Talk:Ahuna Mons

Name and awareness

This feature has no common name; unofficial or otherwise, so the name of this article is problematic. It is also not true that the feature has been known to the general public 'for a few days as of June 19, 2015'; it has been reported on as far back as May (example; the feature is visible in this animation released on 11 May). --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the article is moved to mountain feature on Ceres or something similar that does not give the false impression that this feature has a common name. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I try to keep up with Ceres discoveries, but was unaware of the Twitter photo, so thanks. Still, I contend most people had never heard of this large mountain on Ceres until the past few days. As for the name, since as you say it has none, I went for this one from the media. An article at Wikipedia requires a name, of course, and since I wanted to acknowledge the feature, which in my view is notable, here we are. Open to consensus on a name change, obviously. But I don't think we need to rush it. Let's see what develops. Jusdafax 11:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of my move suggestion is to be swift because the current article location reads as if it does have common name, which is unacceptable in my opinion (I initially considered being bold and moving it right away; but I was not sure what the best target would be). Either of the Great Pyramids we have articles on are not essential to the description of this object. It's not a pyramid, nor is it identical in shape to a pyramid (and as you can see on the upper left limb in this image, it might not be the only 'great' pyramid-like object on Ceres).

Article titles like mountain on Ceres, pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres, mound on Ceres etc. I would agree to. It is a mountain/mound, and from the current title Great Pyramid of Ceres you cannot tell this. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

After a number of searches, it appears that The Weather Network is the original source of the name "Great Pyramid," and that the other websites using it picked it up from TWN. Other sites are using "pyramid" in various ways. Perhaps a variant without the "Great?" It would be a good thing to not have to change it yet again. I confess I don't have a better name than any of your suggestions, which all seem a bit awkward. Any other thoughts from you or anyone else? Jusdafax 12:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed name change

• How about "Unnamed Mountian on Ceres?" Yes, we'd have to change it again, but this might be the best choice for now. Unless there are objection from editors who want the current term to stay, I think a placeholder could be the short-term fix. I could still be convinced to keep "pyramid" in the name, but I'm not sure how to phrase it. Jusdafax 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think unnamed goes without saying. I now think Pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres would be the best location, and then maybe we'll have an unofficial nickname from the Dawn team available in a month or two that could be used instead.

One would think that there was a precedent for things like this, but I cannot immediately think of a similar case. I've left a couple of notices (#1, #2) in an attempt to get more feedback. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What about using its location on Ceres to identify it? --JorisvS (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Which means do we have to represent its location on Ceres? --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(Approximate) coordinates. --JorisvS (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Pyramid-shaped mountian on Ceres" might be the best in the short term. Most of the name descriptions use "pyramid." Or could use quotes around "Great pyramid." Jusdafax 16:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple of comments; remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary reference, essentially indexing what others report. We should be following other reporting, not leading it. A second comment, looking at the picture (assuming I'm looking at the right spot), that looks to me more like a volcanic cone (say, like Mt. Fuji) than a pyramid. The fact that the weather channel calls it a pyramid isn't surprising, they seem to specialize in hyped names these days. Suggested name? Tall cone on Ceres.Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - "Pyramid-shaped mountian on Ceres" - based on the description by NASA - seems good to me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it the only one? Else we'd need something to identify it with, like coordinates. --JorisvS (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Have we established a coordinate system on Ceres yet? If so, we could just use the coordinate location (with an appropriate descriptor attached as well). -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I just recalled this article (scroll down), so it would seem so. We also have quad names that we could use. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - just created a possible quad map of Ceres (see below - and at "Ceres (dwarf planet)#Map of Quadrangles") - which may - or may not - be helpful with this - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The following imagemap of the dwarf planet Ceres is divided into 15 quadrangles – which may be provisional at the present time. North is at the top; 0 East is at the far left on the equator. The map images were taken by the Dawn space probe.

90°N 180°E

0°N 0°E

0°N 180°E

North Polar Area

Asari

Ac-H-1

Coniraya

Ac-H-2

Dantu

Ac-H-3

Ezinu

Ac-H-4

Fejokoo

Ac-H-5

Haulani

Ac-H-6

Kerwan

Ac-H-7

Nawish

Ac-H-8

Occator

Ac-H-9

Rongo

Ac-H-10

Sintana

Ac-H-11

Toharu

Ac-H-12

Urvara

Ac-H-13

Yalode

Ac-H-14

Zadeni

Ac-H-15

South Polar Area

Topographic map of Ceres as of February 2015. Darker areas represent lower elevations, and brighter areas represent higher elevations.

[]

References

It's not pyramid-shaped

I'm afraid "pyramid" is a sensationalist characterization. A pyramid by definition has triangular sides, and the NASA image of this feature shows no evidence of triangular sides. Being roundish, and its peak having a somewhat lower albedo than its sides, it vaguely resembles a barnacle.

As it is not pyramid-shaped, the article's name should certainly be changed. 174.24.39.82 (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes - perhaps - nonetheless - NASA describes the feature as a "pyramid-shaped mountain" - which may suffice - at least for now I would think - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

NASA has sufficient clout in this discussion, I believe. I continue to lean towards "Pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres" as the preferred title. Thanks. Jusdafax 12:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Now here is an object that truly has triangular sides... but nobody wants to create a Wikipedia article for it. I wonder why? 75.163.204.203 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - seems there may be more than one extraterrestrial pyramid-shaped object in the solar system - and on planet Mars - one such rock on Mars has its own Wikipedia article => at the following (if interested) => Jake Matijevic (rock) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The explanation is right there in the article you've linked to. It just happens to look pyramid-shaped from that specific viewing point. It's just some rock with a funny shape. --JorisvS (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for obsequiously deferring to NASA when NASA is in error (or when NASA plays up the sensationalist coverage a bit). 174.24.39.82 (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

May I refer you then to specific policy? WP:COMMONNAME covers it pretty well, I believe. Jusdafax 09:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That policy says "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". Note that this is merely a preference, not an exceptionless rule. It stands to reason that an exception can and should be made if the most-commonly-used name is in error. The mountain lacks triangular sides; therefore the most-commonly-used name is in error.

When the incorrect and sensationalist word "pyramid" is removed, the notability of this mountain suffers. The editors of this article are invested in its notability, and I suspect that explains why the incorrect word "pyramid" is clung to. 199.46.200.231 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that NASA is in error here, but given the present lack of alternative names, this one must do for now. Hopefully we'll get a better name (probably from NASA) soon so that this page can be quickly moved. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - another "name" used by NASA seems to be "intriguing mountain" based on a NASA file description of a somewhat newer Dawn image of the mountain - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Request for speedy name change

Coverage has grown substantially in the past day. Suggest we speedily agree to rename the article Pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres.

Numerous quality sources are using the "pyramid" name for the mountain;

• Washington Post in the body of this article refers to "a pyramid-shaped peak that towers three miles high over an otherwise fairly flat surface."

• NBC News in the title and this in the article: ..." a steep-sided mountain that rises about 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the dwarf planet's heavily cratered surface and has been nicknamed the "pyramid." "

• Huffington Post in the title and article.

• Daily Mail in the title and article.

• Discover Magazine in the title and article.

There are still other examples. "Pyramid" is in wide use. The term "Great Pyramid" is not further mentioned. So it should go, and I now believe we should expedite. At least I got the title partly right! Jusdafax 22:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• My sense of play sticks with, Great Pyramid of Ceres. My sense of seriousness says, White mountains on Ceres since there isn't only one and they surely are mountainous. News outlets and NASA, alas, have as yet failed to understand my wisdom in this matter. And notice, nobody's talking about the unnamed crater in which these white things appear. For that, I fear that Crater Giza will not be considered.

is it "of Ceres," or "on Ceres" for the name?

• Thanks Wolfman for the redirect! But it should be "on" Ceres, not "of." Also not really happy with the deletions, frankly. Jusdafax 00:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have moved it. --JorisvS (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Jusdafax 16:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Location?

Has anyone determined the location of this object yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDWeathers (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Earliest Images of Mountain OK - or Not?

Seems the "pyramid-shaped" mountain on Ceres appeared in images (see images below) well before (ie, ≤ "19 February 2015") the mountain's "discovery" date of "6 June 2015", currently presented in the main article. However, these images were deleted, without discussion, on 28 July 2015 by User:Kwamikagami.

QUESTION: Should these images (as well as, other deleted undiscussed article content?) be restored to the main article - or Not? - Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Dawn images (cropped & enlarged) of mountain
Context versions

N is up?; Approach image (bw)
(Dawn; 19 February 2015)

N is up?; Approach image (color)
(Dawn; < 1 March 2015?)

• Delete I don't see how these two images add anything to the article. I deleted a lot of trivia about details of the press coverage of the mountain (per WP:TRIVIA), and the fact that the mountain can be identified in pre-discovery images (which the average reader will find it almost impossible to see it in) has no bearing on the nature or science of the mountain. Unless some scientific result is obtained some day that depends on one of those images, but until then they are of no use. If we merely want to keep them in case some editor decides to use them, that's what image categories are for, not article galleries. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Radical deletions: Proposal to restore article

I strongly object to the deletion of the majority of the article, and propose we restore it to the version prior to the massive cuts. Jusdafax 16:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. The article should be about the mountain. Who cares what CNN said about the discovery, now that we have analyses from NASA/JPL? Also, someone pasted a section about comparative height in multiple articles without bothering to customize it. The result was that the "comparison" had little to do with the mountain in question. (Why should we note here that a mountain on the Moon is comparable in height to a mountain on Mars, when neither are very close to the mountain this article is about?) Again, the topic of this article is the mountain on Ceres, and *that* is what we should write about. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all valid information for readers interested in the topic, and well-sourced. I take issue with your unilateral deletion, done without discussion, and your uncollegial manner and bearing. I say again, I propose that we restore the article to the state it was in prior to your deletions, which are based on your interpretation of a policy that you unilaterally have decided to "enforce." Jusdafax 18:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The comparison to other mountains elsewhere in the Solar System is inherently meaningless (due to differences in sphericity, weathering regimes, gravitational pull, isostasy, etc.) If it did have a purpose then it would probably be OR. Geogene (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Having just looked at the 3192 deleted characters, there was very little about the subject of the article. It shouldn't come back. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a lot of information that I did not see the point of including in the article, but the deletion also seems indiscriminate. I've re-added information about bright streaks on mountain slopes and that the discovery of the mountain was unexpected. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, bright streaks belong. But there's no content in saying that we don't expect things we don't know about. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Except we did know about Ceres and many other celestial bodies. No one were surprised about the existence of craters, central peaks, central pits, bright spots, troughs, mass wasting nor Ceres' spherical shape. That's why this information belongs in the article as it is central to putting the mountain in context with the rest of the objects in the solar system we have studied and our theories about how they work. It's part of science history. --Njardarlogar (talk)

The comparisons to other mountains across the solar system is not relevant, and since secondary sources don't seem to be interested, it's probably OR. I don't follow the argument about it being science history. As a technical point, the bright spots weren't expected either. But is that really a big deal, considering there have only been a few asteroid missions? Geogene (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Bright spot(s) were known from Hubble observations already, so no, they could not have been a surprise since they were already hinted at (not talking about the bright spots in Occator in particular). As far as I've read, most scientists did/do not compare Ceres with asteroids, but with the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn (example from mission scientist Paul Schenk), and they don't have mountains like this. But deciding what we could or could not expect from Ceres on this talk page is OR. If the mission PI says that a mountain like this was "completely unexpected", then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it really was. Unless, that is, we can find reliable sources where scientists say otherwise; but I don't recall reading an interview where a scientist said something to the effect that "this was something we thought we might find", or, alternatively "we had no idea what we might find on Ceres". --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Name

Features on the world Ceres other than craters are to be named after agricultural festivals. Since there is only one large mountain, it might have been fitting to name it Cerealia after the festival of the goddess Ceres. However, the powers that be have apparently chosen Ysolo Mons after the ancient Albanian eggplant planting party. Maybe someone thought this mountain looks more like an eggplant than a pyramid. Jonathunder (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Check the infobox coordinates on that map. It's not Ysolo Mons. Geogene (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ysolo Mons is in the far north near Asari Crater. The subject of this article is south of Fejokoo Crater. Jonathunder (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Science journal special

The Science journal just released a special issue with lots of new info on Ceres, however it is behind a paywall. Anybody has access to it? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - seems the following reference, re the Dawn Mission to Ceres (dwarf planet), may be related to the Science (journal) articles => https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901155103.htm - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot more than that on Ceres: [1]

BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

References

"Great Pyramid of Ceres" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Great Pyramid of Ceres. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Great Pyramid of Ceres until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 2pou (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)