This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Makemake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Makemake is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Makemake is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Dwarf planets series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
For satellites we can't say if it have a satellite because we don't know yet. Make make was a original known nodies in the solar system. We don't even know ehat atmosphere we have, we don't even know if it has rings. Artist beleives the planet is purple, for a fix diameter and axial tilt, we don't know yet.-- Freewayguy What's up? 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What's the point of the Makemake template? It only appears here, and so is nothing more than a 'See also' section, but is less useful because it's obscured by the clutter of four other templates. Should we delete? kwami ( talk) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In Orbit and classification, the last para. said
That wording describes two requirements, one of "brightness" and one of absolute magnitude. That might have been correct, if "brightness" were referring to apparent magnitude, but in fact the source referenced states only one requirement of magnitude:
The article states requirement (a) separately and in lay terms. I've changed the wording of (b). -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Kheider added a link claiming Makemake is in a 11:6 resonance with Neptune, but in the text we say it's in a free orbit. The site doesn't look particularly reliable to me, so I didn't want to fix the text to match. But we should either describe the resonance in the text, or remove the link. kwami ( talk) 18:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: the main article has been edited (not by me) to read: "Makemake is near (though not in) the 11:6 resonance with Neptune." Glenn L ( talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I tagged out the notes about derivations from formulas, I don't think they need noting and that the page for the object itself is fine Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
...cuz IAU announcements are worthless. The date after the word "discovered" generally isn't the discovery date. I'm not sure if they use the date of the discovery image, or just whatever the discoverer happens to claim, but they got both Eris and Haumea wrong. Our Makemake date looks approximately right, but I'd be happier if we had something from Brown. kwami ( talk) 08:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The pronunciation is backed up by a link to http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/whats-in-name-part-2.html
However, the same author corrects this source as being wrong here http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/make-make.html
Also see http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LOZuirJWXvUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA63&dq=makemake&ots=xyXfFytGAc&sig=9Bgeo5m2_e3gzZb4ZnD0VpEdyWo#PPA63,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.255.109 ( talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
OK but you don't pronounce it "m-ache m-ache" which one might think in english given the spelling? That should be made clear. Distinctions on vowels is less important. Give two or three pronunciations if you want. OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 19:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Makemake? Is that the best they could do? :/ 99.140.176.63 ( talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
ive noticed a lot of vandalism to this page over the past few days, shouldnt something be done about it? Mr Deathbat ( talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The article currently claims:
>In the latter case a strong asymmetry is expected in the surface composition: the currently invisible summer hemisphere would have far fewer volatiles on it than the winter hemisphere.
However, shouldn't Makemake always show us its summer side, given that Earth and Sun are almost in the same direction when viewing from Makemake?-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see a pronunciation aide for this satellite. Is it "make-make" like the word "make". Or more like "mah-key-mah-key", or a combo? 98.247.162.70 ( talk) 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is the same as for Haumea. Please see Talk:Haumea (dwarf planet)#dubious tag for discussion. — kwami ( talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(EDIT: In regards to yet another dwarf planet POV tag) I fail to see what problem the average reader will have with the following two statements already included in the article:
Is there a section in the article that claims this status is non-revocable? -- Kheider ( talk) 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The statement is quite clear: he distinguishes between "bona fide" and "likely" DPs. You can't honestly take that to mean anything other than what it says. Again, "denouncing their status" is not the point, as you are obviously able to understand, since no-one is attempting to "denounce their status". The point is that RSs disagree on which bodies are DPs. Now, most of them say that Haumea and Makemake are, and we should weight the article accordingly, but Sheppard et al. is a significant exception. A significant RS exception to an opinion needs to be included by WP:NPOV. — kwami ( talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And I have grown tired of you making the same disingenuous arguments over and over. Shall I point out how almost everything you just said is false or misleading?
You complain about having this discussion on too many pages. So why did you split one discussion into three? I started this section as a redirect from from the dispute tag to the discussion being held at Haumea. But after arguing there, you came here to start over again. Then you restarted the discussion—again—at Eris. That is, you started 2 of the 4 talk sections—2 out of 3 that focus on Haumea and Makemake—and you have the gall to complain that the discussion is on too many pages?
You say I have failed to prove "my point" that Makemake and Haumea should be treated on the same footing as the others. But I never said that, and I presume you know I never said that. What I said, over and over, is that we have three categories of acceptance. Three categories, not two: universally accepted DPs, other DPs accepted by the IAU, and other DPs accepted by Brown &c. Haumea and Makemake fall in the 2nd category. I never claimed they should be lumped in with the 3rd, as you claim, just that they should not be lumped in with the 1st.
The point is not that "some astromoners think they might be DPs". We've always said that, so you are not actually accepting anything by allowing that. The point is that some astronomers accept that they are DPs, that which objects are DPs depends on who you ask. What some here have been pushing is that only the IAU be allowed as a source as to which objects are DPs. That violates NPOV.
Your mischaracterization of Sheppard et al. was debunked in the Eris discussion you started, but now that you've split it here (just so you could complain about it), I suppose we need to repeat it?
Now, it the first part is in the historical introduction, speaking of the discovery of large TNOs; the second is in the definition of dwarf planet, speaking of what we know about them. Now, I agree that the wording of the first line isn't very good: as you say, the classification of DP did not exist when many of those surveys were made, and you can debate what we should make of the wording. But the second—what we know—is unambiguous: Eris is clearly in, Makemake and Haumea most likely in. You've argued that they separate Makemake and Haumea from the others, and they do say they're larger, but that just follows the division between categories 2 and 3 that we've already established with our refs to the IAU. — kwami ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This talks about a stellar occultation by Makemake producing an equatorial diameter of 1610+22
−180 km, but all have been able to dig up so far is
[4], which does not give an estimate. Does anyone know anything about the full version, maybe whether it still awaits publication? --
JorisvS (
talk)
17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ortiz says there should be no problem citing the reported results, "siempre que digas que son preliminares". He hopes to finish his analysis in less than a month, and he'll publish at that time. — kwami ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
BBC today comes with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20426114
Nice results of Makemake passing in front of distant star: No atmosphere, density 1700 kg/m3, and diameter is 1430 km in one direction, and 1500 in another. Unless it spins fast (I think unlikely for that distant objects, and would have been detected in Doppler blurr of normally sharp lines?) it is not an ellipsoid, but a potato like object. So the thing's gravity does not make it into a ball, flattened into an ellipsoid by spin. Does it now still fit the definition of dwarf planets Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)?
Hello. I'm posting this here since the image's talk page says don't use it for requesting corrections but to post such requests on the talk page of the article in which it appears.
The image under question has some blackened areas where some orbits mask other orbits partially. As can be seen from the image's page the previous version by Nickshanks does not have this problem. But the note on the current version says it has improved stroke width. It would be good if someone fixes the blackening.
Thanks. Jamadagni ( talk) 13:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility that Makemake is not the largest classical KBO? -- JorisvS ( talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the JPL browser states a rotation period of 22.48 h? [5] -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
We have a measured diameter of (1434 × 1422) ± 14 km and a measured albedo of 0.81+0.01
−0.02, yet also an inconsistent
[6] absolute magnitude of −0.44±0.42, which also has a rather big uncertainty that is currently unsourced (as well as the second last digit of H). What can we do about this? Is there another source floating around that has a better H value that maybe is also consistent? Or is there anything else that we can do about it? --
JorisvS (
talk)
12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
...is a very clumsy way to say that we could get a better estimate if it did have a moon - but either way every measurement of any kind is "only" an estimate. 137.205.183.109 ( talk) 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe S/2015 (136472) 1 should be moved into Makemake#Satellites? What more information are we going to get about this little moon? Tom Ruen ( talk) 03:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
They now think the "dark patches" were really its moon. Or so the NASA news article says. I don't have a proper reference though. 2.99.200.210 ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is pretty small, and unlikely to expand in the near future. The Makemake article isn't that big either, so there would be no problems regarding size. MartinZ02 ( talk) 16:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
How do you pronounce Makemake? 2602:30A:2CFC:B1A0:85D8:3728:7DA3:DDB3 ( talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a Pronunciation entry in the stat table: /ˌmækiˈmæki/, /ˌmɑːkiˈmɑːki/ or /ˌmɑːkeɪˈmɑːkeɪ/ .
Says that MM was the only other TNO bright enough for Tombaugh to discover, but that the star field was too crowded. That's an opinion, but precovery images don't include Tombaugh's plates. Does that mean that even knowing where to look, MM is not visible on Tombaugh's plates, so that it's not just a matter of the field being too crowded? — kwami ( talk) 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The claim fails verification. Brown's paper never mentions Tombaugh. According to ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi, which the claim linked to, MM has a minimum magnitude of 16.2 in late Dec 1930, ranging up to 16.6 in 1943, when he ended his search. Tombaugh was searching up to mag 17 when he discovered Pluto, so indeed he should have been able to detect MM. So why hasn't there been any recovery with his plates? — kwami ( talk) 00:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
...so that it's not just a matter of the field being too crowded?, but there is no contradiction here. When a star field is too crowded, you are very likely to find background stars interfering with a target. Even if you know where to look, you are not going to find it even though it may theoretically be bright enough. I don't know if Tombaugh's plates include Makemake's position. But if they do then it is reasonable to assume that the target is not visible due to the crowded field. In any case, the paragraph you just removed from the article was an opinion, with no such thing said in the cited sources, so I concur with removing it. Renerpho ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Although he started in Gemini, not far from where MM was, he didn't photograph the band of the Milky Way, and MM was only 5.5 degrees from the ecliptic in 1930. He also moved to other parts of the Zodiac and higher elevations, so by the time MM was clear of the Milky Way, he probably wasn't looking there any more. He says s.t. in his bio about photographing areas where any planet would be entering the Milky Way, so as not to miss something that wouldn't be visible later. So just bad timing, perhaps. — kwami ( talk) 02:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
File:El planeta Makemake.jpg is tagged to be deleted in a week unless its source information is corrected.
I just wanted to note here that it appears to have been derived from this NASA Visualization Technology Applications and Development model: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2374/makemake-3d-model/
I'd think that a bit more needs to be known and said about it than, "Representation of Makemake obtained by a computer program." before we choose to use it as our infobox photo. Is it anything more than an imaginative solar system illustrator model? -- ToE 06:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
How to pronounce it 162.246.84.148 ( talk) 00:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Makemake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Makemake is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Makemake is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Dwarf planets series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
For satellites we can't say if it have a satellite because we don't know yet. Make make was a original known nodies in the solar system. We don't even know ehat atmosphere we have, we don't even know if it has rings. Artist beleives the planet is purple, for a fix diameter and axial tilt, we don't know yet.-- Freewayguy What's up? 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What's the point of the Makemake template? It only appears here, and so is nothing more than a 'See also' section, but is less useful because it's obscured by the clutter of four other templates. Should we delete? kwami ( talk) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In Orbit and classification, the last para. said
That wording describes two requirements, one of "brightness" and one of absolute magnitude. That might have been correct, if "brightness" were referring to apparent magnitude, but in fact the source referenced states only one requirement of magnitude:
The article states requirement (a) separately and in lay terms. I've changed the wording of (b). -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Kheider added a link claiming Makemake is in a 11:6 resonance with Neptune, but in the text we say it's in a free orbit. The site doesn't look particularly reliable to me, so I didn't want to fix the text to match. But we should either describe the resonance in the text, or remove the link. kwami ( talk) 18:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: the main article has been edited (not by me) to read: "Makemake is near (though not in) the 11:6 resonance with Neptune." Glenn L ( talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I tagged out the notes about derivations from formulas, I don't think they need noting and that the page for the object itself is fine Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
...cuz IAU announcements are worthless. The date after the word "discovered" generally isn't the discovery date. I'm not sure if they use the date of the discovery image, or just whatever the discoverer happens to claim, but they got both Eris and Haumea wrong. Our Makemake date looks approximately right, but I'd be happier if we had something from Brown. kwami ( talk) 08:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The pronunciation is backed up by a link to http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/whats-in-name-part-2.html
However, the same author corrects this source as being wrong here http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/make-make.html
Also see http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LOZuirJWXvUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA63&dq=makemake&ots=xyXfFytGAc&sig=9Bgeo5m2_e3gzZb4ZnD0VpEdyWo#PPA63,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.255.109 ( talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
OK but you don't pronounce it "m-ache m-ache" which one might think in english given the spelling? That should be made clear. Distinctions on vowels is less important. Give two or three pronunciations if you want. OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 19:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Makemake? Is that the best they could do? :/ 99.140.176.63 ( talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
ive noticed a lot of vandalism to this page over the past few days, shouldnt something be done about it? Mr Deathbat ( talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The article currently claims:
>In the latter case a strong asymmetry is expected in the surface composition: the currently invisible summer hemisphere would have far fewer volatiles on it than the winter hemisphere.
However, shouldn't Makemake always show us its summer side, given that Earth and Sun are almost in the same direction when viewing from Makemake?-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see a pronunciation aide for this satellite. Is it "make-make" like the word "make". Or more like "mah-key-mah-key", or a combo? 98.247.162.70 ( talk) 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is the same as for Haumea. Please see Talk:Haumea (dwarf planet)#dubious tag for discussion. — kwami ( talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(EDIT: In regards to yet another dwarf planet POV tag) I fail to see what problem the average reader will have with the following two statements already included in the article:
Is there a section in the article that claims this status is non-revocable? -- Kheider ( talk) 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The statement is quite clear: he distinguishes between "bona fide" and "likely" DPs. You can't honestly take that to mean anything other than what it says. Again, "denouncing their status" is not the point, as you are obviously able to understand, since no-one is attempting to "denounce their status". The point is that RSs disagree on which bodies are DPs. Now, most of them say that Haumea and Makemake are, and we should weight the article accordingly, but Sheppard et al. is a significant exception. A significant RS exception to an opinion needs to be included by WP:NPOV. — kwami ( talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And I have grown tired of you making the same disingenuous arguments over and over. Shall I point out how almost everything you just said is false or misleading?
You complain about having this discussion on too many pages. So why did you split one discussion into three? I started this section as a redirect from from the dispute tag to the discussion being held at Haumea. But after arguing there, you came here to start over again. Then you restarted the discussion—again—at Eris. That is, you started 2 of the 4 talk sections—2 out of 3 that focus on Haumea and Makemake—and you have the gall to complain that the discussion is on too many pages?
You say I have failed to prove "my point" that Makemake and Haumea should be treated on the same footing as the others. But I never said that, and I presume you know I never said that. What I said, over and over, is that we have three categories of acceptance. Three categories, not two: universally accepted DPs, other DPs accepted by the IAU, and other DPs accepted by Brown &c. Haumea and Makemake fall in the 2nd category. I never claimed they should be lumped in with the 3rd, as you claim, just that they should not be lumped in with the 1st.
The point is not that "some astromoners think they might be DPs". We've always said that, so you are not actually accepting anything by allowing that. The point is that some astronomers accept that they are DPs, that which objects are DPs depends on who you ask. What some here have been pushing is that only the IAU be allowed as a source as to which objects are DPs. That violates NPOV.
Your mischaracterization of Sheppard et al. was debunked in the Eris discussion you started, but now that you've split it here (just so you could complain about it), I suppose we need to repeat it?
Now, it the first part is in the historical introduction, speaking of the discovery of large TNOs; the second is in the definition of dwarf planet, speaking of what we know about them. Now, I agree that the wording of the first line isn't very good: as you say, the classification of DP did not exist when many of those surveys were made, and you can debate what we should make of the wording. But the second—what we know—is unambiguous: Eris is clearly in, Makemake and Haumea most likely in. You've argued that they separate Makemake and Haumea from the others, and they do say they're larger, but that just follows the division between categories 2 and 3 that we've already established with our refs to the IAU. — kwami ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This talks about a stellar occultation by Makemake producing an equatorial diameter of 1610+22
−180 km, but all have been able to dig up so far is
[4], which does not give an estimate. Does anyone know anything about the full version, maybe whether it still awaits publication? --
JorisvS (
talk)
17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ortiz says there should be no problem citing the reported results, "siempre que digas que son preliminares". He hopes to finish his analysis in less than a month, and he'll publish at that time. — kwami ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
BBC today comes with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20426114
Nice results of Makemake passing in front of distant star: No atmosphere, density 1700 kg/m3, and diameter is 1430 km in one direction, and 1500 in another. Unless it spins fast (I think unlikely for that distant objects, and would have been detected in Doppler blurr of normally sharp lines?) it is not an ellipsoid, but a potato like object. So the thing's gravity does not make it into a ball, flattened into an ellipsoid by spin. Does it now still fit the definition of dwarf planets Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)?
Hello. I'm posting this here since the image's talk page says don't use it for requesting corrections but to post such requests on the talk page of the article in which it appears.
The image under question has some blackened areas where some orbits mask other orbits partially. As can be seen from the image's page the previous version by Nickshanks does not have this problem. But the note on the current version says it has improved stroke width. It would be good if someone fixes the blackening.
Thanks. Jamadagni ( talk) 13:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility that Makemake is not the largest classical KBO? -- JorisvS ( talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the JPL browser states a rotation period of 22.48 h? [5] -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
We have a measured diameter of (1434 × 1422) ± 14 km and a measured albedo of 0.81+0.01
−0.02, yet also an inconsistent
[6] absolute magnitude of −0.44±0.42, which also has a rather big uncertainty that is currently unsourced (as well as the second last digit of H). What can we do about this? Is there another source floating around that has a better H value that maybe is also consistent? Or is there anything else that we can do about it? --
JorisvS (
talk)
12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
...is a very clumsy way to say that we could get a better estimate if it did have a moon - but either way every measurement of any kind is "only" an estimate. 137.205.183.109 ( talk) 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe S/2015 (136472) 1 should be moved into Makemake#Satellites? What more information are we going to get about this little moon? Tom Ruen ( talk) 03:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
They now think the "dark patches" were really its moon. Or so the NASA news article says. I don't have a proper reference though. 2.99.200.210 ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is pretty small, and unlikely to expand in the near future. The Makemake article isn't that big either, so there would be no problems regarding size. MartinZ02 ( talk) 16:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
How do you pronounce Makemake? 2602:30A:2CFC:B1A0:85D8:3728:7DA3:DDB3 ( talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a Pronunciation entry in the stat table: /ˌmækiˈmæki/, /ˌmɑːkiˈmɑːki/ or /ˌmɑːkeɪˈmɑːkeɪ/ .
Says that MM was the only other TNO bright enough for Tombaugh to discover, but that the star field was too crowded. That's an opinion, but precovery images don't include Tombaugh's plates. Does that mean that even knowing where to look, MM is not visible on Tombaugh's plates, so that it's not just a matter of the field being too crowded? — kwami ( talk) 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The claim fails verification. Brown's paper never mentions Tombaugh. According to ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi, which the claim linked to, MM has a minimum magnitude of 16.2 in late Dec 1930, ranging up to 16.6 in 1943, when he ended his search. Tombaugh was searching up to mag 17 when he discovered Pluto, so indeed he should have been able to detect MM. So why hasn't there been any recovery with his plates? — kwami ( talk) 00:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
...so that it's not just a matter of the field being too crowded?, but there is no contradiction here. When a star field is too crowded, you are very likely to find background stars interfering with a target. Even if you know where to look, you are not going to find it even though it may theoretically be bright enough. I don't know if Tombaugh's plates include Makemake's position. But if they do then it is reasonable to assume that the target is not visible due to the crowded field. In any case, the paragraph you just removed from the article was an opinion, with no such thing said in the cited sources, so I concur with removing it. Renerpho ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Although he started in Gemini, not far from where MM was, he didn't photograph the band of the Milky Way, and MM was only 5.5 degrees from the ecliptic in 1930. He also moved to other parts of the Zodiac and higher elevations, so by the time MM was clear of the Milky Way, he probably wasn't looking there any more. He says s.t. in his bio about photographing areas where any planet would be entering the Milky Way, so as not to miss something that wouldn't be visible later. So just bad timing, perhaps. — kwami ( talk) 02:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
File:El planeta Makemake.jpg is tagged to be deleted in a week unless its source information is corrected.
I just wanted to note here that it appears to have been derived from this NASA Visualization Technology Applications and Development model: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2374/makemake-3d-model/
I'd think that a bit more needs to be known and said about it than, "Representation of Makemake obtained by a computer program." before we choose to use it as our infobox photo. Is it anything more than an imaginative solar system illustrator model? -- ToE 06:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
How to pronounce it 162.246.84.148 ( talk) 00:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)