Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)

Untitled

Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.

Caption

Hi. Maybe someone here can edit the infobox image caption. My edit failed. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You changed the alt text but not the caption. I don't think that's a photo, so I changed both to 'image'. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

3rd symbol

A 3rd astrological symbol for Eris that's really for Proserpina might seem like trivia, but people will see it and not realize the implied claim (of an astrological prediction confirmed by astronomy), and it might be proposed to Unicode as a symbol for Eris (thankfully that didn't happen when the two current symbols were proposed), so IMO it should be checkable here. (And NASA's used the hand-of-Eris symbol, so these aren't just astrology.) — kwami (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I please change the image to something new. In my opinion, it's better than this one. Kortana Jose Matez (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

infobox image

I just reverted an infobox image change because the caption no longer matched the image. The (current) image is a photograph from Hubble, the image I removed is an "artists impression" (i.e., painting). Certainly the requested image is more interesting, the question is whether an artists impression is better suited to an infobox than an actual photograph. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT consensus has long been that we use single (best?) or composite natural-color photos when available for the infobox. Color-enhanced, artificial color (e.g. UV and IR composite) and B&W photos would be second choice. Artistic impressions, if sourced to a RS and not outdated, so they agree as closely as possible to current knowledge, are fine for the text, just not the info box, because they invariably introduce fictitious elements. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwami. Wasn't sure what the policy was, sounds like we are where we need to be. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked at WP astronomy. I'd expect it's spelled out somewhere, but I have no idea where. Could be an informal consensus. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Addressed at WP:ASTROART. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The images in question: File:Eris and dysnomia2.jpg, File:ESO-L. Calçada - Eso1142c (by).jpg

Plutoid

ArkHyena has recently removed the reference to the term plutoid.[1] In their edit summary, they raise a valid point, namely that the term is hardly, if ever, used in literature. While I think they are correct in principle, I am not sure whether removing it from the article altogether is the right choice.

The category of plutoid was introduced by IAU in 2008, to refer to dwarf planets in the outer Solar System. Following the announcement of the term by the IAU Executive Committee, it came to light that there was substantial disagreement among other parts of IAU (most notably the WG-PSN), who rejected the term. See Dwarf_planet#Name for details. This, it would seem, contributed to the term never becoming widely used in the scientific literature. While the IAU seems to have stopped using it, the definition is still technically valid. As far as I know, the 2008 decision was never reverted or amended.

There are reliable, recently published sources that use the definition, in connection to Eris or in general. Confining the list to books or articles published by Springer, there is A Guide to Hubble Space Telescope Objects from 2015: Eris, which orbits far beyond Neptune, is a plutoid while Ceres, which orbits in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is a dwarf planet.[2] Another one, Asteroids, Comets, and Other Non-Planetary Objects[3] from 2018, says that Plutoid, meaning “resembling Pluto,” is an alternative name for a dwarf planet, while the 2019 book Classifying the Cosmos[4] (p.60) says that In honor of Pluto, dwarf planets beyond Neptune’s orbit are sometimes termed “plutoids,” though the term is not in common usage. Does this mean it should be kept out of the Wikipedia article entirely? Renerpho (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)