Talk:Makemake

Does it have a moon

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)

Artist impressions are taken on face value and obviously based as much on the truth as possible but after the truth runs out the artist gets relatively free range to interpret the rest of it. Don't worry about the color. Aside from that, it appears to have a moon or two. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As of April 26, 2016, Makemake is known to have at least one moon.Andrew John Bayles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol 97.71.230.218 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

template

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)

I disagree, if there's no suitable template, then it needs to be here Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I obviously didn't understand the question and retract my previous statement, I don't agree with it existing either. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and was actually considering removing it until I checked the other dwarf planets. All of them have their own template, so theoretically this action should apply to those as well. However, I think Pluto's and even Ceres' are appropriate, despite the clutter, which at the very least lends itself to the keeping of the Makemake template. -- Amory (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

absolute magnitude

In Orbit and classification, the last para. said

To be considered a plutoid, an object must be exceptionally bright and have an absolute magnitude of +1 or less,[23]

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:

for naming purposes, any Solar System body having (a) a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune, and (b) an absolute magnitude brighter than H = +1 (see Notes) will, for the purpose of naming, be considered to be a plutoid

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)

Until this fuss happened, I just considered "having an absolute magnitude of +1 or less" as a suitable cognate for "bright". Something that large and shiny will, from the standard distance used for harmonising abs mags, definitely have a significant impact on your eye. Maybe not as much as, say, a full moon, but maybe a crescent, which is still a plenty bright object compared to anything else in the night sky. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

resonance

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)

Agreed. But I've asked Kheider for a better set of sources, so give him time to locate them. Serendi^podous 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I hardly see 11:6 resonance is important anyway Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an 11:6 resonance be important? If it is currently in an 11:6 resonance, is it possible it could one day move into a 9:5 resonance? Or 7:4 resonance?202.139.104.226 (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The current published orbital periods of Neptune, Pluto and Makemake are 165, 248, and 310 years respectively. These suggest a "resonance" of 8 : 12 : 15, making the Makemake - Neptune "resonance" closer to 15 : 8 than to 11 : 6. Glenn L (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've joined the Orbit Simulator [1] group and we're investigating other potential resonances. A longterm plot [2] appears to argue against both 11:6 and 15:8 since it's centered at about 1.863. But this could support resonances such as 13:7 (1.857), 28:15 (1.867), and even 41:22 (1.864). Results soon - I hope. Glenn L (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Glen. Thanks for joining the group. I will be curious what results you can come up with, even if it is just the nearest resonance. Please let us know what you find. MPEC 2009-E53 still calls it a Cubewano., but the MPEC does not normally list high order resonances since they are harder to prove. -- Kheider (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, while 11:6 looks nice picturewise, it won't be practical unless we can get Makemake down to a 303-year orbit. Recent JPL data [3] suggests a period of 305.7 years rather than 309.9. In any case, Frankuitaalst reports:

"I tried the 13:7 and 41:22 resonance in rotating frame with Neptune , but alaas Makemake doesn't fit in this resonance . Also as the resonance number rise ( from 7---> 22) it's becoming difficult to recognize a good pattern because the screen gets so full . Moreover I think that if we would find a good match with a number > 41:22 then the found pattern could be easly considered as being coincidental . I'm afraid JPL can't help the situation as I took the initial conditions from the JPL ephemeris ." - Still a Cubewano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn L (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (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)

Notes

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 Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

need to verify discovery date

...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)

Pronunciation

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)

This is a question of how close we stick to the original pronunciation, and we already include both possibilities (as we do with all astro articles I've worked on). It's an issue with all names: Should the moon Io be "eye-oh" or "ee-oh"? (Astronomers use both.) Should Paris be "pair-iss" or "pə-ree"? Etc. Makemake is the same. The fully anglicized pronunciation is "mah-kee-mah-kee" (at least for Yanks; perhaps for Brits "mak-ee-mak-ee"), because final unstressed [e] in foreign names regularly becomes [i] in English: cf. saké, karaoke, karate, ukulele, etc. People occasionally try to pronounce them with final "ay", but usually they give up. Even the days of the week like Tuesday get reduced to final "dee" in normal conversation. Mike says he may have been influenced by the Hawaiian word wiki-wiki, but I suspect he simply fell back on English habit. The closest parallel to Makemake I can find in the OED is the Maori tree name ake-ake, which per the OED is pronounced "ak-ee-ak-ee" (only stressed on the initial syllable). kwami (talk) 00:38, 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)

I don't think I ever thought that. My default when seeing a non-English word like that is to assume a more phonetic / phonogrammatic based pronunciation than just munging it into whatever English words look closest, because that's more common on a global basis and has a much better chance of being correct. In any case, even in English herself we have things like "epitome", which is by no means pronounced "eppy-toe-mm"... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Terrible name

Makemake? Is that the best they could do? :/ 99.140.176.63 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Blame the easter islanders. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not appreciate the problems involved in coming up with tens of thousands of unique names. This was already a problem in the 1950s, when there were only one or two thousand named objects in the Solar System. People were getting desperate even then. (Around 500 BCE Lao Tsu said, "There are already enough names. One must know when to stop.") Wwheaton (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If Brian May can get an asteroid named after him ;) Raul654 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Difference is it's fairly easy to nominate a small and relatively insignificant asteroid after whoever you like, so long as you can come up with a good reason for it (and/or enough cash). One of the 25~30 largest objects in the solar system, however, is rather a different story, and demands a name with a bit more thought, history, and general weight behind it. And just because it's a deity you've never heard of doesn't mean it's a complete ass-pull, there's a huge amount of stuff out there and any one person can only ever know a tiny fraction of a percentage of all of it. (Now, let's see how y'all do with Gonggong, Quaoar, or Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà...)146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally find it rather... cute that astronomers would choose to honour a dumpy little isle like Easter. I guess even one of the most insignificant land masses on Earth can get recognized in space. Brutannica (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just you wait, they'll eventually be planets or asteroids or meteors called Wikipedia or something alone those lines. Evilgidgit (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful prediction! The main-belt asteroid 274301 Wikipedia was named early last year. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

vandalism

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)

Brightness, size and rotation

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)

Depends on its own polar inclination and how it precesses whilst it rotates, its orbital inclination, etc. What side we see may vary as it continues through its orbit. Possibly at the point where it's in the same plane as Earth you'll see a bit of both at the equator, but from an observatory in the higher latitudes towards one or other pole you'll see slightly more of one of the seasonal hemispheres (depending which way you go). The two planets might have to be visible to each other for observational purposes, but it doesn't mean they're locked together, or even that they have to be on the same side of the sun - just that the photosphere of the sun can't be directly between them. And think about it - even in summer, on Earth, you still get night time (landmass facing away from the sun), and in winter you still get daytime (landmass facing towards the sun). There's no reason Makemake can't exhibit exactly the same setup. And with enough of an orbital inclination (nearly 29 degrees is reasonably considerable, at least vs Earth) it's not even the case that the faces getting the most sun will exactly be the ones pointing towards Earth. It just happens more often.

Though we could really do with getting a space telescope out there that follows a different heliocentric orbit to our own, in order to get better angles on certain things, especially given how obfuscating a background the Milky Way can be. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

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)

Given the name is from Polynesian, I'd wager "mah kay mah kay" (per Hawaiian), but I haven't got a source for it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation guide is in the userbox on the right of the page at the top, under the photo. Iridia (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That guide is difficult to notice -- I missed it myself until seeing Irinda's comment on the Talk page. Suggest that this pronunciation guide is repeated within the "Name" section of the article. Mrstonky (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

dubious tag

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:

• Makemake was formally classified as a plutoid in July 2008.
• This practically guarantees that it is large enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium and become an oblate spheroid.

Is there a section in the article that claims this status is non-revocable? -- Kheider (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You already know, since you've been involved in the discussion. Or are there two Kheiders here?

The problem is the lead, where we say it is, when we have a RS saying it likely is. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are speculating as to what Sheppard meant in one sentence that can be interpreted more than one way. We already know that there are no absolutes and Sheppard goes into no details (ie, numbers, probabilities, measurements, etc) in regards to Eris, Haumea, or Makemake. As you have written elsewhere, "You can play WP:point games like that with any source or claim." The scientific consensus is that Makemake and Haumea are dwarf planets. At no point does Sheppard denounce their status and give a detailed explanation as to why they should NOT be considered dps. You are using one sentence to WP:point and push a POV onto the three featured articles: Dwarf planet, Makemake and Haumea. -- Kheider (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this a good summary of what is actually happening here. Ruslik_Zero 12:59, 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)

If you truly believe that Sheppard means to publicly downplay the probability that Makemake and Haumea are dps, then YOU also need to downplay the status of Eris based on Sheppard2011. You should not speculate so much about one sentence in one source. We write our articles for the reader's benefits, not our own. There is no reason to mention in the WP:LEAD summary that the status of a dp is revocable if it later turns out to be a lumpy contact binary, cloaked Death Star, overgrown potato, etc. -- Kheider (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to downplay it if that's what the source said, but Sheppard2011 says that Eris is a "bona fide" DP. He distinguishes between Pluto, Eris, and Ceres on the one hand, and the other 6 on the other. I agree that the revocable bit does not belong in the lead: that's understood from the IAU acceptance based on magnitude. But then, that's not what I'm advocating: I'm not trying to follow the revocable clause from the IAU, I'm trying to follow a very clear statement from several excellent astronomers that separates Haumea and Makemake from Eris and Pluto. And I don't understand how you can blithely dismiss it, or claim you don't understand it.

Your arguments do not become you: IF I'm honest / disagree with you, THEN I must accept some easily debunkable straw man that you set up. Is that what you're reduced to? If you have no intelligent defense for your POV, why do you maintain it? — kwami (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your source contradicts itself. (Sheppard 2011, page 2 paragraph 2, very clearly mentions "likely dwarf planets Eris". To claim that Eris was a dwarf planet candidate only when it was discovered is SYN. Eris was a planet candidate because the definition of a dwarf-planet did not exist in 2005. It is the 2006 IAU resolution that made Pluto, Ceres and Eris dps.

I have grown tired of running in the same circles with you on several pages: Talk:Dwarf planet, Talk:Haumea_(dwarf_planet), Talk:Makemake (dwarf planet), Talk:Eris_(dwarf_planet), and User_talk:Kheider. You have failed to prove your point that Makemake and Haumea should be treated on the same footing as Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus, and Quaoar. You keep starting a debate on every dwarf planet page and dispute page that you can in hopes more editors will support your Sheppard2011-POV pushing. Even JorisvS does not support your tactics or non-compromising attitude. I do not mind re-wording Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus and Quaoar to reflect that some astromoners think they might be dps, but then again that is what Wikipedia use to call "strong dwarf-planet candidates". -- Kheider (talk) 16:24, 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?

1. Introduction. [...] In these [Palomar surveys from 2003 to 2010] tens of bright TNOs including likely dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna and 2007 OR10 were discovered.

4.2.1. Dwarf Planets. [...] Though the dwarf planet definition is imprecise, it is clear that Ceres in the main asteroid belt as well as Pluto and Eris in the outer solar system are bonafide dwarf planets. Makemake and Haumea are also likely dwarf planets as are the next largest bodies in the outer solar system such as Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus and Quaoar.

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)

So what you are saying is there is no reason to seriously question Makemake and Haumea as dwarf planets (I will also include Eris), until there is a specific statement from a reliable source that denounces the IAU reason for listing them as dps. Good. Since only "some astronomers" accept Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus, and Quaoar as dps, we need to carefully word them according to the references. There are dwarf planets accepted by an overwhelming scientific consensus (category 1) and we have dwarf planet candidates that some astronomers consider to be dps (category 2). There is no reason to create a different category for every generic dp list created, especially a one sentence list that contradicts a previous statement in the same reference. -- Kheider (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only a contradiction if you insist on reading it that way. You could, of course, accept that they just might know what they're talking about.

Of course there is no serious reason to question Makemake or Haumea! There is also no serious reason to question Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, or OR10. They're all likely to be DPs. The question is how likely. More people accept M and H than accept Q, S, O, and OR10. But not as many as accept C, E, and Pl. As long as you insist on only two cats, with M & H lumped in with one or the other, you will contradict a RS and therefore NPOV. The obvious solution is to say who accepts them: everyone (C, E, Pl), most (incl. the IAU: H, M), or some (Q, O, S, OR). We can debate the wording, but reflects our sources. And it's not difficult to do, if you were willing to work on compromise to reflect those sources rather than setting up the IAU as the sole authority. And unify the table in the DP article, coded for acceptance, so we no longer misrepresent our sources there. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is no serious reason to question Makemake or Haumea, why you are questioning them? Does it mean that you are not serious? Or does you imply that authors of this paper are serious? The latter may actually be true, because that sentence (as the one before it) does not appear to be carefully worded. More people accept M and H than accept Q, S, O, and OR10. But not as many as accept C, E, and Pl. Do you have any source that says this? This statement is not obvious and requires a proof. you will contradict a RS and therefore NPOV. The statement is false. There are many cases where even perfectly reliable sources make weird statements. And specifically for such cases we have WP:UNDUE, which clear says that a point view held by a small minority (we have just one ambiguous sentence in a singular paper) may be ignored or at least discussed in a separate article. My overall conclusion from the above rather useless discussion is that you are simply using this issue as a vehicle to advance your another well known position about the status of four well known TNOs, in other words this a continuation of POV pushing by other means. Ruslik_Zero 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, calling the statement ambiguous does not make it ambiguous. It is quite clear. How much weight we should give it is of course a different matter.

No serious reason to doubt is not the same as certainty. In science, the question is how certain we can be. Sheppard et al. accept the original 3 as "bonafide", and the next 6 as "likely". I don't understand why you find that difficult to understand. You do, however, raise a legitimate point about how much WP:WEIGHT we should give this particular source. That's why I introduced the RfC by saying this dispute was about NPOV and WEIGHT, the latter referring specifically to this question. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Size

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)

This result has not been officially published, so should not be used. It can still change. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not just that it can still change, but I wouldn't trust a reporter to get it right, though it looks credible enough. (Wow, I agree with Ruslik!) Perhaps we can write to Ortiz? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't just add it. I prefer to have the occultation result in the article, Ortiz could help us out here. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 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)

Eclips results out: Is this still a dwarf planet?

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 planetsPieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)?

Earth is not a perfect sphere either. Makemake spins in 7.7 hours while Haumea spins in 3.9 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My reading of that article is that the equatorial and polar diameters are different. 70 km is significant flattening for a body that size, but doesn't seem like a disqualifying amount. My quick calculations show that Saturn's moon Mimas, which is considered to be in equilibrium, is more significantly off-spherical than Makemake with these results. --Patteroast (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The exact shape does not matter, so long as the object has achieved hyrdostatic equilibruim. Haumea has an even greater disparity between its polar and equatorial diameters and is classified as a dwarf planet. The presence of an atmosphere has nothing to do if an object is considered a dwarf planet or not.XavierGreen (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note that Makemake is less squashed than Saturn (715/751 > 54400/60300). Density also affects how far off-spherical you have to go to be in H-E. Tbayboy (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article and its supplement you will see that 1,500 km value is not a reliable estimate of the semi-major axis. They basically have all chords near the equator, so they can only reliably estimate the semi-minor axis. In fact, it is perfectly possible to fit a circle to all chords with almost the same χ². More over 1,500 km value is not the result of a fitting procedure, but is based on an assumed (from physical considerations) value for flattening—1.05 ± 0.03. So, what is the real flattening of Makemake is still an open question. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Kuiper belt diagram needs to be reverted

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)

Weird. If you click on it, the problem suddenly goes away. --JorisvS (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I rv'd the img, since the whole point was to improve the display at small scales. Problems like this are really common w SVG. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Somehow it still gives black parts for me at the image's page, also after purging, though not here in the article!? --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Largest classical

Is there a possibility that Makemake is not the largest classical KBO? --JorisvS (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We might have missed s.t. that has the Milky Way as a backdrop, but chances are we've found most of the big stuff in the main belt. (Further out, it might be a couple decades before things clear the Milky Way.) I'd feel comfortable saying it is the biggest, and would be pleasantly surprised if it turns out we're wrong.

Do Brown et al. still consider it 'near scattered'? That's probably the only reason for the 'perhaps'. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If Makemake is a 'near scattered' objects, then so are all hot classicals. Seems pointless. I don't know about Brown. --JorisvS (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume the classification has settled down since then, but don't know. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There might not be a difference between near-scattered and hot-classical because of the Kozai mechanism? The note in the lead says it's not just Brown, but also Jewitt and Buie -- not a triad to dismiss. Tbayboy (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's always possible that something was missed, but I think the "known" is implicit. Along with the Milky Way, there's also the possibility of higher-inclination objects near their off-ecliptic peaks, beyond the "altitude" of the surveys. Tbayboy (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rotation period

Does anyone know why the JPL browser states a rotation period of 22.48 h?[5] --JorisvS (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolute magnitude

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)

There is no measured albedo (for these distantly observed objects), it is calculated from H and diameter. Each albedo source is calculated from the H and diameter that the writers had available to them at the time, so it's not valid to use one source's albedo with another's H or another's diameter estimate. You can see this in the size estimates that use assumed albedo. Tbayboy (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not directly, but by precise measurement of the spectrum, an estimate can be made. Regardless, the inconsistency remains. --JorisvS (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass

• It says in the article that its mass can't be easily measured, and it doesn't have a mass category in the stats. In the stats it does list both a volume and average density (from which it's rather easy to come up with a mass). Even if it is only an approximation, could the article not list a mass as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.70.8 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Citation for estimated mass (removed by user:double sharp): mass = 3 × 10²¹ kg = 0.0005 m_⊕ [7]. I agree with above though; any kind of figure, be it an educated guess, a rough estimate, or even just a physically reasonable range is better than having no data listed at all. Most minor planets without a precise mass on Wikipedia actually have several different estimates listed. As science progresses over time with new data, the figures on Wikipedia will eventually be updated. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've put it back in, with a question mark and with "(estimated)", to make it abundantly clear that this is a very rough estimate. For Makemake especially I'd be very careful, much more than for small minor planets, as Makemake is a dwarf planet and so is much more well-known. Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Most minor planets (asteroids) have estimated masses from KNOWN perturbations on other asteroids. We have no known perturbations by Makemake. Assuming a density of 1.7 g/cm³ with a radius of 715 km, Makemake would have a mass of 2.6 × 10²¹ kg. This very crude "estimate" comes from the 2013 version of this article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

...that its mass can only be estimated

...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)

… and it seems that you wish has been granted. Happiness! JDAWiseman (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:28, 2 May 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)

• I support the merge to Makemake. The information is scant enough to make no more than a small section. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the moons of the other dwarf planets each have their own page, and once a formal paper has been published on this moon, much more information will be available.XavierGreen (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what other information they can deduct from the images, other than estimating what they already said: size, albedo, orbit. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - in the future, much more information will be available on this satellite Mimihitam (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Then, in 30 or 75 years, when [if] a probe studies it, we can do that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Quaoar's only known natural satellite Weywot_(moon) has its own page, which has even less information available about it. Not to mention some of the unnamed moons of the gas giants. 134340Goat (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a good argument for merging Weywot into Quaoar. Tbayboy (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I support the merge to Makemake. There's not much to say, there's not likely to be much more in the foreseeable future, and Makemake itself is not a big article. Tbayboy (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons we have separate articles for each moon of other dwarf planets. Jonathunder (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, there are (and must be) separate articles for each moons, even for smallest ones. --Jugydmort (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as more information will become available, even if only about the orbit. (And the controversy about the name. ‘Moony McMoonFace, really?’) JDAWiseman (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The public announcement of this discovery is already drawing more attention to this moon. According to the New York Times, "More observations will enable them to precisely trace the orbit, and that will give an accurate measure of the mass and density of Makemake."[8] And this: "NASA’s New Horizons is currently on its way to perform a number of Kuiper belt flybys — so hopefully we’ll get to learn more about MK 2 over the next couple of years." [9] Scientists are currently in the process of trying to learn more about its orbit, and New Horizons will be in the vicinity in a few years. It's a slow process, but more information is clearly on the way Fraenir (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surface

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)

NASA news article is not a proper reference? Ruslik_Zero 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

… and it has an awful “artist's concept”, showing a moon that is both tiny and strangely spherical. Maybe it’s a fluid (!), so easily rounded. JDAWiseman (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with S/2015 (136472) 1

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)

Already proposed, discussed, and rejected. Are there new arguments in favour of the merge? JDAWiseman (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@JDAWiseman: The main argument used by those opposing the previous proposal—"more information will become available"—has lost all of its validity, as it turned out we didn't get much more information. The only other argument—"the moons of the other dwarf planets each have their own page"—isn't valid anymore either, as the moons of Haumea doesn't have their own article anymore. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Welp, looks like someone went ahead and made it so on an executive basis without any further vote or discussion, as links to S/2015 (136472) 1 now just redirect to the subsection on this article instead. Yay wiki democracy and all that. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you pronounce it?

How do you pronounce Makemake? 2602:30A:2CFC:B1A0:85D8:3728:7DA3:DDB3 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the same as Makemake_(deity). See also Makemake#cite_note-7. Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Given it's a Pacific region name, I assumed Mah-kay-mah-kay, but that could be wrong. (Broken speakers...) 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a Pronunciation entry in the stat table: /ˌmækiˈmæki/, /ˌmɑːkiˈmɑːki/ or /ˌmɑːkeɪˈmɑːkeɪ/ ^ⓘ.

Precovery and Tombaugh

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)

Comment You said ...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)

Whether someone has actually checked Tombaugh's plates to see if Makemake is there is an interesting question. It appears like Lowell Observatory were at one point planning to make the plate collection publically available, but I don't know when that might be or if they are even working on that.[10] Renerpho (talk) 00:42, 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)

I wonder if any writers have offhandedly speculated about whether Tombaugh could've discovered Makemake, and the consequences if he had. Surely people would have started thinking of Ceres and Pallas... Double sharp (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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

Makemake 3D Model

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)

Image can be deleted. It serves no purpose. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronounce

How to pronounce it 162.246.84.148 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Makemake#How do you pronounce it? 117daveawesome (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Rapa Nui pronunciation of the deity is [ˈmakeˈmake]. The name of the dwarf planet is usually pronounced [mækiˈmæki] in British English, and either [mɑːkiˈmɑːki] or [mɑːkeɪˈmɑːkeɪ] in American English. Some languages (like German) use the Rapa Nui pronunciation. Also see footnote (a) in the article. Renerpho (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)