Talk:28978 Ixion

Pronunciation

6/8 of the dictionaries and mythological refs (Webster, Bollard, Brewer, Fagles, etc) I've found which list a pronunciation for Ixion have [ick-SIGH-un] as the only possibility. The other two (Columbia Encyclopedia and Zimmerman) had only [ICK-see-un]. This "feels" more Greek to an Anglophone. However, in Latin transliteration the first i vowel was short and the second long, supporting the majority opinion that the stress should be penultimate, since English generally follows the Latin for stress placement in Greek words. --kwami 06:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Greek is Ιξίων, and from this you might expect ik'-see-un. However, the classical Greek script was defective in not distinguishing long from short [i]. Liddell & Scott's Greek lexicon shows the iota as long, ῑ. Also, Latin borrowed the name as Ixīōn, giving us the penultimate stress, ik-sye'-un. --kwami 04:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Per Cassel's dict., the adjectival form is Ixīonian (short o takes the stress). kwami 05:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Colour

I removed the following sentence because it's not properly explained. If anyone knows what it means, rewrite it and return it.

The infrared spectrum was found flat (did not show the red slope of Varuna)

The Singing Badger 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid yours truly is the culprit who put this statement. It means precisely what is written. The spectrum is flat. Point. Unlike many other objects, showing red slope i.e. showing greater reflectivity in the redder (longer wave) section. If we were talking about visible spectrum, the object with flat spectrum would appear neutral (grey). The objects with red slope in the visible spectrum reflect better longer waves (red colour) than the shorter (blue) so they appear red. The steeper the slope the redder they appear. In the near infrared spectrum, often the notion of colours is still used by extension. Redder means longer waves. Bluer, shorter. The slope (relative reflectivity increasing or diminishing with the wave length) is a hint to the composition of the surface. I guess we need extra links and/or extensions of the existing articles. Explaining this here for Ixion does not help.

Sudden popular interest in NTO exposed articles with a bit more technical content. Still, I believe the encyclopaedia cannot stop on the level of the background information for the news. Hundreds sources on the internet do that. Consequently, I do not believe that we should start deleting technical content. Please compare with often extremely arcane articles in reputable encyclopaedias. We need to add extra articles/content in related areas, so the technical content can be linked to, not deleting. Are we going to delete content from elliptic integrals for example because a casual reader has no clue what this is about? Regards Eurocommuter 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you, and I apologise for any offence caused. I just find that taking sentences out to the talk page for reworking is usually the fastest way of getting them fixed. I absolutely agree that the technical information should be there. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo or a garbled sentence (the sentence as it stood was not strictly grammatical, and I did try looking at the articles on spectrum and infrared, and neither contained the word 'slope', hence my concern). Anyway, I think 'red slope' simply needs wikilinking to encourage some work on a future article, and I apologise again for misjudging the situation. The Singing Badger 01:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooops... No apologies needed, TheSingingBadger, except from me for what can be read as an outburst of my bad karma (I really did not realise it while typing…), I’m sorry!

Indeed, red links seem to be a good reminder and an encouragement to provide at least a stub. The proof. Regards Eurocommuter 13:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:28978 Ixion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sam-2727 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This will probably take a couple of days max. I'll list all my preliminary comments as bullets and then go through all the main criteria was those are addressed. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

• Y "It was given the provisional designation 2001 KX76, indicating that it was discovered in the second half of May 2001." Would it be useful to briefly explain the designation in a footnote? (so at the end of the paragraph say second half of May is K and then X76 is because of recycling 25 letters and then increasing the number each time all 25 letters are repeated. Might be a bit wordy and too much, but I think it would be something that the reader might wonder
• Y "V-band magnitude," the study cited refers to this as "optical magnitude." I'm fairly certain the two are equivalent, but optical/visual magnitude is a better term than "V-band" in my opinion
• Y "Under the assumption of a low albedo, it was presumed to have a large diameter around 1,200 km (750 mi)" the word "large" is repeated heavily in this paragraph. I would remove it in this phrase and in the subsequent sentence ("concluded a similarly large size")
• Y "However, they later reevaluated their results in 2003 and realized that their detection of Ixion's thermal emission was spurious" however at a beginning of a sentence is awkward. It reads just as well if it is removed (so the sentence begins "They later...")
• Y "has not addressed the possibility of officially accepting additional dwarf planets since the acceptance of Makemake and Haumea in 2008." You have two IAU sources here, but none of them say definitively that the IAU hasn't addressed the possibility of naming others, just that they haven't yet.
• Y "considers Ixion to be highly likely a dwarf planet," change to "highly likely be"
• Y For the first two sentences of "Orbit and rotation," might be better to word as "Ixion is classified as a plutino, or an object that has 2:3 resonance with Neptune (footnote that they are named after pluto, itself a plutino). That is, it completes two orbits around the sun for every three orbits that Neptune takes." Just think it clarifies the nature of Plutinos more.

This is legitimately well written and out of the entire article which I spent scrutinizing for a long time, these are the only suggestions I could come up with. A lot of these are suggestions though so if you feel that any of them are erroneous, let me know. I'll go through the major criteria one more time probably tomorrow. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Final evaluation against criteria

Sorry, had some IRL stuff to attend to before getting back to this. Definitely a pass and I'm closing this review as I have no other comments on changes to make. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My comments on the criteria (in order):

• Well written. MOS compliant.
• Nearly all references from published scientific articles.
• No missing details that I can ascertain.
• I mean, it's an asteroid but sure
• See above
• Very well illustrated. Images relevant to article and expand on content.

Right Ascension

I was searching for Ixion's right ascension in longitude (ie: its position at a determined Epoch measured from the Zero Aries fiducial). This does not seem to be in Ixion's infobox. Can we get this? It is one of the customary orbital arguments. 70.27.169.176 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)