Jump to content

Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melchoir (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 15 September 2006 (→Name and NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

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

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FAOL

Archive

Archives

July-August 2006 2

Minor planet number

2003 UB313's minor planet number is 136199.[1]--JyriL talk 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eris

This dwarf planet has just received the name: Eris. [2] The moon was named Dysnomia. I suggest that the page is moved to Eris and Eris the goddess is moved to Eris (mythology).--JyriL talk 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, i second the move, noone will keep refering to it by 2003UB313 :P - Nbound 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why anyone would be opposed to this. --Ctachme 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Eris to Eris (mythology), it wont let me move 2003UB313 for some reason... so if theres any admins around, can you please move the page :) -- Nbound 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is move protected...--JyriL talk 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU Circular describing the naming is available to public: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf --JyriL talk 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection has been requested -- Nbound 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I just moved it. Here's a list of redirects to change [3] The Singing Badger 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll redirect Eris to here as well (thats where i thought we'd be moving to :P ) -- Nbound 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to remove the super/sub script thing about 2003 UB313, but it doesnt seem to have any code to remove :S -- Nbound 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was fast :P -- Nbound 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really suspicious about this move. There is nothing in any major news site about the naming. Nor is there anything on the IAU's site. The website cited is a private astrophysics center. Not the IAU. I think this is a big hoax to be honest. 70.225.183.120 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the Minor Planet Center: (134340) PLUTO, (136199) ERIS, AND (136199) ERIS I (DYSNOMIA)

"Following the Aug. 24 resolution by the IAU to the effect that the solar system contains eight \planets" (Mercury{Neptune), with (1) Ceres, Pluto (cf. IAUC 255), and 2003 UB313 (cf. IAUC 8577) to be considered representative \dwarf planets", the Minor Planet Center included Pluto and 2003 UB313 (along with two other new potential dwarf-planet candidates) in the standard catalogue of numbered objects with well-determined orbits as (134340) and (136199), respectively (see MPC 57525). Following near-unanimous acceptance by both the Committee on Small-Body Nomenclature and the Working Group on Planetary-System Nomenclature (in consultation with the discovery team), the IAU Executive Committee has now approved the names Eris for (136199) and Dysnomia for its satellite (136199) Eris I [formerly S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1; cf. IAUC 8610]."

--Ckatzchatspy 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now the question is, did they name it after the goddess, or did the discovery team have a lot of time on their hands to play games... (grin) --Ckatzchatspy 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now starting to appear in news: AP story at Fox News. DenisMoskowitz 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find quite funny that the moon has the exact same name as this medical condition -- Nbound 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike has a good sense of humor. I suspect he named the things after strife and lawlessness because of all the controversy.Michaelbusch 00:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, for the body once named Xena to have a moon named "Lawless"-ness is a wonderful pun. DenisMoskowitz 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it got a fine name, which has value (the Latin equivalent was not used like Uranus, as the Latin "Discordia" is a daily word, at least, in Portuguese/Spanish meaning "discord"), I disagree w/ Brown I think it will stick to people's heads promptly, and people will know why it was named like that. I dont believe Eris was named by him. Quaoar and Sedna are empty names and came from his mind, I think he knows nothing about mythology; he would not be capable to get this name from his head. --Pedro 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to acknowledge that once the "pun" Dysnomia=Lawlessness was made, a simple lookup of Dysnomia would have given Eris. As for Quaoar and Sedna being empty names, I suspect the Inuit and Tongva people would feel differently. -- Jordi·✆ 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All mythologies are respectful and deserve our admiration. But let's not compare water with wine.--Pedro 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding edit wars

With today's announcement of the naming of Eris (the dwarf planet), there are two major public references to Eris. Given that Eris-related pages are getting jostled around, I'm suggesting that Eris be left as a disambiguation page. There are certainly strong arguments to be made for both mythology and astronomy fans with regards to claiming Eris, but a dab page seems to be the fairest approach to head off what would otherwise be an ongoing edit war. (This message appears on Eris, Eris (mythology), and 136199 Eris) --Ckatzchatspy 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above suggestion for avoiding discord now appears moot, as the folks at Eris (mythology) have promptly undone everything I just did. Again. --Ckatzchatspy 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case people typing Eris should easily get to this page, otherwise searching for 136199 Eris may be too difficult.--Nixer 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while I appreciate the effort, I wish you hadn't moved everything around again. The folks at Eris (mythology) are just going to move it back. This constant shuffling is precisely what I was hoping to avoid. Sigh... thanks though. --Ckatzchatspy 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, typing in 136199 Eris would be a pain. Plust many people would be wondering how to get to the Eris page because they don't know it's also called 136199. So ya I believe it should be somthing like Eris (astronomy) or just Eris. Caleb09 18:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article name

See Pluto. It doesn't have the number in the name, and see here. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf

Now: or both have the number or they don't--TheFEARgod (listening) 08:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Pluto, the decision was to stay with the exisiting name ("Pluto"), as it reflected common usage. I don't think there's been sufficient time to have that discussion here. Based on what I've seen in the press, I highly suspect that the common usage for "136199 Eris" will simply be "Eris". However, given that there is Eris (dwarf planet) and Eris (goddess), the article is likely to stay here. The lead, however, can easily use both the common and proper names. (That's what I meant when I said "in line with Pluto"). Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

136199 Eris → Eris (dwarf planet)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Add any additional comments


Survey

Support

  1. Support What's wrong with Eris (dwarf planet)? It seems less messy to me, and more consistent. BovineBeast 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Eris (dwarf planet) sounds good to me, too. Berek 09:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support then also to me--TheFEARgod (listening) 09:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    plus move Pluto and Ceres to name (dwarf planet)--TheFEARgod (listening) 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I dont thin k eris should be numbered, i dont think "dwarf planets" should be numbered, the press calls it sedna, varuna, qoaraor, ixion, etc they dont throw in the numbers they have been calling it the 10th planet or xena in the media until now and im pretty sure they call it eris following this pattern for the sake of simplicity drop the numberes. i say Eris (dwarf planet) Qrc2006 10:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support drop the number for all dwarf planets. keep it in the template though. --Pedro 10:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. The scientific papers on TNO typically use the number for the first time and drop it in the text after the first usage. MPC catalogue numbers are just that; catalogue numbers. When there’s no possibility of confusion, the numbers do nothing to improve readability. The very reason for names is to replace difficult to read difficult to read and error prone designations. There’s no reason for Wikipedia to be more pedantic that the scientific papers. Consistence with otherwise unnecessary rule is a weak argument in my opinion and could be dropped. I cannot see anything wrong with Eris (dwarf planet). Readability should take precedence over unnecessary pedantic rule in this case IMHO. Eurocommuter 11:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support We do not need numbers for dwarf planets.--Nixer 11:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. As an example of the point abuot dropping the number, the BBC reports that the planet is called "Eris" [4] . The number 136199 is not mentioned anywhere in the article. People will come to know Eris as Eris, and the number is effectively irrelevant. Mention it in the article by all means - it just doesn't need to be in the title. I would drop it for all dwarf planets, now that there's official recognition of that status by the IAU. Also, I agree with Eurocommuter - readability is more important than pedantry. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Who calls it by its numbers? Hardly anyone knows what 136199 means, so it's not a common name. --TinMan 11:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I also vote for moving Pluto and Ceres to [[Name (dwarf planet)]] by the way. Consistency! (And the numbers are ugly.) -- Jordi·✆ 12:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support This body will be referred to as Eris, not as 136199 Eris. No one will type "136199 Eris" into the search box or their wikipedia dashboard widget. I also agree that 1 Ceres should move to Ceres (dwarf planet). DenisMoskowitz 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noone is going to type "Eris (dwarf planet)" into their browser either. Eris will always redirect to Eris (disambiguation) after this. The question is what they will once they get to that page! In the meantime, I find it most appropriate that there is such discord over this issue :-).
  12. Support as per all the points above. And drop the number in the article name for all the Dwarf Planets. Deuar 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - normally this article should be simply Eris but since there are other meanings, Eris (dwarf planet) is correct. SteveRwanda 15:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eris (dwarf planet)" is a Wikipedianism. "136199 Eris" is an official designation and therefore presumably correct. Chaos syndrome 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, although I would rather see the article moved to Eris. There is a danger that the term "dwarf planet" will not be widely used which may lead to neglecting of these fascinating objects. Therefore we should help the situation by making a clear difference between dwarf planets and typical minor planets. Technically, 136199 Eris and Eris (dwarf planet) are as "right", so we're not bending any rules there. From a purely consistent point of view, all dwarf planets should include numbers; since that is not sensible in the case of Pluto, consistency is lost in any case.--JyriL talk 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Nom's rationale makes sense to me. jgp TC 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support this or just Eris. FairHair 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support The argument against does not consider the "pipe trick": [[Eris (dwarf planet)|]] will show up as Eris. This article should not displace Eris, the goddess, until we see how much it will actually be used. Septentrionalis 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. If Eris, Pluto and Ceres are usually displayed without the number, use parenthetical disambiguation to allow use of the pipe trick. --Usgnus 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. It would be useful to distiguish the Dwarf Planets from other Minor Planets. Moreover, I searched "Eris" and got the disamiguation page, I thought at first that this article was never created or was still 2003 UB313, and that's because the six-digit number almost concealed the name! Had it been someone else (who is not an amateur astronomer) it may have been overlooked! I also vote for doing the same with Pluto and Ceres. Orionist 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Pluto is remaining at Pluto We should do the smae for Eris Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I'd also prefer to see all the asteroids' article names without numbers, but that's another issue. Dwarf planets will be few enough that the numbers aren't needed for most purposes. It's not like you're going to be writing "136199 Eris" constantly in the article Nik42 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support if the opinion of a passerby counts. The number makes it too technical for lay people like me. If I look the thing up, it will be by its official name, "Eris" or its nickname, "Xena".  :) Dlohcierekim 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you look it up by "Eris" or "Xena", you are not looking it up by either "Eris (dwarf planet)" or "136199 Eris". Instead, you get presented with a list of articles from which you can select the one you're looking from, and in terms of the amount of navigation you're doing, it doesn't matter which of the two it's at! Chaos syndrome 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too true. The point I tried to make was the article name should follow common usage for readers. What I didn't think of till this morning is that dwarf planets should have names. Cheers, 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Slight Support Yes, but only if the same is done to Ceres and Pluto. Otherwise, Ceres and Eris should have numbers (with redirects from Ceres (Dwarf Planet) and Eris (Dwarf Plantet), while Pluto should not (until having numbers before "pluto" becomes more accepted). zachol 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support for reasons listed above. Also support moving Ceres. --Algorithm 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Since "Dwarf planet" is now a true classification, I am in favor of this for all bodies declared dwarf planets. Redirection from # body should also occur. Abyssoft 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Abyssoft. It's an official classification and takes precedence over the minor planet numbering system, which crosses classifications. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: use common name if an object has one. Jonathunder 03:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: for reasons listed above. Same for Ceres. 64.203.237.248 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: Its a nice name, and also a very good article; and we should do the same for the other dwarfs. We are an encyclopedia for general readers, not a catalog for professional astronomers; no one in the real world will be calling this object anything other than "Eris" (likewise for the other dwarfs, and Pluto should stay where it is!). Also, after the post-front-page-mention editing frenzy calms down, it may be ready for a final cleanup (including fixing the grapics placement) in preparation for another FA nomination. The proposed new name is a better name for an FA. The zillions of asteroids are not analogous to dwarf planets. Finell (Talk) 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - for reasons listed numerous times. THe popular usage for dwarf planets is strong enough to warrant dropping the number, imho. Noone is going to search for 136199 unless they are astronomy buffs - the encyclopedia should be accessible to all. Dwarf planets should all be renamed with the name and (dwarf planet). Redirects will take care of the people looking for the catalog number. --Exodio 05:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support for reasons listed above: use common name, dwarf planet is a proper classification, there's a reason it has a name. Same for Ceres. --skew-t 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, rather obviously the common name. —Nightstallion (?) 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support New title conforms with other dwarf planets'. Disambiguation page will still lead here unequivocally.--Húsönd 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Although I will echo zachol's suggestion that the same thing should be done for 1_Ceres => Ceres (dwarf planet) GreyWyvern 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Ceres has a number and so do the other TNO's this should have one too, the only reason pluto is it hasnt been moved from its original article yet (and is currently locked there). for consistency Ers should remain numbered -- Nbound 09:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose And as long as you have the number, you need to explain what it means - see List of asteroids which someone keeps deleting!!! Why??? Paul venter 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eris is not an asteroid and does not belong on the list. The numbering scheme is not only used for asteroids, but for all objects. Another reason why we should never use it in page titles IMNSHO. -- Jordi·✆ 12:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the term list of asteroids would be misleading in the article but the list's intention is to cover all bodies (?). I’m not an editor for this list, but scores of Centaurs and (less) TNO should be there. The name of the list is thus misleading and could be fixed. Eurocommuter 12:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Minor Planet Center, which is a body of professional astronomers, regards any small heavenly object as an asteroid (=like a star) which is why Eris appears on their list as number 136199 - look it up in the List of asteroids. So go argue with them and tell them they've got it wrong.....Paul venter 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Consistency, dwarf planets have numbers, i.e. 134340 Pluto, 1 Ceres Choronzon 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Planets also have them: I Mercury, II Venus, III Earth, IV Mars, V Jupiter, VI Saturn, VII Uranus and VIII Neptune. Asteroids/ SBSS are often used with numbers for easier identification, has there are thousands, we only have three dwarf planets, currently, if they number hundreds then I would agree.--Pedro 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose IMO a decision on the article name has been made with the first renaming, and we should stick with it until the dust has settled a ways. What will the official designation of this object be? Will it be "136199 Eris", or "Eris", or something else? As best I can tell from IAU circular 8747, the official name will be "136199 Eris" [or rather "(136199) Eris"]. Pluto now having a minor planet designation does muddy the water, and I would oppose its renaming for now, but also for the same reason: We need to let the dust settle. --EMS | Talk 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose No need to use parenthetical disambiguation when 136199 Eris is availible to disambiguate from Eris (mythology). Arguments about popular usage miss the fact that the popular media doesn't refer to asteroids by number either, but no one is suggesting moving 3 Juno to Juno (asteroid). Eluchil404 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tentative support If we go ahead with this, we should also move ALL the other asteroid articles, e.g 2 Pallas --> Pallas (asteroid), not just the dwarf planets. Since the number is useful for disambiguation (see Eluchil404 below), oppose Chaos syndrome 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC) modified by Chaos syndrome 16:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The name of the object is 136199 Eris, not Eris. Yes, most people will just refer to it as Eris, since in common discussion, no one will really want to say a 6 digit number like that. So I support the Eris disambiguation page, I support a redirect from Eris (dwarf planet), but I think it is best if the actual article title stay 136199 Eris. Pluto, as much as it pains me to say it, should probably changed too, but I think for the time being it is okay. Volcanopele 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:NC "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." which means, basically, we avoid official names where those are unnecessarily cumbersome. So it's United States not United States of America and Pennsylvania not Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The same applies here. SteveRwanda 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the case is more complex than that. Most people (presumably) call it "Eris" not "Eris (dwarf planet)" or "136199 Eris". Since we can't name this article Eris, our use of either the number or the parentheses is going to be for disambiguation purposes. In which case, surely "136199 Eris" has the advantage of being an actual name of the object. Chaos syndrome 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Chaossyndrome has it right. "Eris" would be ideal but since the most commonly used name is not available we should go with the official name instead of a parenthetical statement. --Aranae 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose at this time. 136199 Eris is as good a way of disambiguating the name from Eris the goddess as any; Eris (dwarf planet) is already a redirect (yw) and is even longer than 136199 Eris. Plus, a lot of work has gone into changing over all the 2003 UB313s to 136199 Erises -- hopefully that work has not been wasted! RandomCritic 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I'd agree with the previous poster. If we go for Eris (dwarf planet) over 136199 Eris, then the page Eris (which people say will become its common name) will still be a redirect page regardless of which one we choose - so there's little point arguing that people will be searching for "Eris" - as it can redirect to either the current name the proposed name without any problems. The current page name is consistent with one of our other dwarf planets, 1 Ceres - as well as virtually all other minor planets which have permanent designations - including several large KBOs. As another poster said, the number acts as a disambiguation without needing to use the "(dwarf planet)" bit. The only dwarf planet currently not with the minor planet number, Pluto, is probably staying there for the time being because it is a former major planet and as such very well known. Eris is probably never going to be as well known. Richard B 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI - Pluto has already been given the minor planet number 134340, and the article already reflects that. As for the name of the article: It remains "Pluto" for the reasons you gave, and hopefully will stay that way until a thought-out and coherent Wikipedia policy on this issue has been agreed to. --EMS | Talk 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose for now - let's take a breather and come up with a coherent strategy for all three dwarf planets. --Ckatzchatspy 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose for now. Before I read these comments I thought support on the basis that Eris is a more commonly used name than 123465 Eris (or whatever it is). However now I think we need a consensus on a naming policy for astronomical objects in general, followed by a group move to the new names. I suggest we hold off the move until then and continue the discussion at WP:NAME. AndrewRT - Talk 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC). the new proposed policy page I've started at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) as referred above. AndrewRT - Talk 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. STRONGLY Oppose . It has a real name. Let's use it. The "people will search for the common name" argument is silly - no one will search for "Eris (dwarf planet)," they will search for Eris, and that's what disambiguation pages and redirects are for. Let's not add to the inaccuracies out there when we could be, you know, an encyclopedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose as per John Kenneth Fisher. --Merovingian - Talk 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very Strongly Opposed Per BBC Article which states that the IAU waited till there were only 424 members present before voting on Pluto, I say the IAU has NO AUTHORITY to tell me what a planet is named therefore its still Xena.[MagnumSerpentine] 9-15-06
    Thats how many only turned up, out of the 8000 or so astonomers that could have voted, i watched the live feed from the IAU Prague Meeting website and im pretty sure its still available if you want to watch it. The IAU didnt pull any tricks, and the IAU is the authoratative body on naming astronomical objects. also Eris was never named Xena, it was named 2003 UB313, which was its provisional designation -- Nbound 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean that IAU don't have the authority to name celestial objects!? --JyriL talk 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where your getting that from please re-read... or point to where ive made my error, thanks :) -- Nbound 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pay attention to indention—I replied to previous poster. You're of course right. I somehow managed to ignore your reply. :)--JyriL talk 10:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem :) -- Nbound
    The IAU is the authority to name celestial bodies in order to avoid problems that the IAU proper has created lately (a paradox), maybe not the definitive authority to define a planet but they are the de jure authority to name celestial bodies, including regions of planets. Although they have lately messed up things a lot, like naming the moonlets of Saturn. Fortunately those are just unimportant chunks of ice part of the rings system and are no real problem, if those were big bodies, we would have a major dilemma while teaching astronomy in school, and obviously one would have rethink its naming power, as it was not endorsing its foundation causes, we are returning to the era when we had no IAU and we have again deviant names, regardless if they are translatable or not. Not every language is an amalgamation like English.
    If you don't understand why it was named like this, please read the recent history concerning this body and read about Eris in a mythology encyclopedia.--Pedro 10:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Comment If we move Pluto and Eris to (dwarf planet) suffixed articles, then we should do the same to Ceres (ie. 1 Ceres --> Ceres (dwarf planet) ) -- Nbound 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    right.--TheFEARgod (listening) 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    agree. but not SSSBs and pending bodies, those surely should keep the number. --Pedro 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comment While the "pipe trick" is useful for editors, surely it is more important to make the encyclopaedia accurate for readers, rather than catering for lazy editors. Chaos syndrome 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is the current situation any more accurate for readers? It's not like Eris (dwarf planet) has any ambiguity in it. So, since there's no real difference for readers, might as well decide it based on making it easy to use for editors. Also, if we're being consistent with regards to dwarf planets, having this name would require moving Pluto to its equivalent. BovineBeast 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More accurate in the sense that "136199 Eris" is an official designation rather than a Wikipedianism. If we go by "most frequent use" we'll probably find that "136199 Eris" is more frequently used than "Eris (dwarf planet)" anyway. In any case, I still think that ability to use the pipe trick should not be involved in this debate since the reader does not see it. Chaos syndrome 19:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the key facets of Wikipedia is its editability: its editors *are* its readers, and so it's every bit as relevantBovineBeast 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not being able to use the pipe trick actually hinder editability? Would a casual reader of the Wikipedia even know about the pipe trick? It surely doesn't prevent linking to a page if you can't pipe trick it, and surely accuracy is a more important concern than ability to pipe trick? Chaos syndrome 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comment The problem with this discussion is that it is not about this article alone. 1 Ceres and Pluto (or should that be 134340 Pluto?) are also affected by the outcome. We somehow need to bring in the editors of theoe articles into this. I also think that people need to settle down for a week of two and given this change a chance to sink in. Too much has happenned too quickly. What is needed now is a chance for people to catch their breath let enough time pass to gain some perspective on this issue. Do remember that 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta, 90377 Sedna, 50000 Quaoar, (136108) 2003 EL61, and (136472) 2005 FY9 are all candidate 'dwarf-planets'. So this is not about one or even 3 articles. Instead it is about 10 articles and probably many more than that over time. --EMS | Talk 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Comment IF ERIS AND CERES HAVE NUMBERS Pluto should have too.--TheFEARgod (listening) 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Comment I think dwarf planets are major enough to merit the page titles "Eris", "Pluto" and "Ceres", particularly as very few people would recognise the other Eris's. None of the proper planets are known by numbers, and all take precedence over the god(dess), none are called "xxxx (planet)" except for Mercury (planet) because of the chemical element mercury. EamonnPKeane 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that you are treating the 'dwarf-planets' as full-fledged planets, and the IAU specifically rejected the idea of doing that. Ceres is nowhere near as well-known as the other planets, and Eris is going to be similar. (It already is going to be anuisance to get people to stop calling this body "Xena".) I also feel that the planet pages should be named such things as Earth (planet), but the current state of affairs whereby the planet's name redirects to the planet's article should be retained. --EMS | Talk 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Comment According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." This suggests to me that if we need to have something in the title to disambiguate, we should be using the minor planet number rather than a parenthetical expression i.e. placing (dwarf planet) at the end. If on the other hand we feel that this topic is hugely more important than any of the other uses of Eris, we should probably place this article at Eris. Chaos syndrome 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Comment At present, among the dwarf planet articles, two (1 Ceres and 136199 Eris) use numbers and one (Pluto) does not. No article uses the parenthesis (dwarf planet). Examining the discussions on the various pages, I see that while opinion is currently running two to one for changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet), there is strong opposition at Talk:Pluto to changing the name of the article to anything except "Pluto", and barely any discussion at all at Talk:1 Ceres. If the name of this article is changed, then we will have not greater uniformity but less: of the three dwarf planets, one will be listed under its name alone (Pluto); one under a number (1 Ceres); and one under a parenthetical designation (Eris (dwarf planet)). Is this a desirable outcome? RandomCritic 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Comment. Why doesn't the title include both? xxxxxx Name (Dwarf Planet). --myselfalso 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The precedent for using numbers as unique identification is well-established in astronomy and the pages of Wikipedia. Think of all the NGC numbers or the Messier catalogue numbers. They function in the same way as binomial names for living organisms which cut through the confusion brought about by the use of common names. Paul venter 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but dwarf planets are an entirely new concept, so no precedent exists. As there are only two known at present and they're both sizable and important bodies it seems to me somewhat unnecessary to lumber their titles with six figure numbers just to avoid "confusion". Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three. Ceres, Pluto, and Eris. -- Jordi·✆ 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I spotted that as soon as I saved it... Whoops! But the same point applies! Personally I would move 1 Ceres to Ceres (dwarf planet) as well. SteveRwanda 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have this problem with cubewanos, plutinos and other various outer categories of outer solar system objects, which are also numbered by the Minor Planet Center. The official body for handling such objects is numbering the objects with minor planet numbers, thus the precedent is set there. In addition, ALL of the three currently listed dwarf planets (Ceres, Pluto, Eris) have disambiguation issues with the names, so the minor planet number serves as disambiguation. I don't see why "Eris (dwarf planet)" is better than "136199 Eris" - they both serve disambiguation purposes fine, but the latter has the advantage of being an official designation. Chaos syndrome 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dwarf planet" is easier to remember than the number "136199".--JyriL talk 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and Tau Bootis is easier to type than Tau Boötis on US or UK keyboards. No problem with having the parentheses expression as a redirect. Chaos syndrome 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dwarf planet is an official classification, Plutinos (better known as bodies in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune) and cubewanos (Classical KBOs) are not, and those are categories not widely used, nor endorsed by the IAU. Those are just attempts to create a widespread term like "asteroid", which some wikipedians are trying to compel to others.--Pedro 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, maybe bad example of terms chosen. Let me instead choose centaurs (e.g. 2060 Chiron), trans-Neptunian objects (e.g. 90377 Sedna), which ARE used by the MPC (and hence presumably official). We definitely have the precedent set of using numbers assigned by the MPC in the article titles. Chaos syndrome 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have three levels: Planets, Dwarf Planets and SSSB. If a Centaur is big enough to be round... we should drop the number, it will be very famous... wow that one deserves a new category: "comet planet" :P The use of the number is very important for SSSB's, because they number thousands and thousands (<opinion>for these ones, we don't need names</opinion>); we only have 3 dwarf planets, maybe 10 or 20 sooner or later or 30, if they open the criteria for the group too much... but not hundreds or thousands.--Pedro 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a similar note at Talk:Pluto. Basically, I think we shouldn't be in such a hurry to move this page that we fail to look at the bigger picture, which should really involve developing a coherent strategy for handling the current and future dwarf planets. There's a lot to consider: changing classifications, entries in multiple catalogues, conflicts with existing mythology articles. These are not issues we should pretend to be able to resolve with numerous "quickie polls" scattered across the various astronomy articles. It might take days, or weeks, and it shouldn't be rushed. Also, it would probably help if the discussions were coordinated in one place. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wholeheartedly second this. As I wrote above: "Let the dust settle". Consilidating this in a subpage (perhaps of talk:dwarf planet) is a very good and important idea. --EMS | Talk 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree as well. Right now, we can't be certain how objects such as Eris, Ceres, and Pluto will be refered to now they are termed dwarf planets. Will publications just go by the name, or will the number be included. Personally, I think Pluto will always be different from the other dwarf planets since it was considered a planet for so long, and I doubt the "minor" planet number will ever be in common usage. From the MPEC citation, it sounds like the driving force behind the assigning of a number was to add Pluto to the "minor" planet database, and thus prevent it from being "discovered" again by those mistaking it for a new TNO. For Ceres and Eris, I don't we can be sure at this point. Volcanopele 18:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Name" section

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

Article name

Why is the name of the arcticle "136199 Eris" instead of just "Eris"?

According to WP convention planets have the highest priority of name in case of amgiguity. For example, "Venus" or "Mars" redirect automatically to planets, and only then a "other uses" link links to a disambig page where other meanings such as Roman gods or other articles are listed.

There's no reason to have this long name, instead, it should be called "Eris", a "other uses" link added to the top, which then leads to "Eris (disambiguation)", which then lists all users. 142.33.66.38 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no particularly good reason to favour a ball of ice at the edge of the solar system over a goddess of discord perhaps? Chaos syndrome 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmm several people here want to have pluto with its original name and the two other dwarf planets with the numbers--TheFEARgod (listening) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
which is bad because we need consistency... -- Nbound 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Eris (dwarf planet) and likewise Pluto (dwarf planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet). Consistency! --Exodio 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xena

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

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

It's a half-dozen words in a lengthy intro, and there are references out there that refer to this object only as "Xena"; it's worth it, for now, to reassure readers they are in the right place. I'm sure there will be an obvious course of action in six months (which may be to remove); what's the rush? Septentrionalis 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was nicknamed Xena at the time it was announced, or shortly thereafter--so it was popularly known as Xena for more than a year. Between the announcement and the what's-a-planet debate, it got considerable media coverage during that year; many of those articles will continue to exist on the Web forever after, referring to the object only as Xena. I don't know why you wouldn't want to help out people who come across those references in years to come by quickly and simply clarifying that "Xena" is Eris. Nareek 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then they will search for Xena, upon coming to the Xena page there is a link up the top to redirect them to Eris already in place -- Nbound 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it really isn't that important, but a mention of the nickname should be included since it is an example of the Brown et al. group having to adapt to the controversy. Because Eris' status was in limbo for so long, and thus an official name could not be assigned, the discovery group publicized the nickname to avoid having to repeat 2003 UB313 in the press, which can be cumbersome. Perhaps the nickname can be mentioned in that context, but I agree, it does need any particular prominence. --Volcanopele 04:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xena should be mentioned in the article and the disambiguation page. Like it or not, a lot of people called it Xena, and it is our duty to clarify that piece of knowledge to those who are not "in the know". --Exodio 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discordianism and 136199

Certain unwarranted claims about discordianism continue to surface in this article. While the discordians may have adopted Eris as a notable figure in their mythology, there is no evidence that the MPC had the discordians in mind when choosing the name, and to claim that 136199 Eris is named after the "Discordian goddess" is non-factual. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to refer to that group in this article at all. RandomCritic 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely second this. --Merovingian - Talk 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the fact that Eris is the Greek name of the goddess, and only one of the "real" planets is named after a Greek God, and even most Dwarf Planets are Roman, and that there are likely more apt names for such a "historically significant" dwarf planet than a goddess with only two or three major appearances throughout Greek mythology. ... And of course the fact that I'm a discordian myself.--The Sporadic Update 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the planet, if it isnt already, it should only be mentioned on the Eris (mythology) page -- Nbound 04:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eris is equally greek and discordian. There is no evidence that the name was based specifically on one OR the other, so both ought to be represented. fnord.:: senorsquiid
Except the fact the IAU requires all planets/dwarf planets to be named after greek/roman gods :) -- Nbound 04:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation? Senorsquiid 04:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as has been said, Eris is NOT a specifically greek deity, she IS just as Discordian than greek, and they are the same Goddess. Senorsquiid 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Discordians were amongst those petitioning the IAU to adopt "Eris" at the planet's name: http://www.chaosmagic.com/forums/dnhclelf-about19.html Drjon 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IAU certainly doesn't require Greek/Roman names for planets/Dwarf Planets, just off the top of my head Sedna is an Inuit Goddess. Not acknowledging that Eris is a Greek and Discordian goddess would smack of NPOV.Number36 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sedna isnt a dwarf planet ;) -- Nbound 05:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sedna may qualify as a dwarf planet pending the detailed definition of that category by the IAU. So nyahhh :P Number36 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesnt yet... my point still stands :) -- Nbound 06:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, if it does qualify then it is a Dwarf Planet right now and we're just not aware of it, until the IAU releases the detailed definition of the catagory we can't say that it isn't. And what do you suggest that they'll change it's name if it does qualify, or that it won't qualify because it's not a Greek or Roman name? My point stands.Number36 06:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO straight from the WGPSN (the guys who decide whether a name is right) Gazetteer: http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/ (read the article in the news box) any discordian edits from here on i will treat as vandalism

Please sign your comments. And how exactly does that article deny the fact that Eris is both a Greek goddess and the Discordian Deity? Or in fact indicate that Mike Brown was specifically intending the name to only refer to only the Greek and specifically deny the Discordian, it doesn't. It only states that it was the name chosen & gives a run down of the Greek legend. If anything the closest to the reasoning behind the name given so far was not to honour the goddess, be she Greek or Discordian, at all but to reflect the debate and discord surrounding the planet, in which case it's only fitting that we are having this argument now. Number36 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that planets/dwarf planets are named after greco-roman gods, that coupled with my link above, kinda nullifies your point, sure Brown could have even named it after the Discordian goddess,but the WGPSN actually names the object, and they have chosen to name it after the Greek Goddess -- Nbound 06:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to cite exactly where the IAU have said that only greco-roman names are going to be used for Dwarf planets cos I ain't seeing it, especially when most of them are already used and there's probably going to be quite a few more Dwarf Planets found.Number36 06:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also that's all moot to this discussion anyway, since Eris is Discordian and Greek, the name would be Greco-roman, and she's also the Discordian goddess.Number36 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually i wont need to cite it at all, as the WGPSN link above will take to you to the news item about the new name, it only mentions the greek goddess, they are the authority on naming planets, hence it is named after a greek goddess, anything else you read into it is speculation, and this isnt specul-pedia :P -- Nbound 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions the Greek goddess is right, 'only mentions'. As opposed to specially stating that it is only named after that aspect of Eris, and is specifically intended not to be related to the Discordian goddess, who is btw the same goddess.Number36 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of opinion on the matter, edit warring over this is lame. I've placed a warning on User:Nbound's talk page after his fourth revert in the past two hours. Please assume good faith and edit in peace. Kyaa the Catlord 06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation has been left on your talk page Kyaa the Catlord -- Nbound 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "explanation" falls short. You reverted four times in two hours and have, per your behaviour on this page, falsely assumed "ownership" of the article. Please review WP: 3rr. Number36 has successfully countered your argument, IAU has the final say as to "what Eris was named after" and until they state directly that Discordianism's Eris is not the one this body was named after, its POV to say that it was JUST the Greek Eris. WP policy is to remove information only as a last resort. Kyaa the Catlord 07:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kyaa, every reference I have seen about the origin of the name (with respect to the name of the dwarf planet) says "Greek". Their explanations reference the Greek goddess. I haven't seen any references to a Discordian origin. You said "until they state directly that Discordianism's Eris is not the one this body was named after, its POV to say that it was JUST the Greek Eris." What about the whole Wikipedia idea of verifiability? We already have citations for Greek origins, which is why it's fair game to add that fact to the article. You're claiming that the Discordian faith was a part of this - show us the proof, get a citation, and it will be a valid addition. Until then, play by the rules, please. --Ckatzchatspy 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF. I am playing by the rules, unlike Nbound who has broken 3rr on this article. I am not claming that the Discordian faith had anything to do with the naming of the dwarf planet. I'm claiming that Eris is the goddess of Discordianism which is verifiable, accurate and that this should be reflected in the article. The fact that Eris, the god that this body was named after, is also the goddess of Discordianism should not be causing such a controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"AGF"? Always do, and I would ask the same of you. The controversy was fueled in large part by

continuing attempts (not just by you, of course) to add text implying that Discordian beliefs did play a role in Eris' naming. Nbound's changes allow for a mention of the Discordian belief, while separating it from the decision-making process. Hopefully, that will calm things down. --Ckatzchatspy 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiding me to "play by the rules" seems to counter your assertion that you "always" assume good faith. If you could present evidence that I haven't "played by the rules", I'd be willing to address your accusations. I'd also point out that nowhere did I suggest that Discordians had anything to do with the naming process, rather I was suggesting that for NPOV and factual accuracy, that recognizing that she is the modern diety for Discordianism would be proper. I still prefer the older wording, the new one doesn't flow as well and this should be addressed in our efforts to make this article rate FA status. Kyaa the Catlord 08:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the disputed text (the aforementioned "older wording" which you, among others, were adding) implied a connection. Nbound's revision does not. I outlined above how you should (as per Wiki convention) find supporting citations if you wanted to add text that suggested a Discordian role. That was the intent of "play by the rules" - please don't read things into it that aren't there. (Language like "chiding" and "accusations" doesn't help either - keep in mind that you made the initial presumption as to my intentions with your "Please AGF" statement.) Anyways, it's late, and we should probably move this to our talk pages. Or, agree to disagree, accept Nbound's compromise for now, and get back to working on improving the article - as you mentioned, there's the possibility of FA status to work towards... --Ckatzchatspy 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, if placing Discordian before goddess implies a role in the choice of name, this implies that ancient greeks who feared Eris also played a role in naming Eris. The logic in this argument is faulty as hell. The change I reverted to stated that "Eris is named for the Greek and Discordian goddess Eris". The only thing that says is that Eris is a Greek Goddess AND a Discordian Goddess. It implies NOTHING pertaining to the role in the naming of the object by ANY group/religious faction/etc. This is basic elementary school english, there are no tricks involved and to suggest that by stating that Eris is a Discordian diety somehow implies that Discordians were involved in the naming of the dwarf planet is an amazing stretch of your own imagination. Kyaa the Catlord 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That Eris is a goddess from Greek mythology is a pertinent fact about the naming of Eris, referenced in the available literature about the choice of the name. That the discordians have appropriated the Greek goddess Eris for their own purposes is a cultural fact entirely irrelevant to the naming of 136199 Eris. To intrude discordianism into this is like demanding that the explanation of the name of 90482 Orcus be emended to read "the discoverers suggested naming the object after Orcus, an alternative name for the Greek god Hades, and a Dungeons and Dragons demon prince..." The latter is true, but not relevant.RandomCritic 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kyaa. Just one final note, the IAU may be the authority on naming conventions for planets etc, but they are not authorities on mythology and religion, the fact remains that Eris is both a Greek goddess and the Discordian deity, you can't name something after one and not the other because they are the same entity, just two different interpretations. (Also just so it's clear for those reading this, I wasn't edit warring merely comment on this talk page, I haven't edited the main page at all).Number36 07:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merovingian's reasoning for removing Discordianism. - If including Discordianism implies that the Discordians were involved in the naming process, does including Greek imply that ancient Greeks were involved in the naming process? I think this logic is faulty. Kyaa the Catlord 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Mike browns own page: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/ actual article: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html

Eris, the largest dwarf planet known, was discovered in an ongoing survey at Palomar Observatory's Samuel Oschin telescope by astronomers Mike Brown (Caltech), Chad Trujillo (Gemini Observatory), and David Rabinowitz (Yale University). We officially suggested the name on 6 September 2006, and it was accepted and announced on 13 September 2006. In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of warfare and strife. She stirs up jealousy and envy to cause fighting and anger among men. At the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the parents of the Greek hero Achilles, all the gods with the exception of Eris were invited, and, enraged at her exclusion, she spitefully caused a quarrel among the goddesses that led to the Trojan war. In the astronomical world, Eris stirred up a great deal of trouble among the international astronomical community when the question of its proper designation led to a raucous meeting of the IAU in Prague. At the end of the conference, IAU members voted to demote Pluto and Eris to dwarf-planet status, leaving the solar system with only eight planets.

There, conclusive proof, now can we please remove the Discordianism reference from the page -- Nbound 07:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is claiming that Eris is not equally a Greek god AND a Discordian one. She's both. In order to be fully accurate and NPOV, the article should reflect both faiths, not choosing one over the other. Kyaa the Catlord 07:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they are giving the common reader the idea that it was named after the discordian diety which it was not, and that discordianism was actively involved in the choice of name, itd be like calling a rock "Allah" and claiming it to be named after the christian and jewish gods as well as the Islamic one, because technically they are the same god, when the discoverer only had the Islamic one in mind - Nbound 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my reasoning for [5]. --Merovingian - Talk 07:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic, but im guessing these edits are part of Operation Mindfuck (AKA. discordian culture jamming) -- Nbound 07:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... remember when the big argument was over Bode's Law? Anyways, nice compromise edit, Nbound. Good work. --Ckatzchatspy 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) -- Nbound
That works for me as well. Thanks Nbound. Kyaa the Catlord 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least how it stands now, I'm satisfied with the compromise. It will not confuse anybody, provides relevant information about the name, and as anyone who works in the techno-scientific field probably knows, Discordianism is pretty pervassive, hell, the Discordian Calendar is built into every distro of Linux I'VE ever used, and probably the one's they use as well. So can we all be happy how it is and now only fix solid provable facts and horrible horrible mispellings (sic), bad grammar, and poorly constructed sentences? This is not an OM operation, at least as far as I'm concerned, but a recognition of the way things is.Senorsquiid 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether Eris is "a Discordian goddess" or not. The question is whether that fact (which can be stipulated to) has any relevance to an article about 136199 Eris. In the absence of evidence that either the discoverers or the MPC nomenclature body considered discordianism in choosing the name, it's a completely irrelevant factoid that doesn't belong in this article.
The accusation that not mentioning discordianism along with Eris is NPOV is wrong. There is no violation of NPOV in making sure that the article sticks to the facts and does not bring in extraneous and irrelevant material. If the article were to become a vehicle of discordian propaganda, however, that would be a violation of NPOV.
This is not a "he said she said" situation. There is absolutely no evidence that discordianism has any relevance to an article on the astronomical object 136199 Eris at all. References to the relationship between discordianism and Eris can be found at Eris (mythology), where those who are curious can look them up. If the discordians start to worship the dwarf planet Eris, then that fact can be added to an "Eris in popular culture" section. At this moment, however, the only connection between the two is that a few discordians desperately want to be mentioned in an article about 136199 Eris, and I do not believe that Wikipedia is so self-referential as to find that encyclopedic and worthy of mention.RandomCritic 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Brown clearly knows that he can't get away with naming a planet (-like thing) after a character from popular culture, which is the main status of Eris the Discordian goddess--from her appearance in The Illuminati Trilogy. So the fact that he only points to the Greek origin of the name--i.e., the origin that would be seen as legitimate by the IAU--is not particularly strong evidence that he didn't have any other origin in mind when he suggested the term. That Brown would change the name of the moon from Gabrielle to Dysnomia does indicated a somewhat playful nature.
On the other hand, if you were to ask a randomly selected representative of nerd culture who "Eris" was, I think you'd find a lot more people referencing The Illumninati Trilogy than the Trojan War. This is not to do a mind-reading act and say that we know something about Brown's intentions that he's never mentioned, but to suggest that the Discordian connection is a significant association that deserves a few words in the name section. It's not just a few freaks trying to piggy-back their freakish belief system into a scientific article. Nareek 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"So the fact that he only points to the Greek origin of the name [...] is not particularly strong evidence that he didn't have any other origin in mind" -- see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:
  • "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. "
"the Discordian connection is a significant association that deserves a few words in the name section"
  • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
Until evidence is provided that Brown or any other person involved in the naming process had discordianism in mind in creating the name, references to discordianism are non-relevant trivia. Discordian Eris has no more standing to appear in this article than DC Comics Eris or any other appearance of Eris in other milieux.RandomCritic 16:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I step forward to remind everyone that edit warring is lame. I have reported User:RandomCritic for breaching WP:3RR and will continue to do so if such wars continue. Kyaa the Catlord 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be speculation to suggest that Brown got the name from The Illuminati Trilogy, but the edit last I checked doesn't do that. The question of whether it's relevant is what we're debating here. If Brown had found a Greek god named "Frodo" and gave that name to his planetoid, I don't think there's any doubt that we would mention that that was also the name of a character in a famous fantasy trilogy--whether or not Brown specifically mentioned Tolkien in his explanation. Eris is nearly as much a household name as Frodo, but she likewise appears in a trilogy whose ideas are fairly influential in the sorts of cultural circles represented by scientists and Xena fans. Nareek 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To use a real-life example, also with Tolkien: there is a Saturnian moon called Narvi. Narvi is also the name of a dwarf in Tolkien's mythology. The article Narvi (moon) does not refer to the Tolkienian dwarf because it is not relevant.RandomCritic 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Navri the dwarf is not NOTABLE. Hell, even via redirect you don't find Navri listed on the list of dwarves in Middle Earth. Eris, as the Discordian goddess, is notable. She's not just a offhand remark by a writer of fiction in the middle of the second book of his trilogy. She's the basis of a religion, not a fictional character. Kyaa the Catlord 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most Tolkien fans would recognize the name "Narvi" before they would recognize the name of the Norse giant "Narfi" from which the moon is named. That still doesn't make it relevant to the naming. But on to your point: you seem to be arguing that because discordians feel very very strongly about Eris that that guarantees discordianism a place in an article about 136199 Eris. And that is not logical and doesn't follow from the premise at all. What do strong religious feelings have to do with how astronomical objects are named?RandomCritic 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the reference to discordianism is irrelevant since there is no evidence that suggests that the this dwarf planet and its moon where named as a reference to that modern-day group. As quoted above, the main consideration was the reference to the strife and conflict among astronomers regarding Eris' status. Other sources have quoted Mike Brown saying that the moon was named such because the first syllable of Dysnomia matches the first syllable of Brown's wife's first name, Diane. That fits with the Charon precedent. That is absolutely no evidence that Brown and his group took into consideration anything other than the names of two Greek goddesses. This could mean either that they only wanted to consider the Greek reference, or, and this is distinctly possible, they never even heard of Discordianism. I certainly never did until this debate. So I would vote to remove the reference in this article, unless evidence suggests that Brown's group did take Discordianism into consideration. --Volcanopele 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I suggest the following language at the start of the "Name" Section as a compromise:

136199 Eris is named after the Greek goddess Eris (Ἔρις in Greek), a personification of strife and discord. The contemporary religion of Discordianism also worships this goddess, though there is no evidence that 136199 Eris was named after that incarnation.[6]

For discordians, this would allow a mention, but for others, this would point out that there is no evidence that the discordian incarnation had an impact on the naming of this dwarf planet. Volcanopele 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same goddess. Why "136199 is named after the Greek and Discordian goddess Eris" should be the language used. This is the language used prior to the edit war waged by RandomCritic. Kyaa the Catlord 18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, we could bypass the problem and say something like: "The discoverers referred to Greek mythology in explaining their choice of the name Eris." (My quickie text here is very clunky, I know, and would need to be refined. The idea I'm suggesting is to make a reference to the source of the name, rather than adding in references to a deity which is proving problematic.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Featured Article Shot?

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

The Portuguese version is a Featured Article; I think we could take some tips from them. --Merovingian - Talk 07:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't nominate it yet. Naming disputes etc. must be resolved first. The article is still too volatile.--JyriL talk 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think some of the arguments still lingering are grounds to delist it for GA, but I'm hesitant to do so unilaterally. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind that. If you think this article should be delisted, be bold and go ahead but give good reasons why you came up with that decision.--JyriL talk 11:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Removal

File:2003 UB313 distance comparison.jpg
Comparing the distances of the planets to the dwarf planets Pluto and Eris

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

Name and NPOV

Currently, the introductory paragraph to the Name section reads as follows:

136199 Eris is named after the Greek goddess Eris (Ἔρις in Greek), a personification of strife and discord. The contemporary religion of Discordianism also worships this goddess.

This would appear to break NPOV and elevate the Greek and Discordian views of this goddess above all others. To show fairness to all points of view, I suggest that it be amended to read as follows:

136199 Eris is named after the Greek goddess Eris (Ἔρις in Greek), a personification of strife and discord. The contemporary religion of Discordianism also worships this goddess. In the DC Universe, Eris is also one of the major antagonists of Wonder Woman. As Discord, Eris also appeared in episodes of Xena: Warrior Princess (played by Morgan Reese Fairhead). Eris is also an important character in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.

And so on, until we've made sure that every Eris fangroup is satisfied that they haven't been overlooked.RandomCritic 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I objected to the mentioning of the Discordian connection in the first place; it's irrelevant and trivial. --Merovingian - Talk 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a worshipped being than a fictional character. If we mention she was a Greek Goddess, based on common courtesy we should also aknowledge that she is the Goddess of the Discordians. Or are we giving greater weight to the Greeks than to a modern religion? Doesn't that strike anyone else as breaking NPOV? They should be given equal billing. She is their deity. Kyaa the Catlord 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discordianism is not an Eris fangroup, it is a modern religion, and therefore is not comparable to Xena or Wonderwoman. Eris is not a specifically Greek or Discordian goddess, but revered by both, and both have an equal claim. Senorsquiid 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of the discordians' belief is not at issue. References to Greek religion are also not relevant. This is not an article about religion. Eris is chosen as a name for 136199 Eris because Eris is a character in Greek mythology, not because Eris is or was worshipped by some group of people. If the argument for referring to discordianism is one from popularity, then we must include all other popular references to Eris. There are almost certainly more fans of Xena than there are discordians. Why should this article reflect a prejudice against them? Common courtesy dictates that if we acknowledge the discordians, we must also acknowledge all other persons with an interest in Eris.RandomCritic 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree - discordianism do not belong to this article. Astronomysts did not kept discordianism in the mind when was naming Xena. TestPilot 17:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not named Xena. Its named Eris. The Goddess of the Discordian religion. If they named a planet Christ, would it not make sense to note that the name's origin is that of the Christian deity? Kyaa the Catlord 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I know what the official name of UB313. Just used nickname, sorry. In fact, it is not Eris, it is 136199 Eris But the point was that when International Astronomical Union was naming UB313, also known as Xena, they was choosing name based on historical tradition to name planets by names of Greek myphological Gods. Yes, I know, Eris happend to be a name of characters of few soap operas, my neighbour name and name of the god of discordinaism religion. But thouse names was complitely irrelevant and was not in mind of astronomers when they was naming Eris. TestPilot 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the planet was named after Jesus, not Billy Christ, or Charles Christ, or Christ the Clown. If it was named after Bob Christ, than the name's origin should reference Bob Christ, not Jesus Christ. --Volcanopele 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me while I go bang my head into a bloody wall. Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source that mentions 136199 Eris and Discordianism in the same page? Melchoir 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A point of historical context: for the entire period in which astronomers have been giving classical names to moons, planets, and asteroids, almost 400 years now, the motivation has never been to promote the ancient Greek religion, but to provide recognizable names drawn from Classical mythology. To the best of my knowledge, none of the astronomers doing the naming has been a believer in the ancient Greek gods; to them, the names were important cultural artifacts, not religious ones; that is, they chose the names for their literary (i.e., fictional) and not their religious value. Noting that these names are sometimes the names of Greek or Roman gods, goddesses, heroes and monsters is simply a statement about their position in the mythology, and not an endorsement of a particular religion. There is no basis for an "equal time" NPOV argument. An explanation of the name should explain where the name came from and what the namer intended by giving that name.RandomCritic 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The antireligious bias of the above statement should make it perfectly obvious the POV that is being pushed. Thank you. I rest my case. "They're Greek Gods, but not THOSE Greek Gods." Brilliant. Kyaa the Catlord 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you do not know what the namer intended, and neither do we, so until it's one way or the other both sides ought to be represented. Senorsquiid 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html#eris --Volcanopele 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Volcanopele's link, try http://news.google.com/news?q=%22136199%20Eris%22. Everyone says Brown named it after the Greek goddess and with specific note to what she meant to the Greeks. Melchoir 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. We know exactly what was intended based on published materials:
"Eris is the Greek goddess of chaos and strife; she created a quarrel among goddesses that led to the Trojan War. This name could be considered quite fitting for the body that has fueled the debate concerning how to define a planet."[7] (from the U.S. Geological Survey's gazetteer of planetary nomenclature).
"We officially suggested the name on 6 September 2006, and it was accepted and announced on 13 September 2006. In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of warfare and strife. She stirs up jealousy and envy to cause fighting and anger among men. At the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the parents of the Greek hero Achilles, all the gods with the exception of Eris were invited, and, enraged at her exclusion, she spitefully caused a quarrel among the goddesses that led to the Trojan war. In the astronomical world, Eris stirred up a great deal of trouble among the international astronomical community when the question of its proper designation led to a raucous meeting of the IAU in Prague."[8] (From Michael Brown, the discoverer).
I see repeated mentions of Greek mythology but nothing about discordianism.RandomCritic 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In his statement he refers to the Original Snub, we have evidence that he is referring to the Eris of Discordianism in his own statement. Kyaa the Catlord 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Brown ever using the words "Original Snub". The story of Eris has been around for at least 2700 years. Discordianism has only been around for c. 50 years. General theories of causality suggest that the former influenced the latter, and not the other way around.RandomCritic 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was that not in the original Greek mythology, and only in a modern telling? Otherwise, I'm not seeing the exclusive connection. The case has been made that the Discordians believe that the Eris of Greek mythology and their Eris is one in the same goddess. The issue is whether the naming of this dwarf planet had anything to do with Discordianism or whether Brown's group only intended to reference the Greek goddess. Based on Mike Brown's own words, they only intended to reference the Greek goddess. --Volcanopele 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone has ever claimed they are not the same deity. There are two notable religious paths, one which feared her (The Greeks) and one which reveres her (the Discordians). Why stating that this dwarf planet was named after the goddess of both the ancient Greeks and the modern Discordians is such a big deal is beyond me! I'm not the one repeatedly reverting the article to push my POV, however. Kyaa the Catlord 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be POV to mention discordianism, since there is no evidence that Brown's group had any intention to name this dwarf planet as a reference to the Discordian diety. If someone can find evidence that they did intend as such, my objections would be moot. --Volcanopele 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If discordians (and their sympathizers) are not repeatedly reverting the article to push their POV, then why do references to discordianism keep on reappearing in it?RandomCritic 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny that the Discordians aren't the ones who violated 3rr and have been officially warned for doing so. Kyaa the Catlord 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to read up on the specific of the 3rr but User:Senorsquiid may qualify. --Volcanopele 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he does. Please report him. Kyaa the Catlord 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted as evidence that in previous articles other instances of the same deity have been referred to under the naming header: 90482_Orcus Kyaa the Catlord 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up. From my reading of the Orcus article, Hades shouldn't really be mentioned (unless the namer referenced Hades in their naming citation). I will see if that can be fixed. --Volcanopele 17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, RandomCritic. Editing the article as suggested would seem to violate WP:POINT. Engaging us in a discussion about a violation of WP:POINT would seem to waste everybody's time. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Volcanopele. The Orcus article is poorly worded, but the facts are not disputable: 90482 Orcus is named after the Roman deity, and not after any other Orcus. Should it perhaps be emended to state that "Orcus is also the name of an important demon prince in the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons"? RandomCritic 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit gaming the system. Kyaa the Catlord 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that discordianism can be referenced while D&D cannot? Do you have a prejudice against the D&D belief system? This would seem to be pushing POV. RandomCritic 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trolling. When you're ready to discuss this seriously, please do so. Kyaa the Catlord 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss this seriously? What are you, a closet Greyface? No, I can see you're not, since you "seriously" suggested that a mention of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis was a proof that Brown and the nomenclature group named 136199 Eris after the discordian Eris.
My point is that if we are to include mentions of discordian views of Eris because discordianism is popular and some discordians feel very strongly about Eris, then we must logically include other popular and cultural mentions of Eris that people might feel strongly about -- or, in the case of other named objects, such as Orcus, include extraneous cultural mentions just to avoid the POV of sticking to the facts and avoiding irrelevant trivia. As things are, you seem to be arguing that discordianism is in a privileged position vis-a-vis other cultural references because "it's a religion". But you continually fail to explain why "it's a religion" is relevant to astronomical nomenclature. RandomCritic 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sigh I'm not biting. Jupiter, Pluto, the diff of Orcus I linked to earlier all support that these names come from the names of gods, goddesses and demons in religions. Simply aknowledging that Eris is the goddess of both the Greek era and the Discordians would follow this precedent. Kyaa the Catlord 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is already acknowledged -- at Eris (mythology) where it's relevant. But it's not relevant to an article about an astronomical object which is named only after the Eris of Greek mythology, and not, so far as is known, after the Discordian Eris or the comic-book Eris or the Xena Eris or the anime Eris or any other of a myriad variations on the theme. Unless we want to include all of these, there's no reason to give discordians special privileges wrt this article.RandomCritic 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for special priveleges. I'm asking for equal priveleges. Eris is the goddess of both religions. How many times do I need to say that? It should read "named after the Greek and Discordian goddess Eris", for Eris is both Greek and Discordian. Kyaa the Catlord 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not named after a Discordian goddess, and to claim that it is would be a violation of WP:No original research. Melchoir 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I've protected the article until the dispute is settled on the talk page. Gamaliel 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eris_(dwarf_planet)&oldid=75929048"