Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This is going nowhere

I think we can all agree that there is no consensus for this radical change. As such, I think we can hold off until more and better sources come in. Sooner or later these disputed objects will be officially called dwarf planets. Let's just cool our heels for now, shall we? Serendipodous 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Science is not determined by what is "official". It is determined by evidence. And WP is determined by sources. Neither are democracies. This is like debating astrologers on the astrology article a couple months ago. We don't vote on reality. If s.o. can come up with a face-saving way of reflecting our sources (as Martin Hogbin suggested two sections up), fine, but reflect our sources we must. If people here refuse to accept that, and are going to edit war over it, then we need escalate this.
Are people willing to accept Martin's position (and that of I-now-forget-who before him)? — kwami (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not the job of WP to make decisions as to what are officially DPs and what are not thus we can only present the facts as shown in reliable sources. We should list all objects that have been described as a DP in any reliable source but also indicate their status regarding recognition by the IAU. What alternative is being proposed, that we should completely omit some bodies that have been described as DPs? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It's the "official" part that's the problem. Science doesn't care about what's official. Yes, we should definitely include formal recognition by the IAU, but shouldn't use that as a basis for classification. When deciding whether to call s.t. a DP, we should go off one thing and one thing only: our sources. Official rec by the IAU counts as peer review. Official rejection by the IAU would also count as peer review for excluding a body. But the IAU declining to give an opinion is not evidence for or against anything. — kwami (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As regards this page, I think Martin's idea is a good one. However, other reliable sources give different numbers of dwarf planets, so we would need to list about 14. As regards changing the pages of Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar and OR10 to say they are dwarf planets, I disagree. Serendipodous 07:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to expand the list further. However, we already have a candidates article for that. I think it is useful to distinguish between objects which everyone who addresses the issue says are DPs, vs objects which are only probably DPs, if we aren't over-estimating their sizes and if they aren't rocky. Given our ignorance of the region, high-albedo rocky objects are a substantial possibility. I would prefer to use the candidates page for those objects where our sources are in disagreement. — kwami (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to give IAU recognised DPs higher prominence within the article, by having them at the top of the list for example, but we must avoid making decisions ourselves about what is and what is not a DP. If the position is not totally clear then we must report that fact rather than trying to make a decision here.
Regarding individual articles, we should again state the facts - Xxxx has been described as a DP by Yyyy but has not been recognised as such by the IAU. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we do that with all articles, or only for a select few?
Normally populations of astronomical objects like this are ordered by distance. There was a suggestion above to indicate different degrees of acceptance by color, and I think that would work. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You are starting to sound like a stuck record. No, Wikipedia does not go by what sources say. It goes only by what reliable sources say. And blogs are not among them generally. The burden of proof that a particular blog is a reliable source lies on the person who wants to use it, on you in this case. However, you presented no evidence that this blogs meets standards of reliability. Ruslik_Zero 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As for justifying Brown's site, WP policy is as follows: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Brown certainly qualifies here.— kwami (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"May be" does not mean "should be". So, I still want to see the evidence. Ruslik_Zero 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
What "evidence"? The "may" refers to the fact that we don't use self-published sources when peer-reviewed sources cover the same material. Not, unfortunately, the case here. — kwami (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"May" means that decision to use a blog should be made on case by case basis. The publications on the blog should have necessary attributes of scientific publication: independent reviews, appropriate attribution of the results of other scientists, style appropriate for scientific publication, appropriate citations for non-obvious claims etc. Does this blog (which looks like a political statement) possess these attributes? Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
And "should" appears to mean "what I want". Do you have evidence that it's more than that? — kwami (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
These are ordinary requirements for scientific publication. Nothing special. If a blog to be used as a reliable for controversial claims, it must satisfy them. Ruslik_Zero 14:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This argument now just seems to be about the format of the article. We seem to agree that we can include, somewhere in the article at least, objects which have been described by reliable sources as DPs but which have not been recognised as such by the IAU.

I think the solution is to ask ourselves how it will appear from the reader's perspective. Readers should be able to clearly see which objects have been recognised as DPs by the IAU. They should not expect to have to wade through stacks of prospective or possible DPs in order to find them. On the other hand they might expect to be able to find, maybe with a bit more effort, information on objects which reliable sources have proposed as DPs.

Remember, our job is not to make decisions, it is to present information in the way that is most useful to the reader. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we want to divide up the tables, then we should divide them up: known DPs (2), IAU-accepted DPs (another 3), and otherwise accepted DPs (another 4 that there is no disagreement about). That would be six tables, and I think difficult to navigate. IMO it would be much clearer to put them in two tables and color code them. We have a hat link for additional candidates which we cannot be sure about. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This can be done with 1 table alone. siafu (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I would also agree to this general approach. One table would be fine with a clear indication of status. Not just background colour please, for accessibility reasons (colour blind or screen reader users). --Mirokado (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever approach is used the tables would benefit from greater consistency. If we only have the number of objects that are in the article at present then I would have thought that one table would be fine. Status could be indicated in plain English or by simple yes/no in headed columns. Maybe bold could also be selectively used for clarity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
All 5 of the IAU dwarfs should be treated as equals in one table and the lesser Trans-Neptunian objects (<1400km) listed in another. The true sizes of Sedna and OR10 are not known. -- Kheider (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As per Kheider, and as per how we have been treating the material for at least the past five years. Five dwarf planets, with x others seriously considered to be meeting the standards. --Ckatzchatspy 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a very unscientific POV. Why should we take the IAU to be the arbiter when they haven't even addressed the issue? Science goes by sources, not bureaucracy, and WP is the same. If and when the IAU addresses this, they will be relevant. Meanwhile they're not. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
NO!!! The science says quite clearly that the 4 Trans-Neptunian IAU dwarfs are well known to be ~1400+ km. The "near certain" ones are could easily be much smaller! -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh, have you reviewed the data? Two of them are smaller. Two are them are estimated to be about the same size. The difference is that their estimates are much less precise. Again, we go with our sources. If you can find a source that say we can't be sure these are DPs because the estimates are so imprecise that they may be below the cut-off, then of course we will take that into account. But unless you get published, you are not a source. In Brown's opinion, even given the lesser precision of these estimates, they "must" be in HE. And for the two smaller ones, of course, we have moons, so the estimates are much more precise. — kwami (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You are again lying. Neither sizes no masses of two of them (Sedna and OR10) are known. They well can be 800-900 km in diameter. Insisting that your opponents prove negative is also dishonest. You know that it is not possible. Ruslik_Zero 15:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Senda could easily be ~1200km (if not smaller), the albedo of OR10 is assumed. Ruslik is right, Kwamikagami you are distorting the known truth. -- Kheider (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This isn't actually the point here. Just Wikipedia policy: Going by the sources. We have sources saying these are DPs, none saying these might not be (you are not sources). You may doubt the reliableness of the sources, that's fine to discuss. There is, however, no need to digress and try to establish the Truth here. --JorisvS (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Kheider, you might want to read what I wrote. Did I ever say otherwise? For you, "could be smaller" becomes "probably smaller", and somehow that's my distortion? — kwami (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
@Kheider:The 1400 km limit you drew up has no scientific relevance that I know of, as we know that already objects above 800 km are in hydrostatic equilibrium no matter their composition. Nor has the IAU classified DPs by this criterion (otherwise Ceres would not qualify). For TNOs, the IAU seems to be using the "absolute magnitude <1" criterion as in their naming procedures, which corresponds to a minimal diameter of ~800 km, NOT 1400 km. If Orcus et al. had an albedo of 100% and thus H<1, they would probably already have been acknowledged by the IAU.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Ceres was known to be over 900km in diameter. Large known dwarf planets should be more notable than assumed-diameter smaller ones, thus I would like to see 2 tables. -- Kheider (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I never disputed that. My point was that Ceres is smaller than the 1400 km that you advocate as a lower limit for dwarf planets. The "known" dwarf planet Ceres is certainly smaller than Sedna and 2007OR10, so why should it be more notable based on size? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I never said objects less than 1400km can not be a dwarf planet. I have said that objects smaller than about 1400km that are not well studied should be in a second list. And let us be careful when we state something as an outright fact. Ceres is known to be 970km in diameter (because it is close to us in the asteroid belt), while Mike Brown's best-fit places a lower limit of ~1000km on OR10 (which is 86AU from the Sun). -- Kheider (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so Ceres is only "almost certainly" smaller than 2007 OR10. But the point of my first post was that this 1400km limit you propose for TNOs is unscientific and not supported by the IAU's statements or any other reliable sources, so it has no place in an encyclopedia. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that lying has become a favorite weapon of those who want to "upgrade" the status of those four objects. Kheider has never proposed any size limit. Ruslik_Zero 10:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Martin, siafu and Mirokado that one table including the nine objects in question would be best. The IAU-acknowledged dwarf planets could be somewhat emphasized by bold face or background colouring.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
TNOs known to be 1400+ km in diameter should be more notable than TNOs that probably are <1400 km. I would like to see 2 tables. -- Kheider (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The only ones "known to be 1400+ km in diameter" are Pluto and Eris. So you would have Pluto and Eris in one table, and Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Brown's four in the second? I could live with that, but bodies that have been observed to be in HE "should be more notable" than bodies which are merely assumed to be DPs for naming purposes, so how about Ceres & Pluto in one table, and all the rest in the second?
Such opinions are arbitrary, and really have no place in a scientific article. Better one table differentiated by color. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
the only justification for two table would be if there were so many proposed DPs that the table became so large that the IAU ones could not be easily identified by readers. I agree with Kwamikagami that we should not make arbitrary distinctions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not "arbitrary"; one table lists those objects formally accepted as dwarf planets, the other lists the others. We're not rejecting Brown's observations, but neither are we taking the place of the IAU in deciding what should be labelled a DP. --Ckatzchatspy 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What's with your insistence on "formal" and "official"? --JorisvS (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
@Ckatz, I was referring to the 1400+ km size distinction. Having two tables based on this seems arbitrary to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The ending of the article is very confusing. It looks like a lot of OR and Synth to me to organize things into 3 bins as: DP, "nearly certain" DP, and other candidates. I did a google search and there are only 6 hits for the term "nearly certain dwarf planet(s)", none of them from RS. I think the whole "nearly certain" thing has to go unless someone can dig up a significant amount of RS directly supporting these three tiers of recognition that does not require synthesis from wikipedia. On the other hand, there are plenty of RS for the 5 IAU DPs, and plenty of RS for DP candidates that "should" or "could" be included (per the opinion of the RS). It seems better to present it like that -- let the article reflect DPs and identify the listed IAU DPs, and then add a final paragraph about all other objects that some RS think could or should be classified as DPs. This keeps it simple and removes any bit of OR.Dwcarless (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

that sound a good idea to me. Let us stick to facts supported by reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Only 5 IAU dwarfs are supported by reliable sources. Everything else is just an attempt by some editors to "upgrade" soem other objects by twisting what sources say. Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I find "nearly certain" a really poor construction. How nearly? According to who? If they aren't confirmed or broadly agreed on, they're candidates; how "nearly certain" anybody is doesn't seem relevant, to me. I don't recall mention of "nearly certain" in ref, say, exoplanets, just "possible" & "confirmed", with the characteristics proposed/suspected for the unconfirmed. Why isn't that good enough? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Because several editors here think that classifications depend on what is "official" rather than sources or the evidence. I agree that it is badly worded. We should simply say that bodies are DPs when we have RS's that they're DPs.
As for 'how nearly', that would be anything that "must" be a DP according to our understanding, but which hasn't been observed to be ellipsoidal, except for objects which the IAU has accepted as DPs, even though they are not certain. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"anything that 'must' be a DP according to our understanding, but which hasn't been observed to be ellipsoidal" That's the kind of problem I was getting at, & we're back to "must according to whom?" Which is why IMO saying "nearly" is asking for trouble. It seems to me they're either confirmed by more than one source (that is, the discoverer's putative classification alone isn't enough) or they're not. Thus there are only two groups: DPs & candidates. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"Must be" according to our sources. That's why we have sources. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"sources" Which is what I mean: a single source could be completely wrong, even if it's reliable on its face. When in doubt, as in these cases, IMO a single source is insufficient. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've had to remove Kwami's changes yet again as they are still contrary to the way the discussion appears to be unfolding. Looking at the structure, perhaps it would be best to move the text and tables about Brown's four objects to the "candidates" section that immediately follows. --Ckatzchatspy 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the section until this is resolved. This is a featured article; unscientific POv like this has no place. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Your deletion has been reverted; please do not disrupt a featured article in this manner. There is no consensus as of yet for either your personal revisions or for the deletion of an entire section. --Ckatzchatspy 07:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ckatz, you are the one disrupting the article. You are the one insisting on your POV on a scientific article despite not having a clue what science is. You can either stop fighting for a non-scientific POV on a FA, or we can remove the section until consensus is reached. Either that or rescind FA status. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
As you're now aware, I've filed a complaint at WP:3RR re: your actions. I've been reluctant to do so, given your other contributions, and I've no desire to see you blocked, as I have made clear in the complaint. Unfortunately, you have shown no interest in respecting the concerns raised on this page and elsewhere regarding your repeated changes to incorporate your preferred text while the RfC is still under way. --Ckatzchatspy 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Quaoar has been observed to be ellipsoidal. So what? Ruslik_Zero 08:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If you knew what a dwarf planet was, you'd be able to answer your own question. If that is true, it would mean that Quaoar is a dwarf planet. — kwami (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I see the problem here. Kwami's charge about whether Ruslik_Zero "knows or does not know what a dwarf planet is" is immaterial. We do not need to know. All that we need to do is to be able to reproduce what RS says they are, directlty and without synth (which Ruslik_Zero has done). I think Kwami's "knowledge" is leading him to OR and SYNTH (if criteria A, B and C define a DP, and object D meets said criteria, then object D must be a DP regardless of the IAU list). I think it also is leading him to POV and UNDUE by using a minority source (like a blog) to push either that view (extra DPs) or some version of it (extra special nearly certain super duper candidate DPs) that is not supported by the IAU list. Dwcarless (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not the case. We have multiple sources (plural!) for at least Sedna, Orcus, and Quaoar (and, at least, one for several more). These specifically say these are dwarfs, so no synthesis! There have been no (R)Ss presented here that really question this, just a good number that use the term "dwarf planet" when referring to Eris, Pluto, Makemake, and Haumea and not to others (but also one that talks about Haumea, along with Sedna, as "a strong candidate"), which means OR would be required to use this to question other RSs that do say these are dwarfs. The IAU list is no source to exclude them either, because again OR would be required for this: It does say anything about those not listed. --JorisvS (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The IAU has a list of the 5 objects designated as Dwarf Plants. They do not need a seperate list of the billions of other objects that they "designate" as non-Dwarf Planets. Nor do they need to issue a statement "debunking" any particular object that someone other than the IAU "decides" is a Dwarf Planet. I have seen no source reliable or credible enough to challange the reliability of IAU nor its designations. If you think your sources are, then you need to take it up at the Wikipedia Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. Dwcarless (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
So for you the IAU is the Source™? If the IAU would have a simple note accompanying their list saying that the dwarf-planet status of objects not included in their list must (still) be considered uncertain, then they'd be a real counter-source. Without it, inferring that this is their position, how tempting it may be and straightforward it may seem, would constitute OR. --JorisvS (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
And that would be footnote 2, mentioned above, where they state that objects are to be assigned to the category, as pointed out by the Tancredi-Favre paper. Tbayboy (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all, because of their wording. As I have explained somewhere above, that can mean a very different thing: "borderline objects" to mean objects like Vesta. Vesta is rounded but has a relative surface roughness clearly higher than e.g. Ceres. Logically, "borderline" refers to cases where it becomes important to decide how big the inevitable deviations from perfect HE are allowed to be before an object should no longer be considered a dwarf planet. Most currently uncertain cases will turn out to be very clear-cut DPs, not at all borderline cases. --JorisvS (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point: It's saying that there is a list to be assigned to. Tbayboy (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Then you missed mine. I said that inferring something from just that list, however straightforward it may seem, would be OR. --JorisvS (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────JorisvS says "Logically, "borderline" refers to cases where it becomes important to decide how big the inevitable deviations from perfect HE are allowed to be before an object should no longer be considered a dwarf planet. Most currently uncertain cases will turn out to be very clear-cut DPs, not at all borderline cases." That's SYNTH, and now also CRYSTALBALL. We can't jump the gun. When IAU announces any new DPs then we can update the article. Dwcarless (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't matter because I don't want it in the article. I'm simply illustrating how inferring things from the IAU pieces mentioned above constitutes OR. --JorisvS (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

deleted section

Here's the deleted section, without unscientific distinctions, for keeping until this nonsense is resolved. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is not the version reflecting the long-standing conventions used on the page, but instead reflects Kwami's desired perspective. --Ckatzchatspy 07:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The long-standing "convention" you speak of is simply an old version which does not reflect recent sources. Understanding of scientific concepts does change over time, you know. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As of 2011, five objects have been accepted as dwarf planets by the IAU,[1] with four others thought to be "nearly certain".[2] For two of these, Ceres and Pluto, this is known through direct observation. The other seven are thought to be dwarf planets from mathematical modeling: they are large enough or massive enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium even if they are primarily rocky and at the lower end of their measured values. Eris is more massive than Pluto; and Eris, Haumea, and Makemake were accepted as dwarf planets for the purposes of naming by the IAU, whose naming rules are based on absolute magnitude.[3][4] In relative distance from the Sun, they are:

  1. Ceres Ceres – discovered on January 1, 1801, 45 years before Neptune. Considered a planet for half a century before reclassification as an asteroid. Accepted as a dwarf planet by the IAU on September 13, 2006.
  2. Orcus – discovered on February 17, 2004.
  3. Pluto Pluto – discovered on February 18, 1930. Classified as a planet for 76 years. Reclassified as a dwarf planet by the IAU on August 24, 2006.
  4. Haumea – discovered on December 28, 2004. Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on September 17, 2008.
  5. Quaoar – discovered on June 5, 2002.
  6. Makemake – discovered on March 31, 2005. Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on July 11, 2008.
  7. 2007 OR10 – discovered on July 17, 2007.
  8. Eris – discovered on January 5, 2005. Called the "tenth planet" in media reports. Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on September 13, 2006.
  9. Sedna – discovered on November 14, 2003.

No space probes have visited any of these. This will change if NASA's Dawn and New Horizons missions reach Ceres and Pluto, respectively, as planned in 2015.[5][6] Dawn entered orbit around potential dwarf planet Vesta, on July 16, 2011.[7]

Orbital attributes of dwarf planets[8]
Name Region of
Solar System
Orbital
radius (AU)
Orbital period
(years)
Mean orbital
speed (km/s)
Inclination
to ecliptic
Orbital
eccentricity
Planetary
discriminant
Acceptance
as a dwarf planet
Ceres Asteroid belt 2.77 4.60 17.882 10.59° 0.079 0.33 observation of shape
Orcus Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.17 245.18 20.57° 0.227 0.003
Pluto Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.48 248.09 4.666 17.14° 0.249 0.077 observation of shape
Haumea Kuiper belt (12:7) 43.13 283.28 28.22° 0.195 0.020 IAU naming process
Quaoar Kuiper belt (cubewano) 43.405 285.97 8.00° 0.039 0.007–0.010
Makemake Kuiper belt (cubewano) 45.79 309.9 4.419 28.96° 0.159 0.02 IAU naming process
2007 OR10 Scattered disc (10:3?) 67.21 550.98 30.70° 0.500  ?
Eris Scattered disc 67.67 557 3.436 44.19° 0.442 0.10 more massive than Pluto
Sedna Detached 518.57 ~11,400 11.93° 0.853  ?
Physical attributes of dwarf planets
Name Equatorial
diameter
relative to
the Moon
Equatorial
diameter
(km)[2]
Mass
relative to
the Moon
Mass
(×1021 kg)
Density
(g/cm3)
Surface
gravity
(m/s2)
Escape
velocity

(km/s)
Axial
inclination
Rotation
period

(days)
Moons Surface
temp.
(K)
Atmosphere
Ceres 28% 974.6±3.2 1.3% 0.94 2.08 0.27 0.51 ≈ 3° 0.38 0 167 none
Orcus ≈ 27% 950±? 0.9% 0.63 ° 0.55 1
Pluto 66% 2306±10 17.8% 13.05 2.0 0.58 1.2 119.59° −6.39 4 44 transient
Haumea ≈ 43% 1500±? 5.5% 4.01 ± 0.04 2.6–3.3 (?) 0.16 2 32 ± 3  ?
Quaoar ≈ 28% 980±? 1.8–2.6% 1.6 ± 0.3 ° 0.74 1
Makemake ≈ 41% 1440±? ≈ 4% ? ≈ 3 ?  ?  ? 0.32 0 ≈ 30 transient?
2007 OR10 ≈ 41% 1420±?  ?  ?  ? 0
Eris ≈ 67% 2330±? 22.7% 16.7 2.5 ≈ 0.8 1.3 ≈ 1 (0.75–1.4) 1 ≈ 42 transient?
Sedna ≈ 40% 1400±? 2.4–5.9% 1.8–4.3?  ? 0.42 0 ≈ 12

Dark-blue rows are objects directly observed to be dwarf planets; medium blue, additional objects accepted by the IAU; light blue, additional objects accepted by Brown.

  1. ^ "IAU names fifth dwarf planet Haumea". Paris: International Astronomical Union. 2008-09-17. Retrieved 16 September 2011. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference BrownList was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Dwarf Planets and their Systems". Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN). 2008-07-11. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
  4. ^ "IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes". International Astronomical Union. 2006-08-26. Archived from the original on October 25, 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-26. 
  5. ^ Russel, C.T.; Capaccioni, F.; Coradini, A.; et al. (2006). "Dawn Discovery mission to Vesta and Ceres: Present status". Advances in Space Research 38 (9): 2043–48. Bibcode:2006AdSpR..38.2043R. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2004.12.041. 
  6. ^ Britt, Robert Roy (2003). "Pluto Mission a Go! Initial Funding Secured". Space.com. Retrieved 2007-04-13. 
  7. ^ http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.asp accessed 2011-07-25
  8. ^ Bowell, Ted. "The Asteroid Orbital Elements Database". Lowell Observatory. Retrieved 2008-02-12. 

Discussion

Calm down chaps, there is no real disagreement about content here, we are just considering the best way to present it to our readers. I thought there was agreement to have one table with IAU recognised DPs being clearly identified in that table. Is that not the case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not the case. Many of us still prefer 2 tables: the IAU dwarfs >~1400kms and the best candidates <~1400km. Kwami is trying to force his views on other regular editors of this article. And I thought if there was only going to be one table, it was already made clear that there had to be a column specifying if it was an IAU dwarf or not. -- Kheider (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean 4 tables? There is agreement that those on the IAU list can be indicated a such when the tables are condensed, though not necessarily by an extra column. --JorisvS (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kheider, AFAIK you are the only one who has proposed this, and no-one has agreed with you on it. Combined with what Ckatz is insisting on, that would result in 6 tables.
However, I have no problem with an extra column for 'accepted by the IAU'. I added a column to the top table. — kwami (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand. IAU is very clear with its list of 5 DPs. There should be a table with those 5, and only those 5, per RS, within the main article. For those who want to have this article include "candidates (non-listed IAU objects)", then I think there needs to be a seperate paragraph toward the bottom (or maybe even a seperate article?) discusing any such object that has some RS backing. Then a seperate table for those objects, within that context and following that text, might be useful. Dwcarless (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
DW, the IAU hasn't addressed the issue for several years. That's the problem with relying on a bureaucracy. We have a better idea about these objects now than we did then. Also, there was never a distinction between 5 DPs and other bodies not DPs. Rather, there were 2 known DPs, 1 more massive than Pluto assumed to be a DP, and two which met the albedo requirements for being named as DPs. That is not a scientific process, so the current list of 5 is only pretend science. — kwami (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see the discussion is ongoing. What is the relevance of 1400km? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All 4 of the IAU trans-Neptunian dwarfs are well measured and have average diameters measured to be around 1400+km. These are the well-known large dwarf planets. Sedna and OR10 could turn out to be only 1200km in diameter since their diameters are only estimated. Sedna and OR10 are weaker candidates even if (mathematically) they should be dwarf planets. This is why I would like to use 2 different tables (or sets of tables?) until astronomers (not Wikipedia) better define what is accepted as a dp and what is not. -- Kheider (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Please explain how your 1400-km cut-off point is relevant. --JorisvS (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The difference is measured diameters (the big 4) vs estimated diameters (for Sedna+OR10 based on albedo assumptions). The candidates are only estimated and Wikipedia should wait for a greater scientific consensus that they are dps. -- Kheider (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, a claim new to me! Therefore: [citation needed]. --JorisvS (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Even Mike Brown makes this measured vs estimate obvious... -- Kheider (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's what you're talking about. In that case Quaoar and Orcus must be treated on a par with Makemake and Haumea etc.. Otherwise we'd be back at this arbitrary, OR 1400-km cut-off point. --JorisvS (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that Quaoar might be rockier than Ceres, we should wait for more sources that confirm it is larger in diameter than Ceres. (Ceres had to wait 145 years to be declared a dp.) Why the Wikipedia-rush? Wikipedia is suppose to follow the sources, not try to become the source. -- Kheider (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
And how is this not OR? --JorisvS (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Kheider, you're inventing criteria. Again, you are not a RS. There's no reason to wait to see if Quaoar is larger than Ceres: that's not the def of a DP. Instead, as you suggest, we should follow our sources. We have a RS that Quaoar "must" be a DP even if rocky. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I share Dwcarless' view. Tabulate the accepted (known per more than one RS, as I suggested above, to avoid errors) & mention the others. IDK if moving the unconfirmed to List of dwarf planet candidates is needed; it might avoid further wrangles like this one... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The 1400km limit is OR, we should not be setting our own criteria here. There is a clear distinction between bodies accepted as DPs by the IAU and those not but we should not invent new ones. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have never claimed a 1400km limit. I have just stated that the IAU trans-Neptunian dwarf planets have measured diameters of about 1400km or larger. -- Kheider (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you've said many times that the table should be divided at 1400 km. Two of the four in question are at around 1400 km, and one of the known DPs is well under 1400 km. So by your proposal, OR10 and Sedna should go in the DP table, and Ceres in the "probable" table. It's arbitrary, OR, and makes no sense. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Please quit putting words in my mouth! What you are trying to do to this article is beyond reason (at this time). I have never claimed that Ceres should not be included in the IAU list. All the reliable references show that both Sedna and OR10 could easily be far less than 1400km in diameter. Please quit insisting that Wikipedia be done your way. -- Kheider (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You put your own words in your mouth. If this is what you wanted to say, then you should have said it. You know, people can honestly disagree with you. It's quite rude of you to accuse others (here and elsewhere) of acting in bad faith just because they don't accept your opinion. I'm not insisting that WP be done my way, I'm insisting we follow WP policy by following our sources. I continue to be amazed that you are unable to grasp that elementary point. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you are misquoting me based on a misunderstanding between Roentgenium111 and myself.[1][2] Please prove your case that we are doing the world an injustice until we list more tnos as dps. -- Kheider (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? That's your argument? Injustice? How would we "prove" an injustice to the world for any edit?
Looking over your links, you're still saying that an object larger than Ceres should be in a 2ary list because we don't know that it's as large as Haumea. But we don't know that for Makemake either, so does Makemake go in your 2ary list? Your criteria are arbitrary. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Makemake has been calculated to be 1360 to 1480km in diameter. Sedna could easily be only 1200km and OR10 has only been estimated to be 1000+km. Will you please quit assuming that Sedna and OR10 are known to be as big as Makemake. You know that the size estimates for Sedna and OR10 are not nearly as good as they are for the 4 IAU dwarf planets beyond Neptune.-- Kheider (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask some factual questions please.

1) Do we all agree that the only objects designated as DPs by the IAU are?

Ceres - Accepted as a dwarf planet by the IAU on September 13, 2006.
Pluto – Reclassified as a dwarf planet by the IAU on August 24, 2006.
Haumea – Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on September 17, 2008.
Makemake – Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on July 11, 2008.
Eris – Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on September 13, 2006.

2) Are there any other objects that have been classified as DPs (not as nearly certain DPs) by other reliable sources? If so which? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Question one is fine. No one has a probelm with that.

The source of this insanity is list put forward by astronomer Mike Brown on his personal website. Mike Brown discovered the majority of the current dwarf planet candidates and has been waging something of a personal crusade to get more of them recognised. He lists four dwarf planets, Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar and 2007 OR10, in the same category of certainty as the original 5 (this is, in my view, a bit disingenuous, as Pluto and Ceres have been directly imaged and found to be spherical, so describing their shape as "nearly certain" is misleading). As he is regarded as a reliable source, his views have been taken as scientific fact and so the argument is that Wikipedia should change its wording accordingly, not only on this article but in the articles for those objects as well.

There is also this paper by Tancredi in 2008, which places not only those four but several others in that category. Even though there is as much RS evidence for those other objects being included as there are for Brown's four, to date no one has suggested any of those others be included. Serendipodous 14:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Brown, the argument isn't as solid for the others. If they're at the low end of their estimated size, and they're rocky, they might not be in HE. That is, there's reasonable doubt in Brown's estimation once we move beyond these four. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
What I don't understand Kwami, is why is Brown the be-all-and-end-all here? Clearly, there is some dispute over which dwarf planet candidates can be called dwarf planets based on current evidence. Why then are you so ready to take Brown's side? Serendipodous 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Because his is the only side! The IAU is silent. We don't have other sources apart from Tancredi, who agrees with Brown. I've asked over and over and over for additional sources, but no-one's provided any. It's simply a matter of following our sources. What we actually have. Can you come up with a single source that disagrees with Brown? — kwami (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
My question was, ' Are there any other objects that have been classified as DPs (not as nearly certain DPs) by other reliable sources?'. In other words, are there any reliable sources that actually describe objects apart from the original five as DPs rather than 'nearly certain DPs'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Tancredi's paper does; Brown's uses the phrase "near certainty" for both DPs and DP candidates. Serendipodous 15:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Tancredi's paper also says, "“An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either “dwarf planet” and other categories". It then goes on to say, "According to our classification scheme..." -- Kheider (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

IAU states that those 5 are dwarf planets without any qualifications. Authors of many scientific articles as well mainstream press follow IAU and call those five objects dwarf planets. As to all other objects, IAU has been silent on them so far. Some other sources (Brown, Tancredi etc.) make qualified claims that they are likely/near certain/"according to the author's classification scheme" dwarf planets. Nobody has ever claimed that Quauar, Orcus, Sedna and OR10 are dwarf planets (wihtout any qualifications). Ruslik_Zero 18:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The IAU claims are also qualified. The IAU specifically states that if the objects it names under DP naming rules turn out to not be DP's, then they will be reclassified but keep their names.
The reason they counted Haumea and Makemake as DP's was the assumption that, with their albedo, they must be in HE even if rocky and very bright. They never claimed that anyone had actually demonstrated they were in HE.
Tancredi and Brown do not have a different classification. They use the IAU classification. The difference lies in how they calculate "must be" in HE. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin, one of the sticking points is whether an object is a DP because it fits the definition of a DP, or because the IAU has declared it to be a DP. We have had several editors insist on the latter: that if the IAU hasn't declared it to be a DP, then isn't one. Not that we can't verify that it's a DP, but that it actually isn't a DP, and that it changes from non-DP to DP when the IAU accepts it, as if it were being knighted. The IAU, of course, gives a purely physical–dynamical definition, not a legalistic/bureaucratic one. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the issue at all. The issue is whether we can take the word of a single scientist, no matter how qualified, over that of the representative body of an entire scientific profession. Scientists, by definition, disagree. That is part of being a scientist. So one scientist's findings are not necessarily in agreement with another's, as the Tancredi/Brown sources plainly show. Given a change as profound as the one you are suggesting, we should follow the IAU, just as we do in defining the Kuiper belt. Serendipodous 20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
If we were all discussing the quality of the sources like you are, we'd have a lot less disagreement. However, that actually is the issue for several of our editors.
I would say, though, that this is hardly a "profound" change. We all know that many of these bodies will turn out to be DPs. It's simply a matter of adequate evidence. Rather like Main-belt comets.
If the IAU were addressing the issue, then I doubt there would be much problem with simply following the IAU. However, they are not addressing the issue. If scientists were actually in disagreement, again, we would reflect that. But they are not, not about these four. Where Brown and Tancredi disagree, I would not advocate calling objects DPs. However, where they do agree, and where the IAU is silent, then our sources support calling these objects DPs.
You also seem to suggest, with "waging something of a personal crusade", that Brown is being biased. But unless we have other scientists complaining that Brown is being biased, that is OR and as such is not justification for excluding his opinion. Remember, Brown could have been the only person in history to discover more than one planet, but well before the IAU decision on DPs he said that he did not think that Eris, Haumea, and Makemake should count as planets. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
To obtain a truly representative sample of scientific opinion, we can't just use two sources; we'd need dozens, and even then we couldn't say with absolute confidence that we have the views of the majority. Serendipodous 08:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, I have now looked at the relevant sources and I have to say that I have changed my mind a little on the subject. Neither Brown nor Tancredi actually claim that additional objects are DPs. Brown only used the term nearly certain and Tancredi says We propose classification criteria .... It therefore seems to me that we have no reliable sources which actually say that additional objects are DPs. So, whilst I agree with you that we should follow the sources and not try to rate them, in this case the IAU is the only source to actually and unequivocally state that certain objects are DPs. I therefore now think that it is reasonable to have the IAU objects in a separate table from other 'proposed DPs'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That being true, none of the "proposed" or "nearly certain" candidates should be included, because there isn't even scientific consensus on it. WP should not, indeed IMO cannot, be in front of the science. So this argument is moot. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why objects described by reliable sources as being 'proposed' or 'nearly certain' DPs should not be mentioned somewhere in the article so long as their status is made clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Evidently, yet again,:( :( I was not clear... I mean, in the ongoing debate about tabulation of known & potential DPs, those not confirmed should get passing mention (& links if existing), & no more. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
But none of them are confirmed but Ceres and Pluto!
Martin, when Brown says "nearly certain", he means these bodies "must be" DPs per current evidence. And "must be" applies to all of the largest candidates, including those accepted by the IAU.
I see know reason that we should ignore sources more recent than 2008.
Serendipodous, I agree with you in principle. Would you please ref. the dozens of sources so that we can review them? We do, after all, FOLLOW SOURCES. If we only have one or two sources, then that's what we need to follow. If we have dozens, then we need to consider all of them. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Kwami, it is a fine distinction between a source saying 'nearly certain' DPs and saying that they 'are' DPs but it seems to me that the sources are actually making this distinction themselves. In other words the sources are effectively saying that they believe that some objects should be classified as DPs but it is not within their power to actually classify them as such. It now seems logical to me to separate those objects that the IAU classify as DPs from those that sources say should be classified as DPs but which the IAU have not yet so classified. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Which sources are you referring to? Neither Brown nor the IAU make such a distinction. Are you saying we need to wait for the IAU to decide, and not follow sources until then? — kwami (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Brown does not say that objects 'are' DPs only that they are 'almost certain' to be DPs. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
He says they "must be" DPs. And Eris, Haumea, and Makemake are in that category too, so he's not making a distinction. And the IAU doesn't address it. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
'Must be'is not the same as 'are' it shows that Brown is not prepared to make a definitive statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
My point is that this is no different than any of the others. We don't actually know that any of these are DPs. We have direct images of Ceres and occultation images of Pluto that are of high enough resolution that we can be pretty certain that they are in HE. Everything else is just an inference: Eris is more massive than Pluto, which is awfully suggestive (though not of course definitive), but the others are based on mathematical modeling. The IAU took H=1 as a cut-off point for naming purposes, and accepted two more based on that convention. But it's just that: a bureaucratic convention for naming. So, if you want to go by what "are" DPs, we need to disqualify Eris, Haumea, and Makemake—even the IAU has acknowledged that they might turn out not to be DPs. Personally I don't think it's reasonable to say there are 2 DPs and a bunch of candidates, since there isn't much doubt about the IAU three, but then there isn't much doubt about the Brown four either. In the table above, we have a column for who's accepted them, and that is clear enough. So why stick to an outdated list when it's based on bureaucratic procedure? This is supposed to be a scientific topic, not a legal one. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What we know or think we know is not relevant. The point is that we have a reliable source, the IAU which says certain objects are classified as DPs. It is indeed just a bureaucratic convention but it is the convention in current use by the scientific community. On the other hand, there are no sources which say that other objects actually are DPs, in fact they probably intentionally avoid this form of wording because they abide by the IAU naming convention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The IAU naming convention isn't anybody's definition of a DP. It's merely an internal mechanism for the IAU to choose which committee gets to name the body.
The IAU accepted Haumea and Makemake as DPs for naming purposes. Now, if we wish to use that as if it were the definition of a DP, then we need to be clear in the lead of this article that we are not using the scientific IAU definition of DP, but rather whether the IAU has formally accepted s.t. as a DP:
The IAU has defined a DP as follows: ... However, on WP we do not follow this definition; for our purposes, a DP is an object that the IAU has accepted as a DP, regardless of how dated this is or what other sources may say.
Would that be acceptable?
We can't have it both ways. Either we treat this as a scientific concept, and follow sources appropriately, or we stop pretending we treat it as a scientific concept. To claim it's science when it's not is dishonest. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course it isn't acceptable, for all-too-obvious reasons. What we have right now is clear and straightforward - the IAU lists five, others may be added. Simple, to the point. --Ckatzchatspy 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. Or, I would if that's what you actually meant. I have no problem saying "these are the 5 accepted by the IAU". That's built into the table above. But I do object to an unscientific distinction between what's been accepted by bureaucracy X and what's argued by researcher Y. The point for any article like this is, what do the sources say? And the sources that address the issue agree on 9 DPs. Therefore we should list 9 DPs.
If being honest that we're taking a unscientific approach is not acceptable to you, then we should not take an unscientific approach. We need to be honest what we're saying, or not say it. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, I am having difficulty in understanding your argument. The IAU says, 'This now means that the family of dwarf planets in the Solar System is up to five. They are now Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Eris and Makemake' (my bold). Brown says must be and Tancredi proposes. There is a difference in terminology between the sources which we should reflect in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you're placing too much on a literal reading of the verb "are", which can imply all sorts of things depending on context. The IAU is very clear as to what a DP is, and nowhere do they say that it's s.t. kept on some list. They give a physical/dynamical definition. They also say that if s.t. they name as a DP turns out to not be a DP, then they will no longer classify it as a DP, but it will keep its name. That's a frank admission that they may be wrong. Also, they have not addressed the issue for several years. Are we to be held hostage by the IAU, simply because they came up with the definition?
This is how I see it:
  1. The class "DP" is defined by the IAU, and RS's use that definition. Therefore we use the IAU definition of what a DP is.
  2. When asking whether a body is a DP, the only relevant question is whether it meets that definition.
  3. To decide whether it meets that definition, we look to the literature rather than calculating or estimating ourselves.
Now, if the IAU accepts a body as a DP, that is peer-reviewed support for it fitting the definition. It's not a matter of the IAU being a "gatekeeper", but simply a matter of them being a number of people who know what they're talking about.
If the IAU decides that a body does not qualify, then that is a peer-reviewed statement that it is not a DP. Therefore IAU decisions are RS's for this question. They're the obvious first place to go, and unless we have other RS's that disagree with them (which we do not), then we can just follow their classification.
However, the IAU is not a source for all DP candidates, because they simply haven't bothered. If the IAU is not a source for a particular body, then we should not use the IAU as a source for that body.
Lacking input from the IAU, our sources must lie elsewhere.
In the case of the Brown four, we have a known expert in the field who says they are DPs. No-one disagrees with him (except some editors here, who don't count). The IAU is silent on the issue, so they are not relevant either.
We follow our sources. In the case of Sedna, OR10, Orcus, and Quaoar, our sources are Brown and to a lesser extent Tancredi. Those are the only sources anyone has presented. Therefore our decision should reflect those sources. Not "someone might think differently and aren't saying anything", but just our sources. We're not psychics.
I really don't understand what's so difficult about this. We follow sources. Our sources say these are DPs. Therefore we say they're DPs. If future publications say differently, then we will need to change our description, but anticipating that is playing with a WP:crystal ball. After all, future studies may show that Makemake isn't a DP either, but we don't worry about that now.
A few editors have accused me of trying to push my POV on these bodies, but I don't have a POV on them. I don't have any independent source of knowledge, I don't have any theories, I don't think there's some moon-hoax conspiracy. All I know is what I've read in the literature. And I don't understand how the experts in the field are not good enough for us, when as an encyclopedia we're supposed to reflect the opinions of the experts in the field. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The IAU does describe accepted DPs being added to the category, and the sources your refer to also describe the IAU as the "gatekeeper". We're going in circles here. --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You're misreading me. Again.
We accept the POV of the IAU because they are a RS. If other RS's disagreed with them, we would need to reflect that, but since they don't (except for the Pluto-is-a-planet people, who we already cover), we can simply follow their classification.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use other RS's for bodies the IAU does not address. Of course we should: we're not the IAU publishing arm, we're an encyclopedia. Or at least we're supposed to be.
I suppose, if the IAU were to close shop, there would only be 5 DPs for eternity, even when we have surface rovers on other bodies and it's universally agreed that they're in HE? — kwami (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to contest the validity or authority of the IAU, why not just go back to calling Pluto a planet? Alan Stern has used the same argument you just did (science isn't decided by bureaucracy) to say that Pluto should remain a planet.Serendipodous 11:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a big difference: There is no scientific reason to call Pluto a planet and not the other DPs. On the other hand, the DP definition is a properly scientific one. --JorisvS (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
There's no difference at all. Stern thinks all the other DPs should be planets, though he's a bit mealy-mouthed regarding the moons. Serendipodous 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have read Mike Brown's paper here. I see no direct assertion that additional bodies are anything more than likely dwarfs. This source calls dwarf planets an "exclusive club" of "just five confirmed dwarfs in the solar system: Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake and Eris." This NASA source states "There are currently five officially recognized dwarf planets." and then acknowledges there are likely many more "awaiting discovery". With emphasis on awaiting, I think it is abundantly prudent that we hold the line at what is officially classified until such time when new bodies are accepted. It seems intuitive. My76Strat (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, otherwise we are pushed into making scientific assessments ourselves, which we should not do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That is something the press should learn. That and cross referencing the facts. They called both 2007 OR10 and Quaoar dwarf planets in an article in MSNBC's Tech & Science section. However, there has yet to be a press release from the IAU saying those objects are dwarf planets... *sigh* Here's the article for those don't know what article I am talking about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45007657/ns/technology_and_science-space/ - Omega13a (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Neither Quaoar nor OR10 are called "dwarf planets'" in this article. Only Haumea is called a dwarf planet. Ruslik_Zero 12:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The article was revised the night after I posted the link to it. All references to 2007 OR10 and Quaoar being dwarf planets were removed (not to mention the title of the article was changed). Omega13a (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── God, this is like beating a dead horse. Serendipodous, I am not challenging the validity of the IAU, as you would know if you bothered to read the statements you're contesting. Show me an IAU publication addressing these four, and I'll be happy to accept it.

My76Strat, Brown says they "must be" DPs, the same wording he uses for the IAU-accepted DPs. As for your NASA link, please read it again. It says "There are currently five officially recognized dwarf planets. The IAU estimates there may be dozens or even more than 100 dwarf planets awaiting discovery." Yes, we all know that. The problem is that the IAU hasn't addressed the issue for years, and has never addressed these four.

So we're back to where we began: We have a world-recognized expert who says these "must be" in HE. We don't have any one, including the IAU, who contests that assessment. We follow our sources. Sources which address these four bodies say they are DPs. Therefore we say they are DPs. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple editors have now informed you, several times, that your line of reasoning is flawed. If nothing else, you must at least accept that you are outvoted. Serendipodous 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You really have no clue what science is, do you? It's not a democracy, and neither is WP. We don't vote. And how convenient of you to ignore those editors who disagree with you.
WE FOLLOW SOURCES. The sources say these are DPs. Therefore we say they are DPs. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Do you anything constructive to say? — kwami (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The consensus here appears to be that Wikipedia waits until we have more sources that clearly state that these objects are DPs. Why do we need to rush to a judgment? We can state that Sedna, OR10, Orcus, and 50000 Quaoar are "nearly certain" to be dps.-- Kheider (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is my first comment on this subject. I haven't had the patience to read the entire discussion, but I agree with Kheider's reading of the consensus. In my view we should only state that objects are DPs if either the IAU officially says so, or we get a large number of sources that explicitly state that they are DPs. Bluap (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a reasonable point, and with it we can debate the merits of the argument, which seems to be whether we follow what's "official" in the case of science. The problem is twofold: science really isn't decided by what's official, and in this case we don't have a large number of sources to compare. I don't see it as "rushing to judgement". The nice thing about WP is that it can be kept up to date. That's half the point.
As for saying they're nearly certain, Haumea, Eris and Makemake are merely nearly certain too. In the case of this article, why would we split up the table according to the degree of nearly certain? If we're going to do that, there are objects observed to be in HE (2), more massive than Pluto (1), accepted under IAU naming conventions (2), estimated to be approx. the same size as the latter (2), smaller than that but still "must" be in HE (2). There are a dozen ways those could be divided up. Why divide along bureaucratic lines? It's arbitrary, and we're imposing a non-scientific POV on a science article. What people expect from our other articles is organization by distance. That's what we do with planets and moons. What's wrong with having a single table color-coded for acceptance as Kheider suggested? — kwami (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Except it happens to be the current POV of the representative body of the majority of astronomers, and unless they all rise up in protest at the IAU and publicly express their ire at its misrepresentation of their views, we're not going to get a better POV than that. Serendipodous 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Serendipodous, you're just making stuff up. How do you know is the POV of the majority of astronomers? Where are your sources? You act as though the IAU has addressed the issue, when the whole point is that they haven't. If we had an IAU source, we wouldn't be having this argument.
WE FOLLOW SOURCES. What could possibly be difficult to understand about that? I've asked over and over and over to provide sources for your claims, and evidently you are incapable of doing so. If you can't provide sources, then your opinion is meaningless. WE FOLLOW SOURCES. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC

Great. You accuse me of being incompetent, then accuse me of lying. Got anything better except rehashing the same point you've made for the last two months, which obviously hasn't been accepted or we wouldn't still be having this inane conversation? Serendipodous 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, "lying" would mean that you are attempting to deceive, so no, I'm not accusing you of lying. But it is remarkable that you are incapable of seeing any POV but your own. For example, you say my argument "obviously hasn't been accepted", despite the fact that it has been accepted by some of the editors here, and that your argument obviously hasn't been accepted by some.
I will keep making the same point until it is refuted. I'm sorry if you have confused science with argument from authority, but since that is irrelevant to the point in question, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. You obviously have nothing to refute my argument, and that is what makes this conversation so inane. At least a few of the other editors are making rational arguments based on the quality of our sources. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I can see your POV, I just don't accept it. I don't think that one astronomer's blog post is a good enough rationale to radically alter the information content of five key trans-Neptunian articles. You obviously do. We are never going to agree on that. Ultimately this is going to be decided by arbitration, as I don't see you backing down, so this discussion, and your slanders, are irrelevant. Serendipodous 07:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that is a reasonable argument. (Though it doesn't seem to me that we would be "radically" altering the info, since it's suspected they are DPs anyway.) — kwami (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you forgotten Tancredi&Favre's article? That's an RS (I haven't seen that disputed, contrary to Brown's blog) and they too explicitly say that certain TNOs are dwarfs. Then it just comes down to abiding by WP policy: to just follow the source we have in the absence of contesting sources (yes, we have a lot of contesting Wikipedians, but that is irrelevant). --JorisvS (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The vast majority of RS say we have 5 dwarf planets with a number of exceptionally strong candidates. I may not be up on Wiki policy but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of RS outweigh one or two dissenting voices. Serendipodous 10:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Besides, if you read their introduction, which establishes the context or the paper, Tancredi&Favre are proposing a procedure for the IAU to use, and reporting their results using that procedure. That supports the "IAU as gatekeeper" position. Tbayboy (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tbayboy, the problem with the "IAU as gatekeeper" is that we pretend we don't use it. We don't say "a DP is an object accepted as such by the IAU". If we were to say that up front I would argue that it's SYNTH, since the IAU never claims that, but at least we would be consistent. I've even tried editing the article to say that the IAU is the gatekeeper, and have been reverted there too. So, we can't accept that these four are DPs because the IAU as gatekeeper hasn't accepted them, but we can't say that the IAU is the gatekeeper: there's something very wrong there.

As for the vast majority having 5, yes, they do, but they simply echo the IAU decisions, and the IAU decisions are (1) out of date, and (2) are based on an admittedly bureaucratic rather than scientific criterion used for naming purposes. Nowhere does the IAU say that H = +1 is a physical cutoff point, they simply use it as a safe bet. Now we have the man whose team discovered half these things, and who knows as much about them as anyone, and he says it's a safe bet that several more are also DPs. If our other sources addressed these objects and said no, we can't be sure, I would agree with you and Serendipodous that one researcher does not override them. But they don't: what we have is an organization which came up with an older cutoff point for bureaucratic reasons vs. a leading researcher making a newer estimate of the actual nature of these objects. — kwami (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing from a scientific perspective, but Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It is not our job to come to scientific conclusions, merely to report others' scientific conclusions. Right now the vast majority of reliable sources paint a particular picture, and that's the picture we should paint, until that picture changes. Serendipodous 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You are of course correct that it's not up to us to decide this. However, we generally do not follow the "vast majority" of sources, which tend to be out of date. The vast majority of sources list three moons of Pluto, for example, but we list four. We listed P4 as soon as it was announced, even though only a tiny number of sources supported its inclusion. That is, we do take into account that science moves on. The DP list compiled by the IAU is similarly dated: they haven't addressed the issue for over three years.
"It is not our job to come to scientific conclusions, merely to report others' scientific conclusions." Exactly. And the most recent scientific conclusion is that of Brown. He knows what he is talking about, and he says that these are DPs. It's not a radical claim that would raise a red flag, but a rather mundane one that people already suspected was true. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The discovery of P4 was announced only after it had been checked, vetted, rechecked and revetted by astronomers around the world. This isn't even strictly a discovery. This is one scientific inference drawn by a small number of scientists. It's probably a correct inference, but it is not our job to say so. Their inference should be noted, of course, but until it becomes part of scientific consensus, not taken as fact. Serendipodous 20:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
But how do we judge that it is not scientific consensus when there are no opposing opinions? If we had a number of inferences which differed, sure, but we don't. And in the case of the table for this article, we even have a column for whether the IAU has formally accepted an object or not. I don't see what is gained by splitting up the table apart from making it harder to follow, since just about everywhere else we arrange objects by distance. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
We have a swarm of opposing opinions. The only way you can say those opinions don't matter is by saying they are out of date, and the only way you can say they are out of date is by making a scientific inference Wikipedia can't make. Serendipodous 07:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Then why, since I've been asking for them for months, have you not provided the refs and clinched your argument? — kwami (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You yourself agreed that the vast majority of RS describe 5 dwarf planets with a number of strong candidates. Serendipodous 19:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
None of them address the question of whether these are DPs or not. We all know that people tend to repeat the IAU classification, but almost no-one addresses the question themselves. If you look at sources which actually address the question, we have the IAU, Tancredi, and Brown. AFAIK that's it. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If almost no one addresses the question, then by definition we're dealing with a minority view, and Wikipedia cannot endorse a minority view. Serendipodous 07:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Then we should remove all mention of "dwarf planet" from WP. We should also remove all species, chemicals, and languages which are not notable enough to get many mentions in the literature. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Your first point makes no sense whatsoever as written; as to your second point, minority topics are not the same thing as minority views. Dwarf planets have received a vast amount of coverage in scientific literature, the vast majority of which depicts them one way; two sources depict them another. It is not your job to say whether or not those two sources are right. Serendipodous 08:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. It was late and I wasn't coherent. But when a new species hardly anyone is bothering with is discovered and classified, we don't have to wait until the classification is published in some "official" tome. We accept the opinion of the expert(s) in the field. The same for a new language. That is parallel to what we have here: these four DPs have not appeared in an IAU list, but the IAU has not addressed them, so we're left with those who have. The IAU said they would establish parameters for classification, but never did. Tancredi made some suggestions. Then Brown did as well. These objects are classified as DP's in all sources which classify them. If normal sourcing is good enough for the biologists, chemists, and linguists, it should be good enough for us. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You can only name a species after you determine that it fits the criteria for a species (whatever those are). Simply publishing it in a journal doesn't always do it; new species are contested all the time. Rules for naming species are also laid out in documents like the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; there is no such standard for naming dwarf planets. Look, I agree; the current situation sucks. For some reason, the majority of astronomers appear content to follow the IAU, and the IAU appears to be exerting some kind of pressure on the naming of new DPs. Otherwise Orcus, Quaoar and Sedna would be referred to as dwarf planets in every journal article. But until it changes Wikipedia should follow the majority. Becuase that is what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia does not take sides; Wikipedia does not jump the curve. It reports. Serendipodous 13:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
We're back to naming rules, which is not the same thing. Whether or not a sp. is named, we report that it belongs to a certain family or order because we have refs that say so, or maybe only a single ref that says so. Here we have a ref saying Sedna etc. qualify as DPs, and we have no ref that contests that. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No, we have hundreds of refs that contest it. You just claim they don't matter. Serendipodous 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
They don't count if you don't provide them. Can you quote a single source that contests it? I have been asking for months. — kwami (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
#1 -- Kheider (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't address the question, much less contest it. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(outdent + arbitrary break)

IAU position

From the IAU's "Astronomy for the Public" web pages, specifically the page "Pluto and the Developing Landscape of Our Solar System":

Q: How many dwarf planets are there?
A: Currently there are five objects accepted as dwarf planets. Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea.

Q: How will an official decision be reached on whether or not to call a newly discovered object a planet, dwarf planet, or a Solar System body?
A: The decision on how to classify newly discovered objects will be made by a review committee within the IAU. The review process will be an evaluation, based on the best available data, of whether or not the physical properties of the object satisfy the definitions. It is likely that for many objects, several years may be required to gather sufficient data.

Q: Are there additional dwarf planet candidates currently being considered?
A: Yes. Some of the largest asteroids may be candidates for dwarf planet status and some additional dwarf planet candidates beyond Neptune will soon be considered.

Q: When will additional new dwarf planets likely be announced?
A: Probably within the next few years.

(bold added as highlight by me)--Ckatzchatspy 06:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were 5 accepted DPs in 2008. That's how long that site has been up. They would appear to be mistaken when they say additional DPs will "soon be considered": they've dropped the ball.
You're back to substituting authority for science. Whether the IAU has or will set up a committee is irrelevant. They do not hold a monopoly on truth. We follow our sources. The sources say these are DPs. Therefore we need to say they're DPs. If the IAU ever sets up their committee, we'll include that as a source. But their most recent reference is Brown (2006). Our most recent is Brown (2011).
I like how the IAU uses Brown's web page as a source,[3] when people here are saying we shouldn't do that.
I do like the phrasing "recognised as a dwarf planet". That is what distinguishes the IAU five from other DPs. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"Our most recent is Brown (2011)." Yes, one source, one guy, who could be completely wrong. What is wrong with waiting until there's more than one source saying they're DPs? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There's also Tankredi. Come on, Brown's good enough for the IAU, but he's not good enough for us? — kwami (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd still like one more... Am I being fussy? Maybe. I just think keeping out error beats getting a scoop. It's not about "good enough", it's about confirming. Do they say the same thing? Or not? Do they support Brown? Or do they talk around agreeing without actually confirming? Maybe good enough for the Washington Post; I suggest we should ask for more. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's reasonable, but it's not much of a scoop. Everybody expects these things to be DPs, and probably hundreds of them. We don't even require more evidence than this for a new planet.
Brown's a, maybe the, leading expert on these bodies, so his opinion carries weight. And the IAU aren't carrying their own weight. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"...the IAU aren't carrying their own weight" - see, that's your opinion, not a fact, and (as you've said repeatedly) we can't base the article on opinions. The IAU is a recognized and accepted scientific body that has created a process for adding objects to the DP category. All of the scientists you've used to support your arguments recognize the authority of that body. It would be different if, say, the IAU was not seen as an authority, but that's not the case. Even Brown - one of the most prominent scientists in this field - acknowledges their standards and positions his posts accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy
(Bang head on wall) Yes, of course he acknowledges their standards. And he says that, by their standards, these are dwarf planets.
Of course it's my opinion. This is a talk page. We express our opinions on talk pages. That's what they're here for.
The IAU "has created a process for adding objects to the DP category". Do you have any evidence for this? The IAU has said that they will "soon" create such a process, but AFAIK they haven't, apart from the minor point of using H for naming criteria. That's what Tancredi's proposal was all about. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, it is not up to us to do science, we report what reliable sources say. The IAU says that five objects are DPs. No sources say that anything else actually is a DP. That may seem like splitting hairs but is what the sources actually say and, when you look at the language actually used by Brown and Tancredi, you see that they defer to the IAU for the actual naming decision by using language like 'proposed'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
That's what I've been arguing for for months now: report what the sources say. The language isn't much different between the IAU and Brown. Brown says they "must be" DPs, including the IAU 5. The IAU says if Haumea and Makemake turn out not be DPs, they will keep their names. That is, both acknowledge a degree of uncertainty, as is only responsible of them. The copula "is" is a common way of abbreviating what has already been established. It's common to say that Dawn and NH "will" arrive at Ceres & Pluto in 2015, but we all recognize that's not a claim nothing could go wrong, and therefore are not adamant about it when we're being precise. In the case of the IAU, what they say when they care to be more precise is that the IAU 5 are "recognised as dwarf planets". That was over 3 years ago. Brown is a RS and is now saying we can add another 4 to the list. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Brown is asking the IAU to add 4 more, not Wikipedia. -- Kheider (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Brown is stating that they are DPs. As he is a RS, it is our job to reflect that. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We do cover Brown's statement. We do not make the decision to give his position - clearly intended as a poke at the IAU - more weight than the body he respects. --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Now who's claiming personal interpretation as fact? And what do Brown's motivations have to do with anything anyway? He's still a RS.
If the IAU were addressing the issue, I would agree with you. But they're not. That's the whole point. They haven't said anything for years. Science moves on. We don't use dated refs when we have recent refs to go on. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
From Mike Brown's comments following his blog post:

"There currently **is** an official dwarf planet list with the IAU as the list keeper." (August 23, 2011)

"It is my impression from press releases like this one http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0807/ that the IAU is gatekeeping." (August 25, 2011)

--Ckatzchatspy 06:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to go that route, then we need to change the definition of DP to be "only those objects accepted as DPs by the IAU". That is, not a scientific definition, pace the IAU, pbut a bureaucratic definition per Brown. Would it be acceptable to change the definition of DP away from the IAU's definition, and use Brown's opinion instead? — kwami (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Science doesn't rely on the sayso of one or two people. It relies on replication of results. The more times a result is replicated, the firmer its acceptance. Claiming that, because two sources say so, the number of dwarf planets needs to be changed is not scientific; it is an argument from authority. Serendipodous 10:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We depend on the people who do say so. If someone like the IAU doesn't say anything, if they don't give any results, it's unscientific you use them as if they had. The IAU has said that 5 are DPs, and we reflect that. Now we have a RS that says 4 others are DPs as well. We should reflect that. If you can provide any RS that this is not the case, please do so. But there's nothing wrong with using a source or two when that's all we have. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Until Mike Brown puts out a peer-reviewed paper claiming these 4 objects (All 4 of which he discovered) are in fact dwarf planets (not just nearly certain), I think Mike's personal blog is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for declaring them as official dwarf planets. Such a declaration should be made by a major astronomical organization or multiple peer-reviewed papers with multiple authors. The politics involving what is a planet or dwarf-planet is not something Wikipedia should take a stance on. -- Kheider (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
But nothing "is" in science. If he meant that literally, he'd be being irresponsible. What you're saying is that only bad science is acceptable, and that responsible authors should be rejected. As for the politics, that's OR. It's not our responsibility to judge the motivations of scholars. That's up to the community. Even the IAU refs his web site. This isn't a question of what should be a planet or DP, an opinion, but a factual statement on what meets the criteria the IAU devised. Do you have any source that Brown is playing fast and loose with the facts for political ends? — kwami (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Even Mike Brown uses the weasel words "nearly certain". -- Kheider (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, again, you're saying we can only use irresponsible sources? Even Eris and Pluto are only "nearly certain". In the case of Haumea and Makemake, the IAU has made provisions for them not being DPs. Science isn't about Truth, it's about evidence. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You need more evidence to prove that there is a true scientific consensus that Sedna, Orcus, OR10, Quaoar are dps beyond any reasonable doubt. Your opinion is not evidence. -- Kheider (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Kheider, your cat's opinion is not evidence either. What does that have to do with anything? Brown's opinion is, however. He is one of the if not the expert on these bodies. The IAU links to him when discussing dwarf planets. It's not like he's some fly-by-night quack. I understand that you and some others here feel we need more sources. That's fine. I, and some others here, feel 100% of existing RS's is sufficient. That's a legitimate debate. But your constant straw arguments do not make you look good. — kwami (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Kwani, it is your actions that are a borderline embarrassment to Wikipedia! You know know this is a featured article and that Wikipedia is used as a reference by people all around the world! As an admin you should feel embarrassed that you have continued this argument for months. The majority of comments do NOT support your ownership of the list "Wikipedia dwarf planets"! -- Kheider (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Kheider, once again, that is irrelevant, and repeating irrelevancies does not make them relevant. We are not a democracy. We follow sources. Weren't you the one who just said that opinions are not evidence? Many of our articles would be far different if they were decided by vote rather than by sources. Now, we can have a legitimate debate over how to report or interpret those sources, but a voice count is meaningless, especially when several of the people here have demonstrated they have no idea what they're talking about. — kwami (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, follow the sources. You have IAU "official dps" and "NEARLY CERTAIN" dp candidates! -- Kheider (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Kheider, try filling in and properly sourcing the second part of the following sentence: "Brown thinks Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and 2007 OR10 must be dwarf planets even if predominantly rocky[Cite Brown], but ?? says that we cannot be certain yet[Cite ??]." --JorisvS (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike Brown believes that Sedna, Orcus, OR10, and Quaoar are nearly certain to be dps based on their estimated diameters,(Cite Brown) but they have not been confirmed by the IAU or other major astronomical organization where only five dwarf planets are listed.(cite IAU)(cite WGPSN) -- Kheider (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
No, that would be having Brown claim something different from what he's actually claiming. And AFAIK the IAU has not said anything about these objects and hence would not be a source with which to contest Brown's claim. Of course we can say that on the IAU list there are only the 5, but that has to be in a different sentence, because that would otherwise be WP:OR (WP:SYNTH). --JorisvS (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole debate is nothing more than WP:SYNTH until we have a source from a major astronomical organization. It is not Wikipedia's place to make these decisions. We should wait 6 months to a year to see if we have a scientific consensus. Why the rush? -- Kheider (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Kheider, please don't avoid the question. --JorisvS (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not have a source that says Mike Browns estimates are wrong. That does not change my WP:SYNTH statement or the fact that Wikipedia should wait for a scientific consensus instead of a personal website that does not show error-bars and incorrectly lists objects such as 1999 TC36. -- Kheider (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not what SYNTH means. SYNTH is us doing the synthesis. We're supposed to leave that to our sources, which is why we follow our sources.
Brown made it clear that even given the error bars, these "must" be DPs. The mistakes are smaller bodies his team did not discover. The four in question they did discover and are not mistaken. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's a rush to declare these objects DPs on WP. Why? Until they're independently confirmed, sourced or otherwise, they aren't DPs, not as I understand astronomy (as science, anyhow...). I do agree with Kheider: what's the rush? WP is going to get it first regardless, so why not be right, too? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
So, if I murder someone, I haven't committed murder until I'm convicted? And if I'm never caught, or get off on a technicality, then I never committed the crime? The IAU gave a physical/dynamical definition of DP, not a legal/bureaucratic one (as confirmed here by a rejection of making the definition legal/bureaucratic). Whether they're accepted as DPs is irrelevant to whether they are DPs, as the IAU has made clear.
As for the "rush", it's been 3 yrs since the IAU did anything. That's only a rush in the sense of freeway rush hour in a big city, where no-one moves. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Remind me not to serve next to you on a jury. No I don't think there's a rush; we're chasing posterity, and posterity always gives time to catch up. Serendipodous 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

December revisit

Ckatz, deleting tags to a problematic article is disruptive and close to vandalism. Please resolve them here. I have tagged the wording in several places because it is misleading at best: the bodies would need to be swapped between the four tables with current wording. The distinction we are making is between IAU-accepted nearly-certain DPs and other nearly-certain DPs (per Brown, at least). I don't understand why you insist on obscuring that point. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is about 4 larger TNOs accepted as dps, and 4 bodies that are almost as likely to be dps. We follow the news, we do not make the news. Some people claim Vesta is a dp... -- Kheider (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite true. There are two objects known to be in HE from direct observation, Ceres and Pluto; one assumed to be in HE because it is more massive that Pluto, Eris; and two taken to be DPs for naming purposes based on an arbitrary albedo cutoff, Haumea and Makemake. There are another two in the same mass and size range of the latter, OR10 and Sedna, as well as two smaller bodies that Brown believes "must" be DPs as well. The tables are not divided according to certainty, as we falsely imply, but according to IAU naming rules. I think we should be forthright about the difference: the tables are separated based on IAU acceptance. Why should that be controversial? — kwami (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
When did astronomers measure the mass of either Sedna or OR10? Perhaps astronomers want more certainty in their declarations than you do. -- Kheider (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
When did they measure the mass of Makemake? It is included not because it's been shown to be in HE, but because it's bright, and DP's are not defined according to brightness. — kwami (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The diameter of Makemake is much better known than either Sedna or OR10. -- Kheider (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
But the diameter of Haumea is not. In any case, DPs are not defined by diameter, but by HE. All of these bodies are well over the size where HE is expected, but it's only expected: it's not been demonstrated for Makemake or Haumea any more than it has been for Sedna or OR10. Again, the difference between the tables is not that we here at WP have established a criterion for certainty, or that you personally believe that they are more certain, but that the IAU has formally accepted them. So why not say then that the difference is whether the IAU has formally accepted them? — kwami (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, we KNOW the mass of Haumea, not Sedna or OR10. Please quit claiming that your 4 are as well established as the IAU's 4. They are NOT! -- Kheider (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, that's all irrelevant. And I have never claimed that they are as well established. We go by our SOURCES, as I've said a hundred times.
DPs are not defined by mass, they're defined by HE. HE is only inferred from mass. We have a RS that these four "must" qualify, even given the uncertainties of their mass.
You wish to distinguish IAU-accepted DPs from Brown's DPs. I agree. But that's not what we're doing here. We're stating that the IAU-accepted DPs "are" DPs, and that Brown's are "nearly certain" DPs. Except that the IAU-accepted DPs are also only "nearly certain". Essentially, we're telling a lie. I find that objectionable, esp. in a FA. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You say, "This is a FA and we should avoid crapping on it". Since it's an FA, shouldn't we try to be factual in our presentation?
The first two tables are labeled "X attributes of dwarf planets". But they aren't: they're lists of selected DPs. We've tended to use the term "official" for these, but IMO that's somewhat misleading; better to simply say what they are, objects accepted as DPs by the IAU. The last two tables are labeled "X attributes of "nearly certain" dwarf planets", but that is quite misleading: Haumea and Makemake, and you might argue Eris as well, are also "nearly certain" to be DPs, yet they are not included. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You've basically started the argument all over again from the beginning. At this point I don't see what we can do outside of arbitration. Serendipodous 10:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The facts have not changed, and they haven't been addressed, so yes, it's the same argument. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, the "problematic" aspect of this article lies in the actions of a specific contributor - you - and it's important to note that you've already been blocked once for these actions. --Ckatzchatspy 10:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The problematic aspect is telling falsehoods. My block is also irrelevant: I was blocked for edit warring with you, not for correcting the article. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
We have no source telling us that the IAU four "are" DPs and the other four "are nearly certain" DPs. We only have a source for the first four being on the IAU list (e.g. the list itself) and a source that says all eight "are big enough that they must be" DPs. So reverting to claiming the IAU four as DPs and the other four as "nearly certain" is reintroducing OR. Which part of this is so difficult to understand? --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, Mike Brown's automatically generated webpage is not peer-reviewed, and is known to list some objects incorrectly. It should not be used to publicly decide that all nearly certain dwarf planets ARE dwarf planets. Wikipedia does not lead the news, we report it. It has been know since Pluto was reclassified that Sedna is almost certainly a dp. I still fail to understand why Wikipedia is in such a rush to have more dwarf planets when the outer solar system will have many of them. -- Kheider (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say it should. The only thing I have said is that we have no source for the current wording and presentation. Either we use Brown's blog or we don't, but to use it the way it has been used in the article is OR. If we use it we must say Sedna etc. are DPs but are not on the IAU list. If we don't use it we need to use different sources and, consequently, a different presentation, for those not on the IAU list. --JorisvS (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with Kheider's earlier compromise, where we have a single table with an extra column stating whether they have been accepted by the IAU. I'm fine with either saying that they are all DPs, or that they are all nearly certain to be / must be DPs, but agree with Jorisv that our current unsourced distinction is OR.
As for the (two?) errors on Brown's list, those are for bodies that his team did not discover. All the ones in question here were discovered by his team, and none include any errors. He also refers to Sedna as a DP on other pages. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, we're going in circles here because you refuse to accept the outcome of previous discussions. Why are you so hell-bent on inserting your POV into the page when we already have a means of incorporating Brown's opinion? --Ckatzchatspy 06:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I take it "outcome of previous discussions" is code for your personal opinions. We're going in circles because you refuse to accept our sources. Why are you so hell-bent on substituting your POV for what they say? — kwami (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not, it refers to the repeated concerns expressed throughout these discussions (and elsewhere) regarding your actions. --Ckatzchatspy 06:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But we should not decide on information based on the personalities of our editors, but on our sources. I know I keep harping on that point, but I keep hoping that if you hear it enough, you might eventually grasp it. Do you really have nothing other than ad-hominem and straw-man arguments? If so, why are you wasting our time? — kwami (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, there does seem to be some WP:IDHT going on here. The majority of editors do NOT want to use Mike Brown's automatic error-prone website to decide what is and is not a dp. -- Kheider (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So what? We follow our sources, not what you or I want to be true, and we're not a democracy. We have the opinion of an expert in the field that these are DPs. We have no source to the contrary. If you want to categorize them by who's accepted them as DPs, fine, but OR is not acceptable. — kwami (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you continuing the past game that once resulted in you being blocked? WP:IDHT is wholly relevant here. Ruslik_Zero 09:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe the lack of thought that goes into the comments on this page. I was blocked for edit warring, not for arguing on the talk page. (That's what talk pages are for.) And yes, IDHT is an issue: Ckatz and Kheider pretend they haven't heard a thing I've said. Can you point out one relevant point where I've done the same? — kwami (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple more citations for Sedna being a DP:

  • Barucci et al., 2010. "(90377) Sedna: Investigation of surface compositional variation". The Astronomical Journal 140:6
"The dwarf planet (90377) Sedna is one of the most remote solar system objects accessible to investigations."
(they also call it a DP in other publications, as in the European Planetary Science Congress Abstracts.)
  • Rabinowitz, Schaefer, Tourtellotte, 2011. "SMARTS Studies of the Composition and Structure of Dwarf Planets". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 43
"We have used the SMARTS 1.3m telescope extensively to photometrically characterize the new dwarf planet population (including Eris and Sedna) discovered with the QUEST camera."
  • Schwamb, 2007. "Searching for Sedna's sisters".
"The discovery of dwarf planet Sedna ..."
(CalTech. Might not be peer reviewed, but we accept it as a ref in our Sedna article.)
  • Malhotra, 2010. "On the Importance of a Few Dwarf Planets". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 41
"several new discoveries of trans-Neptune dwarf planets, such as Sedna and Haumea, ..."

And though they don't distinguish degree of certainty, there's:

  • SBAG, "Exploration Strategy for the Ice Dwarf Planets 2013–2022"
"Our outer solar system has many examples of a third type of “ice dwarf” planet*
*The IAU proposes calling these “plutoids” but the term is not widely accepted by the scientific community."

For OR10 and Quaoar, there's,

  • Bowler, 2011. "Dwarf planet is an in-betweener". Astronomy & Geophysics, 52:5.07.
"The fifth largest dwarf planet, 2007 OR10, is half the size of Pluto and is an icy world with much surface water ice and probably the remnants of a methane atmosphere – making it an example of a dwarf planet just big enough to hold on to some volatiles, but otherwise like the smaller majority of objects in the Kuiper Belt."
"Dwarf planet Quaoar also has a water ice surface with a reddish tinge, thought to be a result of radiation- induced polymerization of methane at the surface."

For Orcus, there's,

  • Ortiz et al. 2011. "A mid-term astrometric and photometric study of trans-Neptunian object (90482) Orcus". A&A 525:A31
"Orcus qualifies to become a dwarf planet because of its large diameter."

And then the interesting take by Scott Sheppard,

  • Sheppard et al. 2011 "A southern sky and galactic plane survey for bright Kuiper Belt objects". The Astronomical Journal, 142:98
"In these surveys tens of bright TNOs including likely dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna, and (225088) 2007 OR10 were discovered."
"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."

Note he's writing in 2011 and still saying that Haumea and Makemake are "likely" DPs. That's precisely the point that Jorisv was making above.

kwami (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In your last example Scott Sheppard (2011) stated that Sedna and OR10 are smaller than Makemake and Haumea. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide when "likely" is sufficient. For years we have described "likely" as a strong/confident dwarf planet candidate. It is only kwami and JorisvS that want to treat likely as good enough. Sedna and OR10 are merely strong dwarf planet candidates with unknown masses. Complain to the IAU if you want. -- Kheider (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So, because we've done it for years, we must continue? That's ludicrous. Do you honestly believe that knowledge is static? Our distinction between DPs and likely DPs does not reflect the literature. What we have are IAU-accepted DPs vs other, but we do not present it that way. That is dishonest. According to Brown, these nine "must be" DPs. According to Sheppard, three are clearly DPs and six are likely. According to the IAU, three are DPs and two are named as DPs (and will keep those names even if they turn out not to be DPs). Our account is a simplistic rendering of the IAU that the IAU itself does not support, and is unworthy of a FA. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that is dishonest here is your POV pushing. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with this issue

We can either debate this in circles or we can try to find some way to deal with this issue in a way that's OK to everybody involved. I think this is possible, so let me try to guide this process. I'll now ask you several questions, with more to come as the discussion progresses. Let us all try not to say the things that will only have us go in circles, at least in this section and its subsections. --JorisvS (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OR

First, we all agree that OR has no place in Wikipedia, and especially an FA article, don't we? --JorisvS (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we should reflect the literature, not just one source which we grant authority. (And we don't even do that, as even the IAU does not claim that their five are equally certain.) — kwami (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tables

The contention mostly focuses on the section about the specific DPs, which includes a few tables. What's the point of including those tables? --JorisvS (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The point of the tables is a comparison of DPs, just as we have for planets and moons. The list of possible DPs is too long to be included, and is rightfully split off. Our tables should include those bodies which RSs say are DPs, which at this point are nine. Degree of acceptance should be indicated, but splitting them up makes comparison more difficult. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-IAU bodies

We all agree that many TNOs not on the current IAU list will some day turn out to be DPs, don't we? Let's note that many are currently considered candidates, with some stronger than others. The question then is which do we want to mention here? Those that Brown puts in his list in the category "must be", as is done now, or maybe another criterion would be more appropriate? --JorisvS (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We should not parrot a single source. The IAU has named 5 as DPs, and we need to reflect that. Brown has named 9 as DPs, and we need to reflect that. Sheppard has named 3 as DPs, with the other 6 likely, and we need to reflect that. All three sources are authoritative, all three RSs.
To be honest to our sources, we should only say that Eris, Pluto, and Ceres "are" DPs. AFAIK, that is agreed by all who accept the concept of a DP. We should say that Haumea and Makemake have been named as DPs, accepted as such by Brown, and thought likely to be by Sheppard, and that the other four have been accepted as DPs by Brown and thought likely to be DPs by Sheppard.
If we want to divide up the tables, then we need one for Eris, Pluto, and Ceres, a second for Haumea and Makemake, and a third for the other four. That seems a bit silly to me, but would be acceptable. If we don't have three tables, per our sources, we should have one. I would presume we would have either a column or color coding for who accepts them, as Kheider proposed.
  • Eris, Pluto, Ceres: DPs per the IAU and accepted as such by all sources which accept DPs
  • Haumea, Makemake: named as if they were DPs by the IAU, pending confirmation that they actually are DPs; accepted as DPs by Brown, thought likely by Sheppard
  • Sedna, OR10, Quaoar, Orcus: not addressed by the IAU; accepted as DPs by Brown, thought likely by Sheppard
This is what our sources actually say. You can't get our current tables from that. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So, POV pushing continues? Ruslik_Zero 11:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
We don't generally call following sources "POV", but I see you have a different definition, according to which all proper edits are POV pushing. That's not what the term means on WP. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If you believe the candidate tables are so important I suggest you draft your table(s) on the talk page, but not in the article itself. Then maybe you can get an agreement instead of quick revert for POV pushing. Right now we KNOW 3 are spherical bodies in basic HE based on their known mass. We know 9 (or should it be 59?) are likely in HE. Currently the IAU is sitting on the fence and splitting the difference by listing the 5 best objects. -- Kheider (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let's do that. I'll post a first draft of the orbital characteristics below, based on what I've heard about it so far. Feel free to change it if something is unsatisfactory, but please do so with an accompanying explanation here. I think we should also include citations to where the specific non-IAU bodies are called dwarf planets and not candidates. Feel free to include them. --JorisvS (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on that, Kheider.
I did propose such tables here, but they were ignored.
I would restrict the tables to nine, because we have RS's that nine are DPs. If we listed 59, there would be little point in having a separate DP candidate article. (The degree of certainly implied by "likely" is quite different for Sheppard and Brown.) — kwami (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Table draft
Key
Universal acceptance[nb 1] Included by the IAU,
due to the brightness of the object
Accepted by some as a dwarf planet,
but not addressed by the IAU[nb 2]
Orbital attributes
Name Region of
Solar System
Orbital
radius (AU)
Orbital period
(years)
Mean orbital
speed (km/s)
Inclination
to ecliptic
Orbital
eccentricity
Planetary
discriminant
Ceres Asteroid belt 2.77 4.60 17.882 10.59° 0.079 0.33
Orcus Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.17 245.18 20.57° 0.227 0.003
Pluto Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.48 248.09 4.666 17.14° 0.249 0.077
Haumea Kuiper belt (12:7) 43.13 283.28 28.22° 0.195 0.020
Quaoar Kuiper belt (cubewano) 43.405 285.97 8.00° 0.039 0.007–0.010
Makemake Kuiper belt (cubewano) 45.79 309.9 4.419 28.96° 0.159 0.02
2007 OR10 Scattered disc (10:3?) 67.21 550.98 30.70° 0.500
Eris Scattered disc 67.67 557 3.436 44.19° 0.442 0.10
Sedna Detached 518.57 ~11,400 11.93° 0.853
Of the tables, I like this one the best as being short and brief. The colors do indicate the difference in knowledge of these bodies. I do think there needs to be one more column that lists whether the object is an official IAU dp/what the source for DP status is. -- Kheider (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A Southern Sky and Galactic Plane Survey for Bright Kuiper Belt Objects (Sheppard) states:

  • page 2: "In these surveys tens of the bright TNOs including likely dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna, and 2007 OR10 were discovered."
  • page 7: Ceres, Pluto, and Eris "are bonafide dwarf planets". Makemake and Haumea are also likely dwarf planets as are the next largest bodies such as Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus, and Quaoar.

No where does Sheppard state that he doubts the status of Makemake or Haumea. Please follow the references. -- Kheider (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand you. You just quoted him saying that, even bolding the key word to prove my point! You have said many times that "likely" does not mean "is", yet here you say that it does mean "is", but only in certain cases?
Per Sheppard, Ceres, Pluto, and Eris "are" DPs, whereas the other six are "likely" to be DPs. That's what I said, so how do we disagree?
object: Ceres Pluto Eris  Haum Make OR10 Sedna Orcus Quaoar
DP per Sheppard: X X X
DP per IAU: X X X X X
DP per Brown: X X X X X X X X X
I'm not arguing w your wording in the key, which seems fine, just wondering where we're miscommunicating. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have said:
  • An automatic error-prone website like Mike Brown's is not the best source for Wikipedia to expand a dp list.
  • Sheppard's wording makes it clear that HE treats Makemake and Haumea as larger (better) candidates than the next bodies down.
  • I have also said many times that we know the mass of Haumea and the diameter of Makemake. We can not say that about the lesser candidates Sedna or OR10. Even though we know the mass and size of Orcus and Quaoar, they are blatantly smaller bodies.
  • Your statement implying that astronomers do not universally treat Makemake and Haumea as DPs was misleading and unreferenced. -- Kheider (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't accept any of these points.
(1) I would agree with this for the list as a whole, but not for the bodies Brown's team have worked on. He also refers to them as DPs elsewhere, as do his fellows, and as do other researchers.
(2) Sheppard's wording implies no such thing. That is your personal reading, and therefore inadmissable as evidence. All he says is that Haumea and Makemake are "likely", and that others are also "likely". I would assume they are listed first because they are among the IAU five. No-where does he say they are "more likely", and even if he did, he is a RS that not all of the IAU five are established.
(3) This is OR/SYNTH and as such not acceptable on WP.
(4) Sheppard is an obvious ref, and couldn't be clearer, even if you try to force your POV into his words. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
(1) Your synth to remove Makemake and Haumea is not acceptable.
(2) You assume too much to add dps to this article.
(3) You have failed to convenience me of your opinions. Come back when you have more references to support your position that all 9 are KNOWN to be dps. -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if you were to argue against my positions, rather than just making stuff up.
(1) I have never said we should remove Makemake and Haumea.
(2) What, exactly, have I assumed? I could argue the same about you, but opinions are not evidence.
(3) Whether I convince you is irrelevant. You are not a RS for this article. And you know this is another straw man: No-one has ever claimed that all nine are known to be DPs. How about you come back when you are capable of rational argument? — kwami (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Previous draft + refs

The colors seem a bit bold to me, considering they do not indicate a difference in the bodies themselves. (Also, they would cause problems for the color blind.) Here are the colors we have used elsewhere, for moons etc. I think the description of degree of acceptance is best placed in the list of verbal descriptions at the top of the section, with only color coding in the table, as Jorivs proposes:

  1. Ceres Ceres – discovered on January 1, 1801, 45 years before Neptune. Considered a planet for half a century before reclassification as an asteroid. Accepted as a dwarf planet by the IAU on September 13, 2006.
  2. Orcus – discovered on February 17, 2004. Accepted as a dwarf planet by Brown,[nb 2] Ortiz.[nb 3]
  3. Pluto Pluto – discovered on February 18, 1930. Classified as a planet for 76 years. Reclassified as a dwarf planet by the IAU on August 24, 2006.
  4. Haumea – discovered on December 28, 2004. Accepted as a dwarf planet for naming purposes by the IAU on September 17, 2008.
  5. Quaoar – discovered on June 5, 2002. Accepted as a dwarf planet by Brown,[nb 2] Bowler.[nb 4]
  6. Makemake – discovered on March 31, 2005. Accepted as a dwarf planet for naming purposes by the IAU on July 11, 2008.
  7. 2007 OR10 – discovered on July 17, 2007. Accepted as a dwarf planet by Brown,[nb 2] Bowler.[nb 4]
  8. Eris – discovered on January 5, 2005. Called the "tenth planet" in media reports. More massive than Pluto. Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on September 13, 2006.
  9. Sedna – discovered on November 14, 2003. Accepted as a dwarf planet by Brown,[nb 2] Barucci,[nb 5] and others.[nb 6][nb 7]
Key
Universal acceptance[nb 1] Included by the IAU,
due to the brightness of the object
Accepted by some as a dwarf planet,
but not addressed by the IAU[nb 2]
Orbital attributes[1]
Name Region of
Solar System
Orbital
radius (AU)
Orbital period
(years)
Mean orbital
speed (km/s)
Inclination
to ecliptic
Orbital
eccentricity
Planetary
discriminant
Ceres Asteroid belt 2.77 4.60 17.882 10.59° 0.079 0.33
Orcus Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.17 245.18 20.57° 0.227 0.003
Pluto Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.48 248.09 4.666 17.14° 0.249 0.077
Haumea Kuiper belt (12:7) 43.13 283.28 28.22° 0.195 0.020
Quaoar Kuiper belt (cubewano) 43.405 285.97 8.00° 0.039 0.007–0.010
Makemake Kuiper belt (cubewano) 45.79 309.9 4.419 28.96° 0.159 0.02
2007 OR10 Scattered disc (10:3?) 67.21 550.98 30.70° 0.500  ?
Eris Scattered disc 67.67 557 3.436 44.19° 0.442 0.10
Sedna Detached 518.57 ~11,400 11.93° 0.853  ?

Another possibility is to add a ref/acceptance column to the table, as follows. (In the actual article the "nb"s would disappear, making them somewhat more compact.)

  1. Ceres Ceres – discovered on January 1, 1801, 45 years before Neptune. Considered a planet for half a century before reclassification as an asteroid. Accepted as a dwarf planet by the IAU on September 13, 2006.
  2. Orcus – discovered on February 17, 2004.
  3. Pluto Pluto – discovered on February 18, 1930. Classified as a planet for 76 years. Reclassified as a dwarf planet by the IAU on August 24, 2006.
  4. Haumea – discovered on December 28, 2004. Accepted as a dwarf planet for naming purposes by the IAU on September 17, 2008.
  5. Quaoar – discovered on June 5, 2002.
  6. Makemake – discovered on March 31, 2005. Accepted as a dwarf planet for naming purposes by the IAU on July 11, 2008.
  7. 2007 OR10 – discovered on July 17, 2007.
  8. Eris – discovered on January 5, 2005. Called the "tenth planet" in media reports. More massive than Pluto. Accepted by the IAU as a dwarf planet on September 13, 2006.
  9. Sedna – discovered on November 14, 2003.
Orbital attributes[1]
Name Region of
Solar System
Orbital
radius (AU)
Orbital period
(years)
Mean orbital
speed (km/s)
Inclination
to ecliptic
Orbital
eccentricity
Planetary
discriminant
Acceptance
as a dwarf planet
Ceres Asteroid belt 2.77 4.60 17.882 10.59° 0.079 0.33 1IAU; direct observation[nb 1]
Orcus Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.17 245.18 20.57° 0.227 0.003 5Brown,[nb 2] Ortiz[nb 3]
Pluto Kuiper belt (plutino) 39.48 248.09 4.666 17.14° 0.249 0.077 1IAU; direct observation[nb 1]
Haumea Kuiper belt (12:7) 43.13 283.28 28.22° 0.195 0.020 3IAU (absolute magnitude)
Quaoar Kuiper belt (cubewano) 43.405 285.97 8.00° 0.039 0.007–0.010 5Brown,[nb 2] Bowler[nb 4]
Makemake Kuiper belt (cubewano) 45.79 309.9 4.419 28.96° 0.159 0.02 3IAU (absolute magnitude)
2007 OR10 Scattered disc (10:3?) 67.21 550.98 30.70° 0.500  ? 4Brown,[nb 2] Bowler[nb 4]
Eris Scattered disc 67.67 557 3.436 44.19° 0.442 0.10 2IAU; more massive than Pluto[nb 1]
Sedna Detached 518.57 ~11,400 11.93° 0.853  ? 4Brown,[nb 2] Barucci,[nb 5] etc.[nb 6][nb 7]

Personally, I think the first looks and reads better. — kwami (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e Sheppard et al. 2011 "A southern sky and galactic plane survey for bright Kuiper Belt objects". The Astronomical Journal, 142:98
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Mike Brown, 'How many dwarf planets are there in the outer solar system?' Accessed 2011-08-24
  3. ^ a b Ortiz et al. 2011. "A mid-term astrometric and photometric study of trans-Neptunian object (90482) Orcus". A&A 525:A31
  4. ^ a b c d Bowler, 2011. "Dwarf planet is an in-betweener". Astronomy & Geophysics, 52:5.07.
  5. ^ a b Barucci et al., 2010. "(90377) Sedna: Investigation of surface compositional variation". The Astronomical Journal 140:6
  6. ^ a b Rabinowitz, Schaefer, Tourtellotte, 2011. "SMARTS Studies of the Composition and Structure of Dwarf Planets". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 43
  7. ^ a b Malhotra, 2010. "On the Importance of a Few Dwarf Planets". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 41
As usual you are lying about sources. Though I am not surprised. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any more evidence for your accusations than you usually do? This is supposed to be an academic enterprise: "No it isn't!" is not a valid argument. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
There is sufficient evidence to ban you from all pages related to dwarf planets (broadly construed). Ruslik_Zero 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Kheider, on the reason for acceptance, for Haumea & Makemake it was not size or mass, but albedo. And, apart from people like Brown, they aren't said to be DPs today because we know those figures, but because the IAU named them as DPs. Maybe "IAU naming process (albedo)"? — kwami (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is something new. You seems now to have begun directly fabricating evidence. Ruslik_Zero 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Makemake and Haumea are listed as dps based on their known absolute magnitudes. The albedo is merely an approximation. -- Kheider (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
My bad. You are correct, of course. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is probably as close as we will come to agreeing on this matter. -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the phrasing "not universally accepted", maybe you can come up w s.t. better, but the point is that everyone accepts that the "bonafide" three are in HE, whereas the IAU has expressed doubts about Haumea & Makemake, and Sheppard only states that it's "likely". — kwami (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Name an astronomer that does not treat Makemake or Haumea as a dp. Given that we do not know the mass or size of Sedna or OR10, I think we need to be careful of adding more "candidates" to the IAU's list of 5 dps. -- Kheider (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheppard, in the quote you provided above. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheppard never states that he doubts the candidacy of Makemake or Haumea as dps -- Kheider (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheppard never states that he actually doubts that Orcus or Quaoar are DPs either. What he does state is that three are "bonafide" DPs, and the other six "likely". He gives the same confidence for Haumea and Makemake as for Orcus and Quaoar, and we should reflect his opinion as an expert in the field. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the combined table is a good idea, unless there is a clear distinction - such as by listing them first and grouped together - between the official DPs and the candidates. One thing that should be made clear - based on the extensive discussions to date - is that a table does not grant licence for Kwami to continue to repeatedly attempt to rewrite the article copy to reflect his perspective. --Ckatzchatspy 10:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think such a list would need to be labeled "dps and best candidates". I also am not sure such an expanded list is necessary when we already have an article on dwarf planet candidates. -- Kheider (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
That label would be acceptable. The list here are the bodies accepted as DPs by one expert or another. There are three such lists: Sheppard's 3, the IAU's 5, and Brown's 9. 9 is a small enough number that I see no problem with listing them all. They are also (mostly) named, whereas the other candidates are (mostly) unnamed. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not care if they are named. -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It was an error from the beginning to include any candidates into this article. It should include only five firmly established dwarf planets. All other bodies should go elsewhere. Ruslik_Zero 14:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
There are three firmly established dwarf planets. Haumea & Makemake are only assumed, and the IAU itself has noted that they may turn out to not be DPs. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is why your argument to add to the IAU 5 is pointless. -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Meaning what, exactly? We can't be sure which are DPs, so we shouldn't mention any that aren't in the particular source that you approve of? We are an encyclopedia, and that means we need to reflect the opinions of experts in the field. Brown is such an expert, as is Sheppard, and as are several others. As is the IAU. We need to accommodate all of them. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
On colors, I find the last two are lacking contrast between the options; I'm not a fan of the pink/mauve & green combo of the first one, but it is easier to read at a glance. That is, either swap the green for a red or blue, or the darker mauve for blue or yellow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The colors in the top proposal are problematic for the color-blind. Also, there's nothing iconic about them. Having a darker shade for the best established is iconic, though the shades I proposed may not be the best. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as grouping bodies together according to degree of acceptance, as Ckatz would like, that would be easy enough to do with a sortable table. I'll add it in above. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Bowell, Ted. "The Asteroid Orbital Elements Database". Lowell Observatory. Retrieved 2008-02-12.