Talk:Makemake/Archive 1

Mean orbital speed

I've calculated the object's mean orbital speed from its perihelion and aphelion, using the formula at User:Pt/Formulae. — Pt _(T) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend not to take the current values too seriously, because they're still changing daily as new precovery images are found. For example, the absolute magnitude of 2005 FY₉ was first reported being 0.1, day after -0.4, then back to 0.1, then 0.3; today (August 2th) it's 0.0. Current orbital values are from the discovery MPEC. Mean orbital distance has changed from 45.6397027 to 45.73950 and so on. --Jyril 14:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

You could easily have used Ramanujan's approximation for the ellipse's circumference; unless the eccentricity is very large, its precision is close enough that it does not matter (exercise: at which e does Ramanujan's approximation error exceed the precision of the astronomical unit?). Urhixidur 14:04, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Of course I could, but the more precise formulae were just shorter to type into my computer. :) And I agree that the speed should be recalculated as the source data change. — Pt _(T) 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible Diameter Range For 2005 FY9

Providing the absolute magnitude of 2005 FY9 is -0.3 as described, then the object's diameter range is quite impressive. If 2005 FY9 reflects 100% the light it receives (highly unlikely), then it would have a diameter of ~1614 km. If the albedo is Pluto-like, or 59%, then 2005 FY9 would measure ~1986 km in diameter! J P 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Brown says it is about 3/4 the size of Pluto (according to him, it was detected by the Spitzer Space Telescope). [1] This would mean that its albedo is nearly 90%. I'd like to see a confirmation or refutal to this claim.--Jyril 19:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a 90% albedo would be something. I did come across a summary for an abstract (which is supposedly going to be available to the public soon) that stated 2005 FY9 is around 4/5 the diameter of Pluto, or around 1800 km across. This would give 2005 FY9 an albedo of 80%. Even this figure is hard to believe, but it's more likely than 90%. If 2005 FY9 is indeed 80% reflective, it would be nothing short of amazing! J P 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Current absolute magnitude is actually -0.4. It is very possible that it has a transient atmosphere like Pluto. Now it lies much further out from the Sun than Pluto, so its atmospheric gasses are frozen covering any darker terrain. That would explain its high albedo (as well as the high albedos of 2003 UB313 and 2003 EL61).--Jyril 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet number

2005 FY₉'s minor planet number is 136472.[2]--JyriL ^talk 15:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to (136472) 2005 FY9, as per naming of other unnamed objects with minor planet numbers Richard B 00:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Move

(Copy from 2003 El₆₁)

I wonder whether this renaming adds any readability for the wider public. I believe we could wait for the name to add the number. My concerns:

• Unlike 2000 Varuna for example, making the difference between a god and a TNO, the number adds no value for the provisional designation
• There are tons of links in TNO articles; not only creating redirection and fixing the links represents an effort but forces future editors to look-up these numbers any time they link!

I believe that simple politeness would require such massive moves to be first announced and discussed on talk pages (or Project talk pages). Regards Eurocommuter 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Small Body?!

• Despite it is a candidate for Dwarf planet status, shouldn't we say it is a small body in the lead? --Pedro 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image

I'd recommend either dropping the imagemap in favor of a standard image or make the imagemap much bigger. I can't see didly in the small version on my screen, and I can't make it larger by clicking on it. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Any Developments on the choosing its name? Personally I think we need some east asian planets but what does my opinion matter. Anyway I was just wondering if IAU has come up with any ideas yet? Arkkeeper (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Brown has a name for it, but he won't release it to the IAU until they agree to name 2003 EL61. Which is unlikely to happen right now, given the controversy surrounding its discovery. Serendi^podous 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Male bird/bird related deity is what I read somewhere. Also said the naming process should be over soon. [3] --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done

Clever little hint for the name: "Easterbunny," Easter Island deity! So is "Santa Clause" Indo-European, or a deity of a place with "saint" in it's name? --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus is a composite deity, deriving from a large number of religious and folkloric traditions. He certainly isn't Saint Nicholas, but no one is entirely sure where he originated. The most plausible hypothesis is that he was originally the god Odin, who would ride his horse Sleipnir through the air on the Germanic holiday of Yuletide, leaving gifts for children who were kind enough to leave food for his horse to eat. Serendi^podous 04:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What? Pacific languages are romanized phonetically. Makemake is pronounced just like it sounds. ma-ke.. not ma-ki.. or is that a non-standard romanization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is "ma-ke" I can't help thinking of Fozzy Bear...:)doktorb _words^deeds 04:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The source for the pronunciation is Mike Brown, and he pronounces it "Maki-Maki". But someone posted a comment similar to yours on his blog, so that may soon change. Serendi^podous 05:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooop. he corrected himself. So yes. All's cool. Serendi^podous 07:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the misleading pronunciation hint in the text with "ma kay", because some people would pronounce that with an audible "y" sound at the end, which is not correct. The idea behind "ay" was the single sound that you hear inside of words like e.g. "says" (= Spanish "e"). The correct pronunciation is now mentioned already in the top line of the article. --Allgaeuer (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can just pronounce it as two syllables, "mayk mayk" like the word "make". That's how I've been reading it. 4.235.129.42 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just "corrected" the pronunciation to add in the y sounds. If this is not an English pronunciation, we need to say so, but the name of the sound file suggests it is. kwami (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if Brown himself pronounced it /makimaki/, then maybe we should have that too? That's a pretty common anglicization, like in "sake". kwami (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So is it a dwarf planet now?

The IAU has classed it as a plutoid, which means it is, by definition a dwarf planet. So should it be classified as such? Serendi^podous 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it, but I don't see anything new in the article about it being classified as a Plutoid, only the old stuff about it being taken as such for naming purposes. kwami (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the nomenclature wars are headache-inducing at the best of times, (even when one goes out of their way to not mention minor planet 134340), so I'm typing this with some trepidation. But I'm going to have to dissent here quite strongly.

The release of the object's name has nothing to do with its formal classification... to make a somewhat strained metaphor, the day a baby is christened "Michael" is not the effective date from which the child becomes a male. While cultural practices around naming take into account sex, they don't define it. Likewise, while astronomical body naming practices take into account the blurry legalese of what's what, the names themselves don't determine classification.

OK, that was a bit too confusing by half. Try to think of it this way: Makemake is no more of a plutoid or dwarf planet than 2003 EL₆₁ is. Both are transneptunian bodies with H < +1. One has a name and one doesn't, but in classification terms they remain in the same boat.

As we've taken pains to explain on the plutoid page, without an IAU-level agreement on what constitutes hydrostatic equilibrium, there cannot be any new "dwarf planets" or "plutoids." We have three of the former and two of the latter, and that will remain that way until yet more official rulings and votes and, unfortunately, a lot of kvetching about minor planet 134340. Sucks, yes, but until then all we can have are TNOs that are named under the presumption that they will be found to meet the eventual hydrostatic equilibrium definition in the future.

I realize that this is basically all technicalities and of next to zero scientific relevance. Maybe I'd be well-advised to take this stick out of my ass. But it is WP:OR to call Makemake a dwarf planet, IMHO. With that in mind, I'd advocate moving the article to 136472 Makemake, which at least is non-committal on the subject. The Tom (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't WP:OR if the information is cited from the USGS [4], who cite IAU resolutions on the matter. I suppose the USGS could be wrong, but we at least do not have to worry about WP:OR. I'd advocate against a page move, unless we're also going to have 134340 Pluto. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it's not about whether the USGS is right or wrong, it's about whether the appearance of a line of text on their website constitutes the act of classification, and whether the date it was added to the website constitutes the date of classification.

My sense is that it is emphatically wrong to say Makemake was classified as a dwarf planet on 11 July 2008. All that happened on July 11 2007 was that the USGS got a name for the thing from the IAU Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN). They took their existing website, which had Pluto and Eris under the heading "dwarf planets," and added Makemake under that heading. Because of the hairsplitty nature of the 11 June 2008 decision on plutoid naming procedures, they probably should have added a line clarifying that Makemake was named by WGPSN under the presumption of eventual dwarf planet/plutoid status. But they didn't. Oh well. Can't blame them, frankly, because it is so hairsplitty. (By way of analogy, it's a bit like calling Barack Obama the Democratic nominee for President. Well, yes, he is for all intents and purposes, but he is technically the presumptive Democratic nominee until the convention in Denver)

Even if you wanted to fudge the (IMHO, fairly asinine) distinction between "dwarf planet" and "object with H < +1 that we're really, really damn sure will meet the eventual definition of a dwarf planet", that would mean Makemake formally became a dwarf planet on June 11, not July 11. Why? Because that's when this release was made, setting out the H < +1 parameter. It would also mean 2003 EL₆₁ is a dwarf planet.

The gazetteer only lists named objects, not those with provisional designations. Things get added to that site as they get names, not as they are classified, not as they are confirmed to exist, not as they are discovered. It makes no reference, for instance, to S/2003 J 10. Why? Because it isn't a moon? No, because it doesn't have a name yet. It makes no reference to 2003 EL₆₁ either. Does that mean it's any more or less of a dwarf planet than Makemake is? No. Just that it's a body without a name.

Finally, it's incorrect to say that the USGS has an IAU cite of Makemake's status as a dwarf planet--the IAU links under the dwarf planets heading have nothing to do with the case of Makemake specifically because they all date from 2006. (The IAU Q+A sheet, in fact, can be pegged to the 20 day window between 2003 UB₃₁₃ being classified as a dwarf planet on August 24 2006 and its subsequent receipt of the name "Eris." on September 13 2006)

Either there are three dwarf planets in the solar system, two of which are plutoids; or five dwarf planets in the solar system, four of which are plutoids. You can't separate Makemake and 2003 El₆₁ because one has a name and one doesn't. Most critically, it is an emphatically OR statement to declare that reclassification occurred the same instant it got a name. The Tom (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The name had nothing to do with it. The USGS nomenclature group placed Makemake in the category of "Dwarf planets and their systems", meaning Makemake is a dwarf planet. There are plenty of named objects (Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar) that are not listed in that category. If the USGS just decided willy-nilly to add Makemake to that list just because it got a name, then why aren't Sedna, Orcus and Quaoar listed there too? The IAU citations were merely to explain what a dwarf planet was, not to specifically cite Makemake's inclusion.Serendi^podous 05:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Makemake has a brighter absolute magnitude (-0.4) than 2003 EL61 (+0.2), one could make an arguement that it is more of a dwarf planet since it has a likely higher albedo and yet has a comparable diameter. Should they both turn out to have the same albedo, Makemake will likely be the larger object.

When 2003 EL61 gets a name and gets listed on the WGPSN website, I think we should then add it as a dwarf planet. If the WGPSN website is wrong, they can make the correction on their official website. There is "No original research" involved. Find a official webpage that rebuttals it and we can adjust it accordingly.

Perhaps we could classify wiki dwarf planets as "official dwarf planets" and wiki-plutoids as "assumed dwarf planets". Then we would have Eris (dwarf planet) and Makemake (plutoid).

-- Kheider (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

EL61 is not spherical and therefore may have difficulty satisfying dwarf planet criteria. Although it can still be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Ruslik (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest the USGS added it willy-nilly. Because of the policy of 11 June, if a body has H < +1, it has to get signed-off-on by both the small bodies naming people (who have their gazetteer maintained by the MPC) and the planetary systems people (who have their gazetteer maintained by the USGS). This was the first object to come through the naming pipe since this ersatz "a plutino but not a plutino" naming rule has been instituted, and accordingly it was the first TNO after Eris that the USGS would have gotten a "oh, hey, we gave object X the name Y on Friday" email from the WGPSN about.

My point was simply that on a page that only lists objects as they get named, you can't say that the date an object first appears under a heading is the date it got categorized as such.

Incidentally, this information has been coming out in a most unusual way... normally the official publication process is not some quiet update to a webpage that gets noticed two days later, but rather the sending-out of a formal IAU Circular announcing the new name. That hasn't happened yet--and the circulars are actually one area where the IAU is traditionally pretty good about moving lickety-split. Likewise, the Minor Planet Centre updates its master TNO list with new additions, names, ephemera and so on daily, and yet there's still no appearance of Makemake next to 2005 FY₉. I'm still not sure what to make of that. The Tom (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit this isn't a research TKO, but NewScientistSpace has an article out on the subject, in which it defines Makemake as a dwarf planet and plutoid, and also features an interview with Brian Marsden, head of the Minor Planet Center. Marsden is not one to keep quiet when he's displeased, and if he felt that the article's classification was wrong, he probably would have said so. Serendi^podous 11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's official Serendi^podous 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the decision of June it was said that in case further research would find that a plutoid identified by the absolute magnitude rule actually does not fulfil the condition of being a dwarf planet, it would loose its status as a plutoid and dwarf planet, resp. be "reclassified", however retain its name. To loose its status or be reclassified is only possible if it had the dwarf planet status or "classification" before.

I think that since June 2008, both Makemake as well as 2003 EL 61 now have full plutoid and full dwarf planet status, until the contrary is proven. Regardless of being already named or not. --Allgaeuer (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

IAU image

Hmm. Are we allowed to use the image? Ben (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IAU holds copyright. :-( Serendi^podous 08:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, according to this it's copyright free provided we credit them. Ben (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We'd still need to establish a fair use rationale, and in terms of encyclopedic value, one artist's impression is as good as another, even if it may look nicer. Serendi^podous 10:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need a fair use rational? All we need to do is credit IAU. Zginder 2008-07-20T11:57Z (UTC)

I'm not sure. Wikipedia's rules on fair use are VERY strict, but I suppose it would be worth a try. Serendi^podous 12:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as I understand it (happy to be corrected :)), copyright images need a 'fair use rationale' unless some sort of explicit permission is given. Since this image is free from copyright, we should be good to just use it if you think it would fit in. Ben (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with it, though I don't know which tags would be used in this case. My only question is that I'm not sure what that image offers the reader than the current one doesn't. Serendi^podous 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Likelihood of collisions?

Anyone know the possibility of this planet(oid) being in a collision course? --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

With what? Modest Genius ^talk 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know

what is the date when Makemake was designated as dwarf planet, and what is the date it was assigned this name? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday. Or at least, that's the earliest date I can find. Serendi^podous 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please find a reference and nominate it for In the News part of the main page :) Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This posting from the USGS Working Group on Planetary Nomenclature, was last updated on July 11, so that would appear to be the earliest date. Serendi^podous 12:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted it here. Feel free to update/modify. Nergaal (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aphelion

To calculate the aphelion dates you will need to change the "Observer location" from 500 (geocentric) to @sun for heliocentric. When you see a deldot of zero, the object is changing relative direction. (A positive "deldot" means the target center is moving away from the observer (coordinate center=sun). A negative "deldot" means the target center is moving toward the observer.) The aphelion date for Makemake is currently estimated to be 2033-May-13. This date will change as the orbit is further refined. -- Kheider (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Demonym??

Plutonian and Eridian are in common use as demonyms for Pluto and Eris. Does this plutoid have a demonym?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemakian? Zazaban (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the existence of a demonym would imply that someone could be from Makemake. Which is a separate matter entirely  :) What I think you mean to say is "what's the adjective meaning "of or relating to Makemake" ?"

The words "Plutonian" and "Eridian" came about as they did because there's long heritage of the English language adapting and reflecting the grammatical practices of Greek and Latin when adjectivizing nouns of Greek and Latin extraction--particular common in the sciences, for obvious reasons. For words that fall outside that Greco-Roman continuum, I guess the generic addition of an -an suffix is probably the closest thing to a standard practice, so Zazaban's suggestion of "Makemakian" is solid enough. But there aren't rules for such things, and no English equivalent of the Academy française to lay down a term via edict.

In practical terms, it's worth noting that in the past five years or so I'm fairly certain no corresponding adjectives have cropped up for Sedna or Quaoar and we seem to have gotten by OK. (Sednine? Sednian? Sednatastical? ;) ) The Tom (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sedna and Quaoa aren't dwarf planets (yet) Zazaban (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is bad with "Makemakean" ? --Allgaeuer (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Too soon

Ok... who's deciding what is a planet or not? Because on the website of the IAU, I do a google search and nothing with the name "Makemake" appears... Is it a mistake? A hoax? Do they have specific informations we don't have? 96.20.2.116 (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN) / IAU has it listed under dwarf planets. It will probably take other IAU websites some time to catch up. The IAU is anything but fast. Since the IAU news release IAU0804 named the category plutoid, it is pretty obvious that they intend to treat objects with an absolute magnitude brighter (less than) +1 as almost certain (assumed) dwarf planets. This is a logical way to move forward for the time being. Most dwarf planet candidates (with dimmer absolute magnitudes) will unfortunately look and be treated like (55565) 2002 AW197 for a long time to come.-- Kheider (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

I think this article is ready for a GA nom. Anyone agree? Serendi^podous 09:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs 20 and 21 are duplicates. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed :) Serendi^podous 09:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another possible problem is the lead, which is too short and does not summarize the article. It should be two paragraphs long. Ruslik (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it now? Serendi^podous 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it can be nominated now. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you going for GA when it is not even B-class yet? Zginder 2008-07-15T13:14Z (UTC)

Is there a nomination procedure for B-class now? Serendi^podous 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I just thought it was strange that is all. Zginder 2008-07-15T14:01Z (UTC)

Miscellany

Perhaps the word, "albedo" in the Orbit section of the article could be hyperlinked to the Wikipedia entry on Albedo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.42.66 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

done Serendi^podous 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:EightTNOs.png

Can anyone update this image to include Makemake's new name? Thanks Serendi^podous 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a crack at it. Let me know if it's not straight or anything (I only had paint on this pc) Ben (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd. Doesn't seem to have worked. Oh well, thanks for having a go anyway. Serendi^podous 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's the old image you're still seeing, you might have to refresh to see the new one. Ben (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Wow. Boy do I feel silly. :-) Yes, that's perfect. Well done! Thanks! Serendi^podous 22:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IAU decision

Why so long? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It ain't over yet. They still have to classify EL61. Serendi^podous 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Resonant?

I've managed to find two links, [5] and [6], which indicate that Makemake is in 6:11 (or 11:6, take your pick) resonance with Neptune—ie, not in a classical orbit. This article by Patryk Lykawk stands a good shot of saying something firm on the matter, but I'm without subscription access to journals at the moment. The Tom (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It gets weirder. Mike Brown, who discovered it, and David Jewitt, who discovered the Kuiper belt, both describe it as scattered, which places it in the scattered disc along with Eris. However, the Minor planet center does not. Brown calls EL61 scattered too (though Jewitt doesn't - and neither does Brown, at least in this paper). We may have a major issue here. Serendi^podous 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake, Eris, and 2003 EL61 all have only decently determind orbits. A very well determined orbit would have an "quality code" of 0. A poorly determined orbit would have a quality code of 8 (2006 QH181). I am not sure if these "short arc orbit observations" can be confirmed as resonant or not.

I have noticed that Ref #1 (Buie) does list Makemake as "SCATNEAR" (near the bottom of the page). Objects like (119951) 2002 KX14 might have similar resonance concerns about the best category to put them in.
-- Kheider (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Get this: Jewitt calls it scattered on his website, but calls it classical in this paper. Whatever shall we do, wherever shall we go? Serendi^podous 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Makemake satisfies any formal definition of the classical object, it should be considered as such. Ruslik (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Serendipodous, your latest Jewitt "Table 2 (page 4)" also refers to it as a Scat. So he mentions it as both types in the same paper. 2003 EL61 is also a mildly scattered object.

Even (former?) plutino 38083 Rhadamanthus comes up as a ScatNear object... -- Kheider (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, it would appear to be that Makemake is a scattered object, which, technically, according to the current Wikipedia convention, means that it isn't a KBO. Serendi^podous 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean by 'convention' the condition that Tisserand's parameter>3, you should reclassify as Scattered other objects too:

• Makemake T=2.79
• Varuna T=2.98
• 2002TX300 T=2.84
• 2002UX25 T=2.93.

It appears that among the objects brighter than 4 magnitude only Quaoar will remain classical. It is better to change convention. Ruslik (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Wikipedia takes its lead in classification from the Minor Planet Center, since it is the only thing close to an established authority on the subject. It considers the scattered disc and the Kuiper belt separate. On the other hand, it doesn't consider Makemake to be part of the scattered disc, so I don't really know what to say. Serendi^podous 06:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is better to classify Makemake as classical in Wikipedia, but add a note explaining that it is sometimes refered to as Scattered. Ruslik (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. How's that? Serendi^podous 07:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is Ok. If you still are not sure, you can send e-mails to Brown or Jewitt asking them for clarification. Ruslik (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the border line between classical TNO and the Scattered Disk is a semi-major axis of greater than 50 AU ? In this definition (that the MPC seems to follow) Makemake as well as 2003 EL 61 are not part of the so-called Scattered Disk. --Allgaeuer (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tombaugh

It seems like the last paragraph in the discovery section is saying that if Tombaugh was looking at that part of the ecliptic in 1930, he could have seen Makemake, but the Milky Way stars there would have been made it extremely difficult to find. Do we pose these kind of conditional statements in the Wikipedia? It seems kind of odd to me. --Cam (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake is the only dwarf planet, other than Pluto, that was bright enough for Tombaugh to have seen. Other dwarf planets were too faint. Eris was too faint simply because it is at twice the distance. In 1930, at opposition, Makemake was apparent magnitude 15.9, 2003 EL61 was 16.9, and Eris was 18.6. -- Kheider (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess what bothered me was the iffyness of the statement. It's like saying in the article on Florida that Columbus would have landed there in 1492 but the winds and currents in that part of the ocean made it unlikely. It may be true, but why would we throw in that kind of conditional statement there? It's not a big deal, it's just that, to me it seems kind of odd for a Wikipedia article to say something like that. --Cam (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I missed your edit to the article there. I think that improves it. --Cam (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor planet number in parenthesis?

I haven't seen any WP policy on this; but the vast majority of asteroid articles operates without. --Harald Khan Ճ 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Official practice of the MPC is to put the number in parentheses. I'm not sure if the practice is to be maintained in Wikipedia for all minor planets. Serendi^podous 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake: Cubewano and Plutino?

If a plutino is a trans-Neptunian object that has a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune, and a cubewano is defined as a Kuiper Belt object that is not controlled by an orbital resistance with Neptune, then a cubewano can never be a plutino and vice versa; however Makemake is categorized as both a cubewano and a plutino. Which is it? CALMsavior 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorised by whom? This article categorises it at as Plutoid, which it is, but not as a plutino. Serendi^podous 10:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pluto, 90482 Orcus, 28978 Ixion, 38628 Huya are the only Plutino Plutoids.

Does some one known where are more up-to-date version of MPEC 2006-X45 is? -- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is it. --Cam (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article vs. Eris (dwarf planet)

How does this article stack up to Eris's? Obviously, this article is going to be shorter, but it still seems remarkably short when compared to Eris, even though it covers pretty much the same information. If Eris is 41k, I can't think why this article is still only 24k. Serendi^podous 19:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Makemake (dwarf planet)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is part of the Solar System featured topic, and needs to reach GA for the topic to remain valid. Much work has gone into bringing the article up to code, and I think it passes now. Serendi^podous 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be of GA quality. It is well referenced, correctly written and deals with an interesting and scientific topic. It appears to be more than passable. J.T Pearson (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

I've done some copyediting, and I found some minor issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• "Unlike Pluto or Eris, Makemake shows little evidence of nitrogen ice on its surface, suggesting that its supply of nitrogen has somehow been depleted over the age of the Solar System. Although evidence exists for the presence of nitrogen ice on its surface, at least mixed with other substances, there is nowhere near the same level of nitrogen as exists on Pluto, where it comprises more than 98 percent of the crust." - I know the point that you are trying to achieve here, but it sounds a little contradicting the way it is written 9see bold). How about rewording to --> "Although evidence exists for the presence of nitrogen ice on its surface, at least mixed with other substances, there is nowhere near the same level of nitrogen as exists on Pluto, where it comprises more than 98 percent of the crust." The lack of nitrogen ice suggests that its supply of nitrogen has somehow been depleted over the age of the Solar System."
• "Makemake is currently at a distance of 52 AU from the Sun" - try to avoid time dependent statements. Say "as of 2008" (or whatever is appropriate) here.
• "are likely to be included in the near future" - time dependent. I think the problem would be solved by simply removing "in the near future", but if you can think of a better solution, that's cool too.

Overall, well done. You'll have seven days to address these concerns. Nikki311 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns. Are there any others you think should be dealt with? Serendi^podous 06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Looks good. Pass. Nikki311 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation/IPA formatting

Corrected the IPA formatting. kwami (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the previous pronunciation was correct. I think it's "Mak-eh," not "Mak-ay", but I could be wrong.Serendi^podous 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on the god and the article on the Rapa Nui language, the previous pronunciation was correct. Serendi^podous 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The filename as well as the actual recording suggest the pronunciation is US English, which is what I changed it to. If the pronunciation is anything other than English, we need to specify that. kwami (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with US English. US English uses both "eh" and "ay". Serendi^podous 21:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But it has to do with English. The pronunciation you provided is not possible in English. kwami (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wha? The Open back unrounded vowel and the Close-mid front unrounded vowel quite happily exist in English. The Tom (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

English doesn't have a simple close-mid front unrounded vowel, except in Scottish & Irish etc. English. Not in the convention we follow here. kwami (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So if I were to react with continued puzzlement, and exhort eh?, what vowel sound would I be making? The Tom (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

/ɛ/, which doesn't occur word-finally in most dialects of English. kwami (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My Canadianness seems to have stunted me here, actually, Kwami. I had meant eh? to rhyme with play, which as the article on Close-mid front unrounded vowel notes, is pronounced by Canadians as /pleː/. I suppose /pleɪ/ does in a pinch, which points to your /ˈmɑːkeɪ²/ suggestion below. But I still don't see how there's some convention we follow here that forces us to diphthong-ize all /eː/s to /eɪ/s The Tom (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the first approach of Mike Brown was to pronounce it the English way /makimaki/, but then he corrected himself pronouncing it correctly as /make-make/, as Polynesians do (Brown's ambiguous "mah-kay mah-kay" spelling meant exactly this). As far as I see there are now two possible ways to go:

anglicization /maki-maki/ or correct Polynesian pronounciation /make-make/.

Other pronounciations like /makei-makei/ or /meik-meik/ do not make much sense. --Allgaeuer (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Should be /maki-maki/ with a note of Polynesian pron. kwami (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, kwami, I really don't follow you here. /maki-maki/ is straight-up incorrect. It's no more a valid Anglicization than saying France's second-largest city is pronounced Mars-cell-eez, or there's a country in South America called Arr-gun-tyne-uh. The only person who pronounced Makemake as /maki-maki/, Mike Brown, has publically retracted this and clarified that he is now adhering to the correct Rapa Nui pronounciation. How can its appearance in the article be remotely justified? The Tom (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if "mah-kay mah-kay" is wrong, according to Allgaeuer, and "mah-kee mah-kee" (rhyming with saké) is wrong, according to you, how should it be pronounced? kwami (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mak-eh-mak-eh"; why is that so difficult? Serendi^podous 05:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Allgaeuer didn't say "Mah-kay Mah-kay" was wrong. He implied it was ambiguous (and I'm not honestly sure what part of it is? The "Mah," I presume?) Remember that our cite--which is in reference to the deity, from before the plutoid was even found--expressed it that way, too The Tom (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Other pronounciations like /makei-makei/ or /meik-meik/ do not make much sense."

Our choices are /ˈmɑːkiː²/ and /ˈmɑːkeɪ²/, unless maybe someone from the UK wants to use an /æ/ vowel. kwami (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you disallowing /ˈmɑːkeː²/? I don't get your rationale. Plenty of English dialects end words with /e/. Serendi^podous 06:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just the convention here in Wikipedia, and what the IPA chart we link to has: kay is pronounced /ˈkeɪ/. kwami (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "ay". "Eh". Serendi^podous 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That would violate English phonotactics. You can't end a lexical word with /ɛ/. kwami (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a hunch that when Serendipodous is trying to differentiate between "ay" and "eh," he's referring to the difference between /eɪ/ and /e/, respectively--then again, that's just a trans-Atlantic guess on my part. That said, Kwami, I'm really not getting how you're equating "eh" with /ɛ/--surely most people would assume that those letters represent some sort of ā-ish vowel? Wiktionary says "eh," in the sense of the interjection, is /eɪ/, for what it's worth. The only case of the letters "eh" coming out as an /ɛ/ that springs to my mind is "meh", which I should cheekily point out is a lexical word ending with /ɛ/. :)

Anyway, I really do think it should /ˈmɑːkeː²/--it's a loan word, after all, so I honestly don't think this mandatory diphthongification thingy really should have to appear. This is particularly true since there's nothing inherently difficult about a native English-speaker making that sound. But if we simply cannot have an /e/, then /ˈmɑːkeɪ²/ it'll have to be. The Tom (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have evidence that people pronounce this word in a way that differs from all the other words they use, I think we'd better stick to normal English, where the difference between e and eɪ is subphonemic. Plus we have eɪ in the sound file.

The normal pronunciation of foreign words ending in [e] is with an English /i:/. Brown did this automatically; he 'corrected' himself to an approximation of Polynesian, but this just shows the normal dichotomy between anglicized pronunciations and attempts at retaining the original pronunciation, which is what we currently indicate here as we do in lots of other astronomy articles. I'll try comparing with other Polynesian borrowings in English to see what the normal pronunciation is for these words. kwami (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the article to /ˌmɑːkeɪˈmɑːkeɪ/, which at least I think we're all agreed matches the sound file. I'm of the opinion that the Craig2004 cite and the followup blog post from Brown also endorse this pronounciation (and for what it's worth, plugging MAH-kay MAH-kay through Wikipedia's unofficial and certainly imperfect respelling key would similarly endorse it). The Tom (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should people be forced by an incorrect sound file to pronounce English in a wrong way ? And why should such a wrong information stand in Wikipedia ?? The correct pronunciation in Polynesian is not an opinion, it is a fact, and it is not /ma-kei-ma-kei/ but /ma-ke-ma-ke/. Maybe this difference is "subphonemic" for some English speakers, but it is certainly NOT subphonemic for a Polynesian. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should definitely mention the correct pronunciation.

And about the best anglicization I keep thinking that /ma-ki-ma-ki/ is better than /ma-kei-ma-kei/ - which is neither Polynesian nor standard English. Will somebody please correct it back to the last version of kwami, please ? And please remove also this wrong sound file ... --Allgaeuer (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the most natural anglicization is /makimaki/, which is what Brown had before he 'corrected' himself. "or as in Polynesian [makemake]" covers the /makeimakei/ pronunciation, as that's the best most English speakers can do. kwami (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC?

What is missing for this article to become a FA? Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting it through PR right now to determine just that. Serendi^podous 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)