Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Plutoid

Template:U has recently removed the reference to the term plutoid.[1] In their edit summary, they raise a valid point, namely that the term is Template:Tq. 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: Template:Tq.[2] Another one, Asteroids, Comets, and Other Non-Planetary Objects[3] from 2018, says that Template:Tq, while the 2019 book Classifying the Cosmos[4] (p.60) says that Template:Tq Does this mean it should be kept out of the Wikipedia article entirely? Renerpho (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

To go into more detail on my position and why I believe "plutoid" is best removed (or at the very least, not a necessary term to include) does hinge on its absence in literature and public usage, but how it is a redundant term as well.

Though there are occasional RS's that use the term (as per your examples), it still remains the case that RS's that use "plutoid" are overwhelmingly a decade old, with only sporadic usage past 2012 or so. This came from a cursory search on Google Scholar that I did, so no doubt there are ones that I may have missed and ones that aren't quality sources, but I doubt it's enough either way to change the equation. Now, it would be fine if "plutoid" was in common usage despite its occasional—at best!—appearances in literature, but this is also evidently not the case. To my knowledge, no popular science outlet has used "plutoid" since 2010, and the IAU themselves appear to have all but forgotten/abandoned the term themselves. Many astronomy glossaries, including Wikipedia's own, do not include "plutoid" (though those glossaries generally don't include more specific terms broadly, so this may not be as relevant).

Furthermore, the term is arguably pretty much redundant. The more common terms I see are simply "trans-Neptunian (dwarf) planet" or "Kuiper belt (dwarf) planet" or some variant thereof, e.g. an LPI abstract Evaluating Trans-Neptunian Dwarf Planets as Targets for an Interstellar Probe Flyby[5] or an article Geologically Diverse Pluto and Charon: Implications for the Dwarf Planets of the Kuiper Belt.[6] The IAU proposed the term to differentiate the newly-discovered trans-Neptunian dwarf planets from Ceres and any other candidate inner System dwarf planets. However, there generally is no strong consensus for any need to set a hard dividing line between Ceres and dwarf planet TNOs, especially since it has been revealed that Ceres itself is an icy object, making all consensus dwarf planets plus Orcus, Charon, and Salacia icy worlds. This makes the term redundant geophysically speaking. Dynamically speaking, the term is again redundant; astronomers seem to prefer the aforementioned "trans-Neptunian dwarf planet" as we already have a broad dynamical class where all consensus DPs except Ceres are members.

Ultimately, usage of the term "plutoid" seems to be analogous to the term "cis-Neptunian object"; both are defined terms that see sporadic usage, but neither truly do anything to improve/clarify communication of astronomy topics or reflect actual terminology used by astronomers. ArkHyena (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It may not be common, but it is a used term from the IAU to Britannica to the OED to classes at UCLA within the past two years. If it's archaic we state it as such. We certainly don't use it in the lead but rather in the main prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly fair, and any descriptive clarification of its usage wouldn't hurt. But beyond discussing the history of TNO terminology, is its inclusion even warranted or useful? ArkHyena (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Date format in dwarf planet articles

An IP user has recently attempted to change the date format in this article to DMY, which was reverted by Template:U.[7] I have no personal preference, but I like consistency, and I like to consider whether a change has merit before it is reverted. While the revert was technically correct, given the preferred date format (MDY) that's stated in the header, I wonder why we treat the articles in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets (plus Orcus, which is currently discussed to be included) so differently:

• Eris (dwarf planet): MDY, stated in header
• Pluto (dwarf planet): MDY, stated in header
• Makemake (dwarf planet): MDY, no preference
• Gonggong (dwarf planet): DMY, stated in header
• Sedna (dwarf planet): DMY, stated in header
• Ceres (dwarf planet): DMY, stated in header
• Quaoar: DMY, stated in header
• Haumea (dwarf planet): DMY, no preference
• 90482 Orcus: DMY, no preference

Six articles use DMY, three use MDY. What sets Eris, Makemake and Pluto apart from the others? I can understand using DMY for those articles that simultaneously ask for British English (this is preferred for Ceres, according to its header), but the others? Mixing American English with DMY seems weird, even random to me.

We can, of course, decide this on a per-article basis, but if we treat it as a coin toss then why did the edit have to be reverted? Renerpho (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I myself cannot give a definitive answer, as the articles that have had date formats set were decided long before I joined and began editing. If I had to fancy a guess, Pluto uses MDY and American English due to its close association as "America's planet," so to speak: it was the only one of the "old nine" to be discovered and confirmed entirely by Americans, its binary companion and at least two of its four small moons were all discovered by American-led teams, and the only mission to date was sent by NASA. Most of the uproar against Pluto's reclassification in 2006 appears to come from the U.S. This may arguably fall under MOS:DATETIES, although I would personally strongly object to applying DATETIES (and similar guidelines) to any celestial object. All other dwarf planets are much less clear, and honestly seem to be chance cases of MOS:DATEUNIFY, where the earliest versions (and thus, editor consensus) of some articles were in MDY and others in DMY.

As a side note, I would argue against suggesting or advising articles that use American English to adhere to MDY. I myself am a native American English speaker and I much prefer DMY formats :) Additionally, some non-native English-speaking editors may have learnt English through American media, despite hailing from regions that don't use MDY. ArkHyena (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re I personally use YYYY-MM-DD whenever I get the chance. ;-) Haumea has recently been changed by the same IP you reverted. The rest looks like it's been like this for a while. Renerpho (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair! In either case, I don't believe the date inconsistency between dwarf planet articles is a major issue to readersTemplate:Mdashat least, I hope not. Regardless of date format, it seems all articles manage to convey timelines of relevant events clearly enough and in a self-consistent (within a given article) manner. ArkHyena (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Renerpho. Use ISO dates for all scientific articles. By the time something gets into the encyclopedia, the month and day are hardly important, so the year should come first. As a side benefit, the Brits and the Yanks will be equally unhappy. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sound recordings of Eris on YouTube

There are numerous YouTube videos of supposed sound recordings of Eris. It is my judgement that they are fake and are actually taken from the ambient sounds of the video games Half-Life and Half-Life 2. People are being mislead that the supposed recordings are actually from the dwarf planet, maybe we should put this fact in a trivia section. 151.251.112.123 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless these sound recordings become notable in reliable sources, there's not much reason to put them here. And given that the very concept of sound recordings of objects in space is ridiculous on its face, I find it very difficult to believe that they are a widespread phenomenon. Serendi^podous 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re Sorry for replying so late here, I've only now read this. Template:Tq -- Fake recordings, like those the anonymous IP asked about, are a widespread occurrence. I think you misunderstood their question. They're asking about putting a warning about certain widespread fake recordings somewhere in the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure about that, and this would be much easier if they had provided a link to some of the YouTube videos. It may be worth looking into this. Renerpho (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dwarf planets by mass graph

There's a graph in Eris (dwarf planet)#Size, mass and density that compares the mass of Eris to all other dwarf planets and a couple of moons. I don't think it's useful. Why does Eris need to be compared to every other dwarf planet? Why should the moons Triton, Rhea, and Iapetus be included as well? Pluto should be sufficient. Not every object needs a comparison to everything else.

The graph is also unsourced. All but Eris and Pluto do not have a reference provided for their masses. Furthermore, the graph disrupts the layout by pushing the text to the left side, making it harder to read. The article can certainly do without the graph. Pinging involved user @Kwamikagami. ZergTwo (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have no opinion, but I'd like to note that Pluto#Mass_and_size includes the same chart. Whatever we do should probably apply to both articles. Renerpho (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

i think we've had these graphs for over a decade

we have similar graphs comparing the planets and moons

seeing how one thing compares to a similar thing is generally useful IMO

not just eris to pluto, but how much larger they are than the other stuff out there — kwami (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Talk quote inline

Fallacious. That argument is an appeal to tradition. Something existing for a long time does not justify keeping it.

Template:Talk quote inline

Why is that relevant? If anything, the graph in question would be redundant if the "similar graphs" express the same information as the graph in question, unless its presentation is clearer.

Template:Talk quote inline

Comparisons are useful when they are relevant, explained, and focused. That is not the case. Moreover, your argument has not addressed the issues concerning the text layout and the unsourced material. ZergTwo (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

consensus is not 'fallacious', it's one of the founding principles oph wp — kwami (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Kwami is right that consensus matters, and that it shouldn't be mistaken for an appeal to tradition. I'm not sure that's a strong argument in this particular case. The chart was added by Kwami in October 2021, and the legacy graph extension has been broken since April 2023. That leaves 18 months where those charts have been in the article (followed by two years where they've been broken), and I don't see any discussion about them. Template:U, please correct me if I'm missing something but I don't see the broad consensus you claim. I don't see any opposition (until now), but that's not the same thing... Renerpho (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I know that consensus matters, but Kwami did not state anywhere that the graph was kept by consensus, so I did not assume that it was. If he had stated that, my argument would have been different. Please do not assume that I said consensus is fallacious. You'd be reading words that aren't there. My other arguments have still been unaddressed, and I'm waiting for a response from them. ZergTwo (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

the chart was accepted in a well-visited article for 18 mos, and accepted as appropriate despite being broken for another 2 yrs [the caption was still legible]. that clearly indicates consensus. consensus can of course change, but personally i don't see why we should restrict the comparison to pluto, as zerg would like. that would be like establishing the position of jupiter among the planets by comparing it only to saturn. a comparison to pluto alone may have been relevant in 2006, but we're past that now. today IMO we want to show the position of eris as a dwarf planet, not just historically as a rival to pluto. — kwami (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Talk quote block

Assuming you're talking about silent consensus, Template:Talk quote inline (from WP:WEAKSILENCE). Just because about 1.7 million users have seen the page since the graph was added does not automatically mean the community accepts it. Some may not have seen it. Some don't care. Some didn't like it but chose to not do anything about it. Publicly, you are the only person who wants the graph kept.

Template:Talk quote block

Eris should be compared to astronomical objects that readers are likely to be familiar with, like Pluto, the Moon, and Earth. This is not the case. The examples are also not arbitrary. There's a couple of dwarf planets here and there, but there are some moons that seem to have been chosen at random.

Right now, the graph's current state is problematic. It should be changed to something that's well-considered, reasonable, relevant, and doesn't negatively interfere with the text. Removing the graph and rewriting the information in the graph as prose is also fine by me, as long as the information is well-considered, reasonable, and relevant. ZergTwo (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a comparison of Eris to the other dwarfs alone would make the most sense, although adding Triton (as it is probably a former dwarf) is fine with me. Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i don't remember why the moons were there

maybe it was just things in that mass range — kwami (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree; make it the five large dwarf planets, plus Triton. The other moons are not necessary. Renerpho (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

done - removed planetary moons; kept charon as relevant — kwami (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re I'm not sure we really need the last three (Quaoar, Ceres, and Orcus). Rather make it a comparison of the most massive small bodies in the outer Solar System. Ceres isn't relevant for that, and less is more. I wouldn't go as far as ZergTwo though. Renerpho (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

how bout we leave in quaoar as it's similar in mass to charon

orcus is dubious as a dp, though — kwami (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Copying from my talk page: Template:Tq Trimming the amount of objects in the chart is fine, but a pie chart is completely nonsensical for this application. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 00:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

okay, but bar charts aren't supported yet. also, pie charts aren't restricted to parts of a whole. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not horizontal bar charts, but vertical ones are supported. Template:Tq Perhaps, but I don't see what benefits it has over a bar chart in this case. Bars are more readily understandable for readers than angles of a circle, not to mention the percentages. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 02:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

personally, i find sections of a circle easier to understand, but regardless, if the bars charts don't work we can't use them. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

They work though??????? – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 02:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

no, they don't. you tried, and it didn't work, which is why i switched to a pie chart. once the problem with bar charts is fixed, we might switch back, but a graph of unidentified data is useless. the reader shouldn't need to do anything to display the graph properly; most won't even know that's an option. — kwami (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:OutdentI don't know, it works fine for me. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 02:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC) {{#chart:Masses of Pluto and Charon compared to other dwarf planets and icy moons.chart}}

that doesn't identify eris, which is the whole point.

if we could display the text vertically, that would presumably solve it.

also, how do we maintain it? the whole point of having an active graph rather than a static image is that we can update it as needed. but the data isn't included and there's no 'click here to edit' button. — kwami (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I also have a problem seeing the graph: the bar for Eris isn't labelled. Double sharp (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks fine to me (no issues with unlabelled bars). Renerpho (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh, now that I've edited the talk page, the chart has changed - and the bars are no longer labelled correctly. That's funny. And unusable. Renerpho (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

i think it's designed for years on the x axis, and it doesn't matter if it displays every other year or every five

presumably it adjusts to the reader's font and page size — kwami (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Missing reference for size comparison

Eris is now understood to be the tenth-largest known object to directly orbit the Sun by volume, but remains the ninth-largest by mass.

Template:Re You've tagged this as needing a citation, and I agree. [8], from July 7, 2015, works for the mass, quote: "Eris is also the largest dwarf planet and the ninth most massive body in the Solar System." -- This was written just before we learned that Eris was in fact slightly smaller than Pluto, so the first half of that has since been refuted. So, we need a reference that Eris is the tenth-largest Solar System object, excluding moons. Also, maybe something more authoritative than phys.org. Renerpho (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

A friend suggests off-wiki: Template:Tq

And then to replace the phys.org reference by something more "solid" (like a NASA/ESA source). Renerpho (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

i don't think we need to say 'now known'. maybe a decade ago that would've been relevant, but now IMO we can just say 'is'. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:+1 Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, no objections against changing the sentence. The main issue is to find references that work. Renerpho (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)