anyway, which classification system/nomenclature is used by Wikipedia? Even the orbit classification of Eris in various scientific papers is varying (SDO, detached). Gladman et al. published (as part of the TNO-Bible The Solar System Beyond Neptune) a Nomenclature in the Outer Solar System which restricted SDOs to those objects which are currently scattering actively off Neptune (as indicated by 10 million years numerical integrations). They list both Eris and Sedna as detached TNOs.

The final verdict about what TNO-classification/nomenclature is going to be adopted by the scientific community is still out. So shouldn't Wikipedia be a bit more circumspect? One might include, for example, a respective hint by including a statement in the Eris-article that Eris is variously listed as an SDO and a detached TNO, according to the classification scheme used. What do you think? Salvete! CalRis

I think we need some discussion before we start adding this to articles: what we should say, how much, and where. Maybe at the astronomy project? AFAIK, the SD is generally defined to be the region which is thought to have been populated through scattering, regardless of present dynamics, and DOs are objects which cannot be explained that way. Maybe I'm wrong, but given the number of articles this would affect, I think we should hold off until we get some feedback from people who really know this stuff. — kwami (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's how I understand the concept. Serendi^podous 07:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• CalRis (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC): For the basic reasoning behind my changes to the article about Eris (dwarf planet), see [[6]]. I believe that the source itself is reliable enough not to be ignored. The book The Solar System Beyond Neptune is a major publication with contributions by all the leading scientists in the TNO-field. Ignoring this until we can change all articles in one fell swoop, isn't that a bit too conservative? Wikipedia should be cautious! But ignoring reliable sources (and using ones as in the case of the possible resonance which is far less easy to be checked for reliability) seems to be overdoing it. However, I do agree with your feeling that some Wikipedia articles need a rewrite, especially those about the scattered disc and detached objects. I'm looking forward to your comments (and measures taken).
  • By the way, Serendipodous, what concept do you mean: that of the new understanding of detached objects or Kwamikagami's misgivings?
  • Also the wording in the article introduction ("native to a region of space beyond the Kuiper belt known as the scattered disc") is highly misleading, as the scattered disc is not a seperate region. Its inner part is roughly in the same region as the classical Kuiper belt.

Yes, orbital sets are often called "areas", which would be confusing to newbies.

I'm not saying all articles need to be done at once, I'm saying we should wait for confirmation that we want to change all the articles at all. If we do, then they can of course be done piecemeal. What I don't want is to start changing them and then encounter resistance to the rest, so that we're left with half disagreeing with the other half. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As one of the primary Wikipedia authors many objects do have multiple classifications. In a Solar System that is 4.5 billion years old, a 10 million year integration of the orbit is quite pathetic and is not very reliable long-term. I use to work on the detached object article on Wikipedia, but IMHO there are not a lot of sources to make that article of good quality (My concerns from 2009). In the last several years, the MPC has even started listing centaurs (scattered inwards) and SDOs (scattered outwards) on the same list just to simplify things. -- Kheider (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

CalRis (talk): I had a quick peek at the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System to find additional information concerning TNO orbit classification. I found the following paper: The Canada-France Ecliptic Plane Survey - Full Data Release: The orbital structure of the Kuiper belt. It is very recent (submitted 25 May 2011) and should therefore be relevant. Of interest to this present discussion is the second paragraph of section 6 ("The scattering disk") which has a look at the evolution of the definition of the scattering disk over the last 15 years and the problems involved. As can be seen from section 4.1 ("Orbit Classification"), the authors of this paper adopted most of the nomenclature from Gladman et al. 2008: "scattering (objects that over 10 Myr forward in time integrations experience encounters with Neptune resulting in variation of semimajor-axis of more than 1.5 AU)". One interesting change compared to Gladman et al. 2008 is the express listing of the "detached" population as part of the classical belt something only hinted at in Gladman et al. 2008. Personally I find it hard to believe that this part of the nomenclature will stand the test of time for objects like Sedna (but Sedna is, of course, an oddball). Anyway, I believe that this paper is more than enough to justify the small changes to the Eris-article. A major rewrite of the articles about the SDO and the detached objects should be considered as well, however. Bye, CalRis. —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Are they distinguishing "scattering disk" from "scattered disk", or is that just a variant? — kwami (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

They call it "scattering" when they compute that the semi-major axis will change by at least 1.5 AU over the next 10My. If it doesn't change (and isn't resonant), then they call it "classical" (with further subdivisions for "inner", "main", and "outer") or "detached" (beyond the 2:1 resonance distance and with > .24 eccentricity). What is elsewhere called "scattered" might fit into any of these. So no, not the same, although there's probably a lot of overlap. Tbayboy (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

CalRis (talk): The approach linked with the "scattered disc" stricto sensu looks back and tries to include those objects originally having scattered off Neptune. Knowledge of orbital history is required for this classification, and this information is not available for a given real TNO (Petit et al. 2011. For this reason Gladman et al. chose a more practical approach based on the the object's current behaviour. Is it scattering off Neptune right now or not? There's of course an overlap between these groups, but they are not the same. Gladman et al. chose the term "scattering" with this in mind although they "acknowledge that the latter term [i.e. scattered] is entrenched in the literature." (Gladman et al. 2008) —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

CalRis (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC): What do you think? Isn't this justification enough for adapting the article?

First you should overhaul Trans-neptunian object, adding in the alternative categories. The problem there is that we would then have multiple classification systems, so it might be difficult to present without being confusing. The individual objects (this page, and all the other TNO pages) would then be updated adding in the new class per this paper. In other words, don't start with this page, get the base page (which would define the categories) accepted first.

The other problem is that this is one, newly printed paper. The classification system might not catch on, which would make all that work wasted. I would prefer to wait until there's a reference from somebody else using this scheme. Tbayboy (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Radius of Eris

CalRis (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC): Hello! There is finally a published result (PDF, 187 KB) of the analysis of Eris' stellar occultation in 2010. The best fit (provided that Eris is spherical) is a radius of 1163 ± 6 km which results in a density of 2.52 ± 0.05 g/cm³. I suggest that these measurements are taken into account in the article.

Thanks a bunch! Added! :) Serendi^podous 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a bunch of other similar abstracts at the same place, for other presentations at that conference. E.g., one mentions Quaoar having a long chord (1100 or so) and appearing elongated, like Haumea. Tbayboy (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to those? I don't have a logon ID to get in. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall how I first found them, which was a short list of the TNO ones. However, go to [7], click on one of the groups on the left side of the main column (under "Program Groups"), e.g., "Small bodies", then click either "oral progam" or "poster program", and that takes you to a list of the talks for that group that day. Each of the talks has a little pdf abstract (as above). The one on Quaoar is [8]. A bunch on Vesta are at [9]. Tbayboy (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the "Thermal Measurement" section needed anymore?

I think it just confuses things at this point. Serendi^podous 20:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. Would we remove the Spitzer diam. from the infobox as well?

BTW, the New Scientist ref says "Pluto might have just regained its status as the largest object in the Kuiper Belt". Which of course means that Eris is a KBO, at least in their opinion, or the opinion of their sources. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The measurement is mentioned and explained earlier. We don't need the blow-by-blow. I think it should be removed from the infobox, too, unless there's a recent reference favouring it over the occultation. Tbayboy (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 17:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Symbol

Added a proposed symbol: . Not the only one, but the most common, and several bodies have multiple symbols. Delete though if you think it's premature. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There appears to have been a recent short-lived edit war over this, chiefly over the lack of sourcing. Perhaps insertion of the symbol could be given proper context with help from the information referenced in Hand of Eris—or maybe a passing reference to that article could be made in the body text, rather than putting the (completely unofficial) symbol into the data box. Any thoughts? Majestic-chimp (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That page doesn't give a proper reference for it, either. The image file doesn't give any real source for the image, neither for origin of the symbol itself nor for its proposal as the symbol of the dwarf planet. Who is using it as a symbol for the DP, and in which sources? I doubt it's being used in any astronomical sources, but astrological might be good enough. There should also be some kind of wide-spread consensus about it (i.e., across different factions). Tbayboy (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I picked the most common symbol, but no longer remember how I determined that. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The most substantial discussion appears to be in <http://discord-society.livejournal.com/121192.html>, so at the very least, there is basis for it being proposed by a group of Discordians. Whether that's sufficient to mention it in the article may still be up for debate. Thoughts? Majestic-chimp (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See, e.g., http://www.zanestein.com/Trans-pluto.htm. There are several proposed symbols. A proposal by itself is meaningless, since anybody can propose it, and there is no official body to accept it (astronomers gave up on all but a few symbols long ago). Until there's some consensus amongst people who actually use a symbol for DP Eris (only astrologers?), I think it's premature to favour one here. Tbayboy (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Surface area.

If the radius is 1163 km, then the surface area should be approximately 17 million square km, not 78.5 million. I was puzzled as to how Eris could have a diameter smaller than our moon, yet a surface area twice as big - unless it's not a sphere and has a highly irregular shape.

Yes, 17 million is right, assuming sphericity. It looks like it used an older value of the diameter (2500), not the new radius. Tbayboy (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the old surface area number used a radius of 2500km. -- Kheider (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Orbital period

CalRis (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC): Hello! While looking at some stats on the two Horizons-sites JPL Small-Body Database Browser and the Web-Interface to the Ephemerides-tool I couldn't help noticing a difference of 4.5 years between the orbital period entries in the SBDB (561,63 yrs) and the Ephemerides-tool (557.07 yrs). I sent a respective e-mail to a Senior Analyst from the JPL who was kind enough to reply in quite some detail (see here. It seems that both are right but that the value does not make all that much sense unless the relevant epoch of osculation is specified as well. What's your take on this? Should we indicate the epoch? Shouldn't we at least switch to the orbital period of the newer epoch?

The infobox currently specifies an epoch of 2006-Mar-06 for all orbital parameters. Using JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System at that epoch Eris had a heliocentric orbital period of 2.033184877971827E+05 days (or 556.6 years). I personally prefer a barycentric solution of 558.4 years that is more stable over varying epochs. None of the above is wrong. Orbits are constantly perturbed and that is why accurate simulations require integrating the equations of motion. -- Kheider (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• CalRis (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC): I stand corrected (blush). Sorry for the inconvenience.

Dwarf planet candidate

(Edit: Sarcasm) Now that Eris is ONLY a dwarf planet candidate (Sheppard 2011, page 2 paragraph 2, "likely dwarf planets Eris") should we rewrite this article and/or put a POV tag on it? -- Kheider (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you would bother to read the paper, you'd see that when it was found it was a DP candidate, but that now he accepts it as a DP:

In these surveys tens of bright TNOs including likely dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna and 2007 OR10 were discovered. [...]

Though the dwarf planet definition is imprecise, it is clear that Ceres in the main asteroid belt as well as Pluto and Eris in the outer solar system are bonafide dwarf planets. Makemake and Haumea are also likely dwarf planets as are the next largest bodies in the outer solar system such as Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus and Quaoar.

So, as of July 2011, he accepted Eris but was not yet convinced of Makemake & Haumea. Of course, if you wish to push for Eris to be a "candidate", I'm sure we can accommodate you. — kwami (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are pretty much relying on single reference that one could argue contradicts itself. When Eris was discovered in 2005, it was a PLANET candidate. It is the 2006 IAU resolution that made Pluto, Ceres and Eris dps. -- Kheider (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can purposefully misunderstand it just to be obstinate. You could play WP:pointy games like that with any source or claim.

As for it being just one source, that is of course true, and should be WP:weighted accordingly. But contradicting ourselves in the lead of a FA is not acceptable. Basic coherence is required. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider what you just wrote ("Sure, you can purposefully misunderstand it just to be obstinate. You could play WP:pointy games like that with any source or claim.") at Makemake and Haumea! -- Kheider (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am giving my honest opinion on those pages. I'm not playing games. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Myself and others have given you our honest opinions and you have called the group ignorant. Your argument against Makemake and Haumea being accepted as dps (using Sheppard's 2011 reference) is really no different than an argument against Eris. Too bad you spend so much time judging your fellow editors instead of the validity of a single sentence in a single reference that can be interpreted different ways. -- Kheider (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you apparently do not care enough to actually read what I write. That's fine, just don't misparaphrase me.

I did not call the group ignorant. I referred to one editor who does not understand HE as ignorant. There is a slight difference: I am not claiming you do not know what you're talking about re. these bodies, I am claiming that you are making contradictory statements in the lead and not following NPOV re. Sheppard.

BTW, I probably wouldn't care so much if we at least had a NPOV resolution to the DP article (one which you said you could accept), because then at least we'd have a clear context for new readers. — kwami (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Xena

I was redirected from Xena to Eris. Maybe the older (or alternative?) name Xena should be mensioned? 95.209.20.157 (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It already is mentioned: Eris_(dwarf_planet)#Xena

"136199 Eris, is the most massive known dwarf planet"

How about Pluto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.11.53 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Eris is 27% more massive than Pluto. Serendi^podous 21:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: the tempricher and atmolthfear

2.91.115.68 posted this comment on 19 November 2013 (view all feedback).

the tempricher and atmolthfear

Has there been research and a conclusion of the temperature and atmosphere?

NolanCRules (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Eris doesn't have an atmosphere right now, although it may in the future as it approaches the Sun. As far as temperature goes, that's pretty straightforward, and is mentioned in the "Surface and atmosphere" section. Serendi^podous 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

probability Pluto is larger

Assuming normal distributions etc. of our data, I calculate there is a 10% chance Eris is smaller than Pluto. Someone might want to check my math. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get the formula? Plugging the numbers into it indeed gives those numbers. --JorisvS (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked at the math ref desk. (My stats are pathetic!)

The results look like they're in the ball-park. At about 1σ apart, there's ≈¼ overlap, and about half that should be Pl > Er, since their SD's are approx. equal. Not statistically significant, but a good chance that Eris is indeed the larger. — kwami (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a little too close to WP:OR and may be unnecessary. Also the data you are using seems outdated. This 2011 paper give Eris' radius as 1,163 ± 6 kilometers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22031441 And here is a secondary source that says "The newly measured radius of Eris puts it within the error range of the accepted size of Pluto." http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/dwarf-planet-eris-bereft-of-atmosphere-about-the-size-of-pluto/ so we don't need to do our own calculation to say that, though it was nice work.--agr (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops! No, that was a copy error. Corrected.

It's no more OR than finding the surface gravity or any of the several other things we routinely calculate ourselves for our minor-planet articles.

Just saying it "could be" smaller is rather unsatisfying, IMO. Is it 50–50? One in a thousand? With a little common sense, we could conclude it should be > 5% and < 50%, but IMO it's nice to have something more precise, and many readers won't know that 5% is typically used to define significance. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Until we know more about the size of Eris and Pluto, the comparison to Eris in the Pluto article should consider them "roughly the same size" for now. It currently claims Eris is larger. (Pluto Talk is locked, so I commented here instead.) --146.233.0.201 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that Eris is larger in diameter than Pluto? I only found variations of "about the same size". Tbayboy (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Eris is more massive even if Pluto is say ~10km larger in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Engvar

Which variety of English are we supposed to be in here? --John (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it would appear to have been written originally in American English and then to have evolved to use a mixture of the two. Per WP:RETAIN I have moved all spellings to American ones. --John (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions

We say TNOs are named after creation deities. AFAIK, that is only true for classical KBOs. Is there a convention for SDOs? — kwami (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Horizons Craft Finds Pluto is Larger Than Eris

On July 13, 2015, NASA announced, Pluto to be 1,473 miles (2,370 kilometers) in diameter. This is larger than previous estimates. Pluto is larger than all other known solar system objects beyond the orbit of Neptune, including Eris, which whose diameter is currently considered to be 2,326 km ± 12., nasa.gov, JM (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

With the errors bars on both (20 and 12), it's still possible that Eris is larger. Unlikely, but it's not certain yet. In a day or three, the errors on Pluto should shrink enough to put it out of Eris's max reasonable size (3-sigma). Tbayboy (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Note c

I removed the first sentence of Note C ("Eris is more massive than Pluto even though Pluto has a larger diameter.") as redundant, but it was re-added. Is this sentence necessary when we say pretty much the same thing ("Eris is 27% more massive than dwarf planet Pluto, though Pluto is slightly larger by volume.") very shortly after in the main text?--Trystan (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As this is a current event, Yes. As a regular editor of this article, I can assure you that many readers do not know the difference between volume and mass. -- Kheider (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Artists impressions

Do we really need 2 artists impressions? If we've learned anything from the Pluto flyby is that we have no idea what a planet looks like until we actually go look at it. One artist impression would be OK since they are popular, but I think two is misleading.--Nowa (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, happy to get rid of one, but which? There are actually three as we have a size comparison chart and the silhouetted one with Dysnomia. I'd recommend getting rid of the first one as it has no size comparison. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I took out the last one with the fake backlighting and the fuzzy sun. That seemed the most misleading.--Nowa (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need any? Not that long ago, artist impressions of the Venusian surface showed forests of exotic trees -- and this in planetariums. Artist impressions were used because nothing really was known. But now that we know what dozens of bodies look like, it's no longer necessary to invent crap to fill in our ignorance. If people want an idea of what Eris might look like, they can compare actual photos of Triton, Pluto and Charon. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If we leave one it implies that we have a good reason for believing it to be more accurate. I think computer generated images are even more misleading; I had no real idea that we knew so little about what Pluto looked like because I'd seen lots of (usually blue) high res photo-realistic images. Btljs (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue? That's odd; we've known what colour Pluto is for years. Serendi^podous 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, somehow even though we've known that Pluto is red for a long time, artist's impressions generally depicted it blue! --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Cos it's cold, obviously. Btljs (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE there is currently an RfC open at WT:AST concerning artistic impressions that may impact this article, and supercede this discussion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Eris (dwarf planet) → Eris

Eris → Eris (disambiguation)

– The most common name is Eris. People are most likely to look for the dwarf planet, not the goddess, therefore the current Eris page should be moved to Eris (disambiguation) and this page be moved to Eris. DN-boards1 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the planet had 40867 views in June while the goddess had 16875. 2.4 fold difference in views doesn't seem to me to be big enough to justify calling the planet the primary topic. Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment When one does a Google Search of Eris, far more results pop up for the dwarf planet than the goddess. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • When one does a Google Search of galaxy, far more results pop up for phones than astronomy. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, please do not use the fallacious Google argument. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, due to the long-term significance of the Greek goddess, an individual with a significant role in the Trojan War, one of the most significant cultural legends in Western, and indeed world, history. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment. Those results are biased due to press coverage received during the first 2 weeks of July. One day saw 54k hits alone. If you click on the 90 days option on stats.grok you'll see just how skewed the distribution is. When you take away that data, the traffic isn't too different, averaging about 400 more daily hits for the planet. I'm not sure if that is information enough to assert that it is the primary topic, especially from such recent data. If you look back a year from now the difference is much less, due to the Taylor Swift effect. See Wikipedia:Article traffic jumps and this for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Any way you slice it, the planet (sorry, IAU) gets more views. There is no upside to inconveniencing readers looking for the planet. It is not going to help anyone find the goddess article. That article keeps the parenthetical either way. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Tentative Support, I think I'd go with this on subject matter - a dwarf planet vs a minor Greek Goddess. I don't really oppose the existing but if it were up to me alone...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a minor planet and a minor god, each with about as much interest to their various constitutents as the other. I concur with the other opposition above, and see no reason to move the disambig page. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The current disambig page lists the goddess and the dwarf planet at the top. I don't think that's an undue burden for readers looking for either. It also exposes readers to other uses of Eris (e.g. fictional planet) that might be of interest.--Nowa (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and am surprised that the goddess isn't the primary. Eris is a major figure in the discordian tradition. Randy Kryn 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, would support the goddess as literally the "primary", because all others seem derived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, In fact the goddess should probably be the primary topic, per the long term significance clause of WP:Primarytopic. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Agree with the goddess as primary, maybe after this closes we can discuss that idea. It's correct that the minor planet was named after Eris, the goddess representation, a solid argument for the goddess being primary topic. Randy Kryn 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Side note: Sorry, you are wrong about "solid argument", this is Wikipedia, and if a singer names himself after a composer, and the singer gets more hits, the composer is no longer the primary topic, - don't count on logic here, we go by consensus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  But the case you cite above has them both listed in a disamb page, just like Eris. So the logic and consensus seem to coincide. So, yes I Oppose: placing either as the primary (over the other) is inappropriate given long term trends versus current popularity. Btljs (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  Comment, the goddess is not the primary topic here, regardless of the fact that the dwarf planet was named after it. Otherwise all the planets should not be the primary topic, but their namesakes instead. And just because the dwarf planet has not been known for a very long time (well, ~10 years) compared to the goddess, doesn't give the goddess "long-term significance". Instead, what long-term significance means is whether the significance endures. For example, if there were a probe arriving at the dwarf planet, then coverage would spike, but this does not mean its long-term significance has changed (it could, of course, but one can only tell after the fad has died down). --JorisvS (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  The comment - all correct - illustrates perfectly that to say "primary" for what comes first in a search is a strange usage of "primary". My usual example: a hymn vs. Bach cantata on the hymn, - many more "hits" for the cantata, but at least Classical music has the hymn primary, the derived work with a disambiguation, example Wachet auf vs. Wachet auf, BWV 140, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: no case has been made that this article is so much more popular than any other than it is worthwhile to disrupt the status quo. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Keeping at Eris (dwarf planet) makes perfect sense to me. But the goddess is certainly not the primary topic. The dwarf planet is much closer to primary than the goddess. If at some point in the future the celestial body gets visited to increase it's popularity then I would only change the disambiguation page and redirect "Eris" to point at "Eris (dwarf planet)." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Albedo and absolute magnitude

We list the albedo as 0.96+0.09
−0.04. This is technically properly sourced. However, they do not give the absolute magnitude they've used, so that readers cannot check that their calculation is accurate. Our listed absolute magnitude is −1.2±0.3, whose uncertainty is not in the cited source. These values are not consistent with the listed radius. --JorisvS (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Plugging in the numbers, I get H=-1.17 from diameter=2326 and albedo=0.96. Also, albedo=0.986 from diameter=2326 and H=-1.2. So the numbers aren't too bad (not like Makemake). The H that Sicardy used seems to come from one of the references, the main occultation results they submitted to Nature but had not yet published at the time of the here-cited conference abstract. I couldn't find it in a quick google search, so maybe it was never published. Tbayboy (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Given that the uncertainty in the cited absolute magnitude is unsourced and that the calculated absolute magnitude is consistent with the cited value, we should simply use the calculated value, including uncertainty. --JorisvS (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

For Eris, I made it so that the article would be alphabetized as simply "Eris" (no DEFAULTSORT necessary). I did the equivalent for Sedna, Varda, Orcus, and Quaoar. (E.g. “{{DEFAULTSORT:Sedna}}”. Okay? Shall I do the same for other dwarf planets?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cryovolcanism

Have there been any reports discussing this? I've done a little research of the photographs taken of this planet and noticed at least two of them show prominent "bulges" on them. If they were additional moons, then their effects on Dysnomia's orbit would have made them obvious, so it is clear that can't be the case. Others have suggested they could instead of eruptions taken at the time (which would help explain Eris's high albedo). Here are said images: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZY-sFkUEAA3Iu9.png
Shall we mention this in any capacity in the article? 134340Goat (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• This may be valid, but unless you can show it by suitable published references, it would be "Original Research", not what we use here. Good luck with researching this, it sounds interesting.

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

[REPLY] I've asked Mike Brown over twitter about this actually, and I've been told that is simply optical aberration and there is no chance of cry volcanoes being spotted from 96.1 AU away. There has been searches for additional moons around Eris; but no luck so far. Rilmac (talk) 19:11 3 December 2018 (GMT)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120225015100/http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/Sedna2076.txt to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/Sedna2076.txt
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051108052322/http://www.slackerastronomy.org:80/wordpress/index.php/archive/10th-planet/ to http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/index.php/archive/10th-planet/#comments

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Chart awful

The chart is awful. If sent the data or the formula — I suspect not quite sinusoidal — I could make better.

• X axis in years, starting at 1800.

• Y axis in A.U, starting at 25 A.U.

• No grey background, and gridlines much much lighter.

• Smoothed lines, rather than heavy markers.

• Perhaps some vertical small text at appropriate years: “Neptune discovered 1846”, “Pluto discovered 1930”, “Eris discovered 2005”.

JDAWiseman (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Exploration

I believe any more edit/undo repetitions would constitute an edit war, so to prevent that, let's talk about it here. I was told to present a source. It's sort of difficult to find a source where absolutely no astronomer, not even Brown or Trujilio, the dwarf planet's discoverers, has expressed any interest in sending a probe its way. Aside from that, there's no public interest. Ask an average person what Pluto is, you might get a planet debate. Ask what Eris is, you'll get a "Huh?" It's simply too open but factual to deny. 107.77.225.124 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a research journal. Therefore every fact must be confirmed by a source. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the point. No source exists because there's no interest. Get what I mean? That is noteworthy enough. 107.77.225.124 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323180835/http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/asteroids/sizemagnitude.html to http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/asteroids/sizemagnitude.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205035336/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/08700/08747.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Orbit

Is there some reason why this article doesn't include a diagram for the orbit of Eris? I was looking for one and that's why I came here originally. I eventually found it in Wikimedia commons

Can we add this to the article? I'd just "be bold" and add it, but I can't understand why it isn't there already and don't want to edit war. Robert Walker (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a WEBM file I made, using Space Engine.

File:Dwarf planet Eris solar orbit.webm

Dwarf planet Eris solar orbit

Zeryphex (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Fiction

Could someone please add more articles to Category:Eris (dwarf planet) in fiction? Said category currently has only one article in it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

For something discovered in 2005 (so only a dozen years ago), with this little known about it, and with the not-so-glamorous classification of "dwarf planet", I would be very surprised if there were enough notable works set there to add "more articles" to that category. Double sharp (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716035615/http://forum.wgbh.org/content/forum/3710-2007_04_11.mp3 to http://forum.wgbh.org/content/forum/3710-2007_04_11.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104194022/http://www.iau.org/iau0605_Eris.409.0.html to http://www.iau.org/iau0605_Eris.409.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eris (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/615UmlUZa?url=http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html to http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Eris' rulership over Aquarius debated

The dwarf planet Eris is thought to have a rulership over Aquarius. Eris was discovered in 2003 and already being larger than Pluto, some astrologers began to view Eris as an important celestial object or "planet" in astrology. Eris might co-rule all air signs including Gemini and Libra. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)