Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming

The problem and how we can fix it

I am starting this subpage since there is a real problem with the naming of the "dwarf planets". Simply put, there is no rule for it. What we now have for the "dwarf planet" names are:

• 1 Ceres
• Pluto and
• 136199 Eris (recently renamed to Eris (dwarf planet) and then moved back as there is an ongoing discussion as to moving it and the move was done against consensus).

So we now have three different styles of names for each of three dwarf planets. Ideally, there would be a consistent way of describing these objects, yet in the current confusion there is none.

If there is to be a consistent way of handling this new class of solar system object, then we Wikipedians need to decide how they are to handled as a group. Options include:

1. Leave the things alone at this time.
2. Use the proper name (with the minor planet desgiantion) for all "dwarf planets". (So Pluto → 134340 Pluto and Eris (dwarf planet) returns to 136199 Eris [or stays there, as it appears to be hopping about between the names]).
3. Suffix all "dwarf planets" with (dwarf planet). (So Pluto → Pluto (dwarf planet) and Ceres → Ceres (dwarf planet) and 136199 Eris → Eris (dwarf planet))
4. Use no suffix (as with most of the full fledged planets). (So 1 Ceres → Ceres (which is currently the page for the Roman goddess Ceres) and Eris (dwarf planet)/136199 Eris → Eris (which is currently a diambiguation page but was about the goddess Eris until the "dwarf planet" was named).
5. Use both the minor planet number prefix and the (dwarf planet) suffix. (So we end up with 1 Ceres (dwarf planet), 134340 Pluto (dwarf planet), and 136199 Eris (dwarf planet).
6. Use the common-name (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). Then going by how well-known an object is, and their various disambiguation problems, we would end up using Pluto, Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet)

A related issue in how to handle the direct names of these objects, as they invariably also refer to a deity. Once again, each "dwarf planet" has a different default behavior for its name. Pluto is for the "dwarf planet", Ceres is for the goddess, and Eris disambiguates. My advice at this time is to leave this alone, but it may be worthy of some thought for the future.

In any case, it is my hope that we can get editors from all three of these pages and the dwarf planet page to agree on something here. Otherwise there are more edit wars in store on this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

All the new dwarf planets soon to be reclassified will obviously fall under the same rules. -- Nbound

Opinions

• Option 2 or 5 are good with me -- Nbound 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Number 4 will never happen. RandomCritic 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Leave 'em alone. Eris needed disambiguation, but Pluto and Ceres do not. There is no need for all articles in the same class to have the same disambiguation wording in the article name. Disambiguation is not categorization. Browse through a dozen random categories and you will find that the articles in them are sometimes disambiguated, sometimes not. Sometimes you get TV shows or manga articles with all subarticles dabbed this way, but it looks fannish. Alas, at this time, I don't believe Eris is anywhere near being the primary topic for that term, but eventually it may be. That isn't the case for Pluto and Ceres, and Ceres is affected by a disambiguation (from Ceres) pattern that has been in place for decades and is well understood by astronomers and laymen. --Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Eris should go back to 136199 Eris. Ceres and all other dwarf planets, asteroids, or whatever, should keep (or get) numbers. Pluto should be the sole exception and stay Pluto (exceptions are okay). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a big fan of option 3. ((User changed to Option 2 - See below)) Regardless of which we choose, it has to be consistent. Do you imagine how confused and frustrated people would get if the articles for the major planets were "Mercury", "Venus (Disambiguation), try to find Venus(Planet)", "Earth (This is where we live yay!)", "Mars (Solar System)", "Jupitar (Gas Giant)", "Uranus (7th planet)" and "Neptune (heavenly body)". Why would you do this? Pick a naming convention and stick with it for articles of that class. Consistency is very important. That's why Wikipedia has factboxes for historical articles, pictures for the polygons, categories of articles, etc. Organisation, intuitiveness, professionalism and ease of use are THE MOST IMPORTANT factors in any work of reference besides information itself. My gut tells me that if I found an article at Eris (drawf planet) I would find another dwarf planet article at Ceres (drawf planet), just like you figure if you saw a big red cross on one hospital, you figure the next hospital you come to will also have a big red cross, and not, say, a blue circle. I vote #3, but mostly I vote for consistency. Arrenlex 03:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, I'd like to throw my support behind #2 instead (134340 Pluto, 136199 Eris, 1 Ceres). It follows official naming conventions and seens to be the way dwarf planets should be labelled. Arrenlex 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• 4 should definitely happen. People searching for Ceres or Eris are far far more likely to be looking for the dwarf planets than the goddesses. The two goddesses are far less famous than the God Pluto (where people will be looking for the god 50% of the time). If not I vote for consistency. The Enlightened 03:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see it's being a "dwarf planet" will do much for 1 Ceres. It speaks of its status that the goddess "owns" the name in this encyclopedia, amd I honestly don't see that situation changing. (At the least, I wnat to see evidence that it has changed as opposed to anticipating the change.) IMO, the best you can hope for with Ceres is for the name to redirect to the disambiguation page. --EMS | Talk 04:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'd guess far fewer than 50% of the searches for "Pluto" are for the god. Eris, however, is pretty big, being a part of Discordianism. The fact that Eris is a longer page than Pluto shows it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• They really need to retain their MPC numbers, they are the official designation, the only reason this is any issue at all is because, Pluto/Eris only recently received them, and some editors have reservations about the 134340 Pluto reclassification. All the other dwarf planet candidates have MPC numbers, and all the actual dwarf planets do (1 Ceres of course always having one), they are still asteroids and KBO/SDO's as they were before, as well as being dwarf planets, the MPC numbers should be retained for clarity and corectness. -- Nbound 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Except, of course, that there is the very real possibility that there will be a new catalogue for the dwarf planets. (The MPEC circular re: the numbers for Pluto et al stated that the assignment of mp numbers did not preclude inclusion in a different numbering system.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, and if/when that happens we can change the MPC numbers to the new numbering system, but we dont preempt decisions on wikipedia. -- Nbound 05:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd go with number 4. Dwarf planets will be few enough that there's no need for the numbers to be in the article title. Nik42 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - and besides who knows how many more ice dwarves remain undiscovered, according to the predictions there are potentially thousands, while not all of these will be dwarf planets, 10's/100's may be.. -- Nbound 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Number 4 if available (such as for Pluto and I suspect for Quaoar and Sedna once they're declared dwarf planets). If Number 4 is not available, use Number 2 to disambiguate. --Aranae 06:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Option 4 is my choice. I think it should happen because "dwarf planets" are supposed to be a higher class than the "small solar-system bodies" that have these numbers. By including the dwarf numbers, it degrades the objects and shows no distinction between a teeny-tiny asteroid and an object like Pluto!

Theres no heirachy as you propose, just classifications, you cannot promote or demote an object despite what the media would like you to beleive. These are big round rocks, they dont have feelings, they wont feel degraded. Despite the fact a number is hardly the basis of degradation anyway, the distinction between the asteroid and the dwarf planets, is that some are dwarf planets which is stated in the articles and the solar system footer, and probably wherever else they are mentioned! If that isnt good enough for you option 5 can do all that work for us. -- Nbound 06:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But, the IAU clearly said there is a distinction between SSSB and dwarf-planets. Including the number could confuse readers and then the IAU's "scientific" protocol that Wiki is supposed to elaborate to the public, is flawed. There's no harm in just calling the articles Pluto, Ceres, or Eris. These ARE their names, the numbers are just their to more easily catologue new info about the objects that come in. 134340 is no more correct than simply Pluto. I think by just saying their names as the titles creates a strong distinction between SSSBs and the dwarf planets, which are suppossed to be a higher class.

• I like option 3. When someone creates an interwiki link to a dwarf planet article, linking to 'Eris (dwarf planet)' will be much simpler than linking to '1451512363567373263 Eris' or whatever the number is. Third, putting numbers in the article title makes it seem cluttered. As long as the official name is made clear in the first sentence of the article, the article names without numbers will clean it up. Finally, the current standard is to use the numbering system, but it feels like dwarf planets are supposed to be elevated beyond asteroids and KBOs and such. E946 07:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence, Pluto, Ceres & Eris are of a higher class than the SSSB's, of which most are only recognized by the number. The 3 dwarf-planets are recognized by name and having the number in the title (the numbers should be in the first sentence of the article, though) will create no distinction between Pluto and some asteroid with a number like 442093.

• I would have to call for position 1, as we have no idea as to what new numerical system will be put in place for the dwarf planets that may require a new article name. Right now, no one's going to look up "Pluto (dwarf planet)" when they want to know about Pluto, and when people look for "Eris" they get the disambiguation page that will lead them to Eris (dwarf planet) (which should probably be moved back to the numerical designation soon) and 1 Ceres has always been as such. There isn't much of anything in the foreseeable future that will make these suggested moves required. Ryūlóng 07:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• The idea is that Pluto will be a disambiguation page. E946 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Go with option 2.
  1. The number serves as disambiguation, and I quote from the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." The parenthetical disambiguation (option 3) is in fact the second option on that list.
  2. Dwarf planets are minor planets, as evidenced by them being given numbers by the MPC, which is an official body operating as part of the IAU. This whole idea that dwarf planets are NOT minor planets is incorrect - both dwarf planets and SSSB fall into the "minor planets" umbrella. We are not saying dwarf planets are SSSB!
  3. The arguments about ease of accessibility and pipe tricks and such like are irrelevant when you consider redirects. There seems to be some kind of view that if we go for calling the article "136199 Eris" or "1 Ceres", people searching for "Eris (dwarf planet)" will get an unfriendly blank page! These parenthetical disambiguations can surely still exist as redirects!
  4. 136199 Eris, 134040 Pluto and 1 Ceres are official designations. Eris (dwarf planet), Pluto (dwarf planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet) are Wikipedianisms. I don't get why we should prefer the Wikipedianism over the official designation!

Chaos syndrome 18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Option 2 - which is why I voted Support below --John Kenneth Fisher 02:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Option 6 or 3. The numbers make ugluy article titles Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Option 6 (or 4). Wikipedia always attempts to use the common-name first. The numbers are just confusing and should be bracketed anyway. The names of the bodies in question are Ceres, Eris and Pluto, and they should be named as such. aLii 10:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Option 6. "Consistency is important," writes Arrenlex above, but why? I see no particular reason why consistency ought to be a factor in the naming of these articles, given that redirects will exist anyway. Common names should be preferred; thus, option 4 would be my second choice, and option 3 my third choice. Chuck 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparative research

I decided to check on how the other Wikipedias that have the same problem are handling the situation. Here's a summary:

French:	(1) Cérès	(134340) Pluton	(136199) Éris	numbers throughout
Italian:	Cerere (astronomia)	Plutone (astronomia)	Eris (astronomia)	parenthetical (astronomy)
Spanish:	(1) Ceres	Plutón (astronomía)	(136199) Eris	mixed
German:	Ceres (Zwergplanet)	Pluto (Zwergplanet)	Eris (Zwergplanet)	parenthetical (dwarf planet)
Swedish:	1 Ceres	Pluto (dvärgplanet)	136199 Eris	mixed
Portuguese:	Ceres (planeta anão)	Plutão	Éris (planeta anão)	mixed
Dutch:	Ceres (dwergplaneet)	Pluto (dwergplaneet)	Eris (dwergplaneet)	parenthetical (dwarf planet)
Polish:	1 Ceres	134340 Pluton	136199 Eris	numbers throughout
Russian:	Tserera (karlikovaya planeta)	Pluton (karlikovaya planeta)	Erida (karlikovaya planeta)	parenthetical (dwarf planet)

Sum total is:

• Ceres: Numbers 4, (dwarf planet) 4, (astronomy) 1
• Pluto: Numbers 2, (dwarf planet) 4, (astronomy) 2, alone 1
• Eris: Numbers 4, (dwarf planet) 4, (astronomy) 1

The consistent ones are:

• French and Polish - numbers only
• Italian - (astronomy)
• German, Dutch, and Russian - (dwarf planet)
• Spanish, Swedish, and Portuguese are inconsistent, but none in exactly the same way as the English wikipedia.

This all is just for comparative purposes. RandomCritic 07:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again for comparative purposes:

Just browsing through all the FLA's for each:

• Ceres is fairly evenly split between numbers and dwarf planet, though numbers is ahead barely
• Eris is currently about a 3 way split between numbers, dwarf planet, and still unchanged from 2003UB313
• Pluto is mainly dwarf planets, with a few numbers, and a few unchanged from Pluto

It seems we are not the only wiki-group stuck in limbo.

Nbound 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Option 4 conflicts

The main problem I see with option 4 is the fact that the Eris and Ceres articles already exist. While Pluto will have no problem here, it will be very hard to convince any major editors of othse two articles to move to a different article.

It will also double the amount of changes that we need to make to links to reflect the change. Also, what happens if or when (presumably when) new dwarf planets are discovered? It will start the process all over again. I believe we can cross option 4 off the list simply due to how many conflicts it may raise now and in the future. E946 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, ill cross it off the list, it can always be readded pending complaints -- Nbound 07:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Don't cross it off the list, the Ceres & Eris issues can be dealt with. Just because you forsee a problem doesn't automatically mean you can cross it off.

The be bold and re add it! -- Nbound 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Alrighty then, but I don't want people to continuously remove it. I'm sure a compromise on this subject can be reached. I feel that you can include the number in the article but keep the titles the same. The Pluto article does this wonderfully by saying the number is there in the first sentence, but keeps the name that is historically correct and is the one everybody loves and is familiar with. I think that instead of Pluto going the way of the Eris & Ceres articles, the latters should go the way of Pluto, which has been truly a prototype as an object and as a way of classifying objects.

I listed Option 4 because it is in principle an option. It may not be a good option, but it is one. My own sense of the issue is that we proabably want the "dwarf planet" names to go to disambiguation pages as is the case for Eris, although I will admit that this presupposes that it is ambiugous as to whether people will in general be looking up the name seeking the deity or the astronomical object. Pluto will remain an exception as it only recently has been downgraded from its status as a planet, and it probably makes no sense to treat it that same as the other "dwarf planets" in that respect, although I would like its name to conform to some standard for this category of object. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

An alliance of the "Dwarves" and the "Integerians"?

Perhaps 5 is the best option, the two main sides get what they want... granted it is not the best option, but it may be the one we can come to a consensus on... -- Nbound 07:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree, because I'm not in favor of having the number in the article (particularly Pluto's)

Why particularly Pluto? we are working for a consistent naming scheme -- Nbound 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Because I like Pluto. Plain and simple..it's always been my favorite planet and I think the leader or main member of the "dwarf-planets" is Pluto, so the other articles should follow with the same nomenclature as the Pluto article.

...Option 5 is ridiculous. It's a double-disambiguation. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem Half-Solved

We have now moved back to a semi-coherent naming scheme, it is possible to leave just Pluto as the singular exception. But i really think we should move it in line with the others... Thoughts? -- Nbound 08:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I say we should bring the others in line with Pluto. Why is Ceres right, but Pluto "wrong"? The way the Pluto article is currently set up is PERFECT. Gives the distinction that it is not a SSSB and still very clearly says in the first sentence that it has that number.
• 1 Ceres has been "1 Ceres" for over 150 years. Pluto has been "Pluto" for the past 76 years, until someone found the MPC page and told us that it has a number like Ceres. 136199 Eris (or Eris (dwarf planet) if the page isn't protected from moving) has only been "136199 Eris" for a week or so, and before that was 2003 UB₃₁₃ for three years. Give the astronomy people time to figure out this stuff for us, please? Ryūlóng 08:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor note, I currently only object the move at Talk:136199 Eris because I think that we should wait for any sort of IAU stuff until we start renaming everything. Pluto should be an exception, and I guess maybe Ceres and Eris should have (dwarf planet) eventually, but not until other IAU literature with the nomenclature comes out. Ryūlóng 08:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think Pluto as the singular exception is valid because right now the primary use of the term "Pluto" to the general public is the space rock. Ceres competes with an equally well known Olympian, but lacks Pluto's century of planethood fame. Eris is still too new and will compete with the Eris of the Discordians. I actually suspect that Ceres and Eris will be the exceptions in needing to be disambiguated since future dwarf planets will largely be named after much more obscure deities (Sedna, Quaoar, and Orcus as examples). If Chaos makes the cut it will need to be disambiguated, but I think these will be the exception among dwarf planets instead of the rule. It's probably not necessary to include the number of these well known bodies in the article title (unless a disambiguation is needed) as they won't be predominantly referred to as such. If we settle on "Name (dwarf planet)" (I hope we don't) then the "(dwarf planet)" part is definitely not needed in cases such as Pluto where "Name" would be redirecting there anyway. --Aranae 08:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that Pluto is also competing with the highly famous and much loved Disney character also.70.225.161.247 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, with the disambiguating of Pluto to (dwarf planet), if it occurs (which is doubtful) will make Pluto redirect to Pluto (disambiguation) or vice versa. Right now Pluto is the singular exception to any sort of disambiguation. Eris and Ceres can go either way; as I said 1 Ceres has had a number for the past 150 years, and Eris has only been 136199 Eris for the past week. Ryūlóng 09:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

-- So is that a general consensus as numbers for the dwarf planets. (Pluto currently being the exception - and may or may not be moved in the future at the Pluto editors discretion [basically grandfathering its name]) -- Nbound

For future dwarf planets i think we should really stick to the MPC scheme, besides if we do that they are already at the right addresses. -- Nbound 10:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This was posted by Chaos syndrome on the Dwarf Planet talk page:

In favour of numbers - first off, the number serves to disambiguate the name, and according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." The parentheses option (i.e. putting "Ceres (dwarf planet)" is only second in the list. In addition, both dwarf planets and SSSB fall under the category of "minor planets", as evidenced by the IAU/MPC's handling of the number system. Furthermore, the existence of redirects and disambiguation pages means that you won't have to remember the numbers anyway. Chaos syndrome 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Nbound

Option 6 and beyond

The author of the above five options makes it seem like there are no other choices, which is odd, as my primary choice of names would be:

• Pluto
• Ceres (dwarf planet)
• Eris (dwarf planet)

All articles should of course acknowledge the MPC catalogue numbers, but as far as I'm aware the dwarfs planets are named "Ceres", "Eris" and "Pluto". The names do not contain the MPC number, but rather MPC numbers are simply catalogue numbers.

Pluto can simply stay where it is, because as far as the general public is concerned Pluto is/was primarily a planet, not a cartoon dog, etc. Eris and Ceres as less well known, but I believe would benefit from having layman-friendly titles. MPC numbers mean nothing to anyone outside of science - perhaps anyone outside of physics. aLii 11:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to that we should rename all the arguably common asteroids to "<name> (asteroid)" -- Nbound

Where an asteroid is famous enough to get international media coverage, then perhaps. Find me one story from a major international news organisation (e.g. the BBC, CNN, Reuters) that refers to Eris always including the MPC number. I bet you can't. If you can find several then perhaps I'll start to believe that these numbers are actually widely used by the general public. Until that time I see them as numbers used by a few astronomers (but only in a catalogue sense) and no-one else. aLii 11:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what is a famous asteroid? what about unnamed faous asteroids - do we call them "2007 XY515 (Asteroid)"? Seriously... it ruins any consistency between articles of similar objects... the most common name isnt always correct. Also, as dwarf planets these objects are still asteroids/KBO's/SDO's and should be named in accordance with others. Pluto should really be no different from any decision, just people dont agree with the authoratative body on how things are. Remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox, if the experts say there are 8 planets there are... If the experts name objects with MPC numbers then they are named that way. -- Nbound

Also one extra thing to clarify... It is just the article that should be named with the MPC number, after the first sentence the object should obviously be refered to by its name without it. -- Nbound 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have explicity added an "option 6". I call on all to remember that this is Wikipedia and that the list at the top (which I created initially BTW) can be editted as needed. The mixed approach certainly is an option: Pluto does have a special status at this time as a recently downgraded object. Letting it be an exception for now is an option, and let time relax people's feelings about it. I would think that after a while (although it may be a long "while") its not conforming to the standard for dwarf planets will look silly. --EMS | Talk 16:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This Option 6 idea doesn't mark out Pluto for any particularly special treatment. If Eris and Ceres were more well known than their mythical namesakes then they too should be moved to the main article name. As it happens they are not, and so Wikipedia convention moves them to have a descriptive noun in brackets. aLii 16:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it as Pluto, Eris (dwarf planet), and Ceres {dwarf planet). Pluto is more well known than the other two, and by putting the Ceres/Eris articles like that would make it more consistent with the Pluto article, and make sure they don't lead to the gods, etc.

Proposal

I propose to make a self-enforced official policy on the naming of Dwarf Planets, using:

<MPC Number> <Name>

As per the following official Wikipedia policies:

Wikipedia:Naming Conflict - Article Names
If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names -> Astronomy is obviously a scientific discipline and 134340 Pluto is a scientific name (opposed to Pluto [its common/colloquial form])

Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Specific topic
When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used. -> This suggest the use of numbers rather than the next option (a parenthetical)

Wikipedia:Soapbox - Advocacy
Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. -> No keeping Pluto just because you have an attachment to it

Wikipedia:Crystal Ball - Expected future events
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. -> In other words, no holding off because there may be a new numbering system used in future.

add any other possible policies endorsing this proposed policy here...

Important things to consider:

• Redirects exist... Pluto will be able to redirect or disambiguate to 134340 Pluto

• There is precedent for this move... currently all minor planets except Pluto have MPC Numbers in their names (In other words, every asteroid, and dwarf planet except Pluto is currently named in the proposed manner)

---

Thoughts/Support/Opposition? - Please leave good reasons! -- Nbound 12:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Strongly Support - Obviously ;) - Reasons listed on about 5 different pages :| - also wikipedia policies as above seem to back up this view -- Nbound
2. Strongly Support - It's consistent, It's official, it's distinict, it makes sense, it follows the wikipedia policies. Arrenlex
3. Support - Although option 5 is a second choice. That is now how those objects are named, and Pluto can always redirect to the proper name. The Wikipedia policy concerns noted above do make a solid case for this. --EMS | Talk 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support that is so strong, words cannot adequately express - Why people are arguing to ignore policy, precedent, accuracy, and common sense is beyond me. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Strongly support - see my reply to aLii above (now below - Nbound). Chaos syndrome 20:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Why solve problems others have already solved? mdf 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. My opinion is a bit more complicated than a straight vote for support since I feel the number should only be used when a disambiguation is actually needed, but I definitely support this over the (dwarf planet) option. --Aranae 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support numbers should be used for disambiguation purposes and dwarf planets are not necessarily more improtant than their namesakes. I don't care whether Pluto is moved or not but I abhor Ceres (dwarf planet) when 1 Ceres is availible. Eluchil404 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Numbering is unambiguous, and disambiguates the subject (as all current, and likely any future dwarf planets are going to have a conflicting article about a deity - and few are going to be any more important than the deity). 1 Ceres *is* used in scientific literature. Time will tell whether the other two will. Any arguments that people will be searching for Name (dwarf planet) are spurious; people will search for Name only, but in the majority of cases, that'll lead to a redirect, or disambiguation page anyway. Why add a bracketed phrase when the correct name is free to use - as per the naming policy above? Richard B 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   No-one is arguing that people will search for Name (dwarf planet). The point is that such a name will make more sense to a member of the general public than something like 134345 Name, which just confuses the matter. aLii 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   But some are arguing just that. And judging by the intro to two of the three current dwarf planets, it'll be explained in the first sentence what the number is (the official designation). As long as the reader ends up in the right place, which is easy with redirects and disambiguation pages to either article name, then a reader with average intelligence is not going to be confused as long as they read the first sentence. Really not difficult. Richard B 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   The confusing part is when people don't understand whether the name of the body is, for instance "Pluto" or whether you have to always include the huge big number, which you don't. It's also confusing on the level of "are there actually 134543 different Plutos?" Therefore for clarity it shouldn't be part of the article title. aLii 12:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   It is only the page title and lead that need to mention the MPC number, the rest can refer to Pluto as just "Pluto". In essence the page will be no different then what it is now, except for the title. That would clarify to any reader all of your points. -- Nbound 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose. There is no naming conflict. The author of this proposal even admits as such:

   "<MPC Number> <Name>"

   Iron is another good example of a scientific article that could be given a more scientific name, and also has disambiguation issues. It is not called Fe Iron or Iron (element) or Iron (Fe). It was the first example article that I looked up, and so I'm sure that one could find many other examples if so inclined. Wikipedia precedent would appear to be on the side of using the common-name over the systematic-name in such circumstances (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). Adding in unnecessary scientific jargon helps no-one. It would seem logical therefore to stick with the rule of thumb "Use the most common name".

   Point by point therefore:

   • Wikipedia:Naming Conflict. What conflict?
   • Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Everyone knows that the most widely used term can inhabit the main article. There is no problem here either.
   • Wikipedia:Soapbox. Indeed it is strange that so many people seem to be going against reason and precedent in trying to add catalogue numbers to article names.
   • Wikipedia:Crystal Ball. Seems pretty non-applicable to me.

   Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) with the precedent of element-naming using the common-name out-weighs these illogical calls for adding confusing codes into article titles to me. Again I'll mention the fact that the media, and therefore the general public is not aware of these codes for the most part, and so it baffles me that people want to include them.

   For example, lets take the case of Ceres:

   • google search for: "ceres" asteroid site:bbc.co.uk 239 hits.
   • google search for: "1 ceres" asteroid site:bbc.co.uk 2 hits.
   • CNN returns 36/0
   • yahoo.com returns 423/85
   • reuters returns 0/0 :p
   • anyway, you get the picture...

   aLii 16:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see that you have made a viable point at all. Planets and chemical elements have been given naming priority due to the fact the people looking up those names will most often be looking for the planet or the chemical element. However, the "dwarf planets" are not true planets, and it makes no sense to treat them as such. Ceres goes straight to the goddess, and Eris is disambiguated. Future "dwarf planets" are going to largely be shrugged off by the general public, amd so will exist at best at the same level as the deities (or whatever) that they are named for. That requires disambiguation of some sort.

   I also will point out that the "dwarf plnets" are also minor planets, and all minor planets (except Pluto and Eris) are today listed with their MPC numbers! Even with Pluto I would list it with its MPC number but have the name alone redirect to the former planet's page. --EMS | Talk 18:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   Are you seriously trying to tell me that most people will be looking up 134xxx Pluto (whatever the x's are)? The same common-name convention should of course apply to everything, bar a good reason for making an exception. Given the history, and media coverage, there certainly isn't a good reason for changing, for example, Pluto. Infact there seems to be better (Wikipedia) reasons for changing the other named minor planets to the common-name convention. aLii 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   Does it really matter what they look up? That's what redirects are for! Whatever they look up, they'll have something linking to here, either automatically (a redirect) or requiring manual navigation (a disambiguation page). The beauty of redirects is that we can use accurate titles while still allowing people to find the article when they use a common title. E.g. most people know the organisation as MI6, but the official title is the Secret Intelligence Service. Chaos syndrome 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   Alii your point is null - straight from WP:Naming conflict:

   • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
   • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
   • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. -- Nbound

   Also Alii there is precedent for using the MPC numbers in the names of minor planets... out of the many minor planets listed on wikipedia ALL but Pluto have MPC numbers in their names. -- Nbound

   Nbound, you keep on shouting "Naming conflict", but I don't see any other scientific article that is trying to inhabit the Pluto namespace. It's not like carbon-12 and carbon-14 — that is the kind of case that the naming conflict text applies to. It is completely irrelevent here, there is no Pluto-1 and Pluto-2, and so like I've said over and over, there is no naming conflict. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) obviously takes precedence. aLii 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia: Naming conflict refers to an argument over a name - Nbound 07:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   There is no argument over "Pluto", "Ceres and "Eris". There is only a pedantic argument as to whether catalogue numbers should be included by some intellectual snobs, who don't seem to understand that there are people in the world with less understanding of things than them. aLii 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   Have you see Pluto (disambiguation)? At the least, with Pluto no longer being a planet, the priority of the astronomical object over Pluto (mythology) has ceased to be a given. --EMS | Talk 03:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   You must be joking! Pretty much anyone who's ever had any education of any kind knows that Pluto was(is?) a planet. My guess is that far less than 50% of people know anything much about ancient mythologies. Perhaps the top 10% of the educated elite do, but the general public? An average 10 year old child? The people here arguing for pedantic scientific naming schemes seem unable to understand anything on a level below them. The information should be written in such a way as to be most easily understood by most people. Wikipedia (thankfully) is not a scientific journal. aLii 12:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Strongly oppose. Pluto is just fine where it is, Ceres & Eris can have (dwarf planet) on the end since they are less known than Pluto. - Added by 67.126.201.182
3. Strong oppose I know have preference to option number 6; Pluto is just more popular as a planet (and dog) than a deity, whereas Ceres and Eris have much more knowledge concerning their namesake deities than the chunks of rock and ice that they are. I say we should stick with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which would leave Pluto (which has been a planet for 76 years) and 1 Ceres (which was a planet for 50 years and then an asteroid) where they are, and maybe 136199 Eris can be disambiguated (but I still wish Eris would have been left as it was). Ryūlóng 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
   • Addendum Right now, I'm going by what is in all scientific literature. The most common name for 134340 Pluto is Pluto; the most common name for 1 Ceres is 1 Ceres; and there is no current common name for 136199 Eris other than Xena, 2003 UB₃₁₃, Lila, etc. Right now, I think the only problem we have is with the name of 136199 Eris/Eris (dwarf planet). Ryūlóng 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Strongly oppose. Deal with each page on a page-by-page basis. Or go with something like Pluto (Astonomy) ... Pluto (Dwarf Planet), or Pluto (Planet) for each page ... the number (or at least numbers with 6 digits) are too confusing, and will never be common usage. Nfitz 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
   • Actually, the only one with common usage with the number are the earliest asteroids that 1 Ceres is a part of. The others will never be common. Ryūlóng 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
     • Wikipedia guidelines seem to state that the common name rule is not applicable for scientific names -- Nbound
       • Can you provide a link to that? I can't see anything on WP:NAME or elsewhere that points that way (doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I can't find it!) Not completely irrelevent is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) which seems to point to the use of common names over scientific names Nfitz 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
         • Wikipedia:Naming conflict as i listed in the original proposal - for a direct link to the section click here -- Nbound 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
           • Not to butt in, but that doesn't appear to show such information (and I believe that the MPC's numerical designation of Pluto was a bit bad, seeing as they are just saying "Oh, Ceres was part of our list, and now it's part of that list, so let's give Pluto a number"). Ryūlóng 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
             • Wikipedia is fact, not opinion, nor a soapbox - If the IAU says theres 8 planets there is, if they they say theres 526.625 planets then there is, if the IAU catalogues dwarf planets with MPC numbers, then we do to. They are the authoratative body when it comes to this... -- Nbound 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
             • Also... your dismissing Wikipedia guidelines because: it "doesn't appear to show such information"... is that any basis to dismiss it at all... -- Nbound
               • I'm not saying that my opinion matters, I'm just criticizing their choice to number Pluto. Also, I cannot see what you are talking about at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Could you copy and paste the information relevant to this discussion? Ryūlóng 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                 • It's already there! Scroll up. It's the FIRST THING under the 'proposal' heading. Arrenlex 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                 • Here it is (again :P):

                   Wikipedia:Naming conflict - Article Names

                   • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
                   • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
                   • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

                   -- Nbound 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                 • Ah, I see it now. However, the conflicting scientific name is a problem here, because we have not seen any sort of literature that uses the massive six digit number for Pluto, whereas both Eris and Ceres have their scientific names in contemporary literature. Ryūlóng 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                 • Be aware these have only just been given to them, so there hasnt been much chance for them to be used... BUT the last MPC circular did use them so theres a start anyway. -- Nbound 02:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                 • Here is a checklist from Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns:

                   A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

                   • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
                   • Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
                   • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

                 For question 1, Pluto is indeed common usage, but Ceres and Eris are not common usages for their objects. For question 2, the official names are the ones with the MPC numbers. Question 3 is irrelevant. --EMS | Talk 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose a name is a name is a name. The 313 got itself a name an it will live with it. We have zillions of stars. Aldebaran not Alpha Tauri Aldebaran, Deneb not Alpha Cygni Deneb, George W. Bush, not President George W. Bush. `'mikka (t) 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • They are bayer designations (for defining bright stars), following this style... Aldebaran is actually Alpha Tauri (first bright star of Taurus), Deneb is actually Alpha Cygni (first bright star of Cygnus), some stars with previous designations that are unused are named with bayer designation (eg. Alpha Centauri instead of Rigil Kentaurus) - but if it has a name its generally not refered to that way - as for President Bush he not a scientific topic! -- Nbound 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • Do you realize that Alpha Tauri redirects to Aldeberan and likewise for Alpha Cygni and Deneb? You could use better examples ... Nik42 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   • Yes thats the point, bayer designation generally isnt the stars name, if i told u to look at Beta Cygni, rather than Albireo (which you may have no idea where it is), you could just look at Cygnus, and see the second bright star (reading left to right, top to bottom).

6. Oppose Dwarf planets and planets should both be at just name, though, perhaps, Ceres and Eris could be disambiguation pages (with the dwarf planets being Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet)) just like Mercury is a disambiguation, with the innermost planet being at Mercury (planet). Nik42 03:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • But "Mercury" is the official astronomical name for the planet Mercury. The problem is Mercury is often used for other things. "134340 Pluto" is the official astronomical name for the dwarf planet Pluto. "134340 Pluto" is NOT used for other things. Therefore I don't see the problem with calling the article "134340 Pluto". It can easily be arranged that when a user enters 'pluto' they be taken to 134340 Pluto, with a link at the top for the deity and the disambiguation, and when a user enters 'eris' they be taken to 136199 Eris, with a link at the top for the deity and the disambiguation. I note that this would require exactly the same number of clicks from a user searching for the deity Eris as does the current disambig page arrangement. Ceres would be switched: "Ceres" redirects to "1 Ceres" with a link to the deity at the top. This would require one extra click, but with all the attention Eris has been getting lately, I think, at least at the moment, almost all the Eris searches will be for the D.P. Basically I am suggesting the D.P.s be moved to <number> <name> with disambig lines at the top exactly like Pluto's is now. Arrenlex 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • I don't see why the Dwarf Planets should be treated teh same as the asteroids. Personally, I don't think it's such a good idea to have the asteroids' numbers as part of their article names, but there's far too many of them by now to change them around. But I just don't see the point in having the DP's at 1 Ceres 134340 Pluto and 136199 Eris as opposed to just Ceres, Pluto, and Eris, or perhaps Ceres (dwarf planet), Pluto (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet). The number is just an unnecessary bit of clutter. Nik42 06:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. After much thought, and considerable doubt on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that I support the status quo exactly as it is, that is, numbers for Ceres and for Eris, and nothing for Pluto. Ideally, in the interests of consistency, it might be desirable for Pluto to be 134340 Pluto, but this is not currently its accepted name. It does no great harm to have one exception, at least for a year or two, especially when the reason for the exception (that Pluto was, until lately, listed as a full-fledged planet) is so close at hand. As far as using the parenthetical disambiguator (dwarf planet), I must oppose that as well. The reason lies not in the past but in the future: the list of dwarf planets can be expected to grow, and the three named objects most likely to be added in the months and years to come are Sedna, Quaoar, and Orcus. How are these currently found in Wikipedia? Why, as 90377 Sedna, 50000 Quaoar, and 90482 Orcus. I see no reason for going to the trouble of renaming everything every time that one KBO or other gets classed as a dwarf planet. Furthermore, when some of the unnamed objects (like 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 receive their names, we can expect further unsightly wrangles, between those who want their favorite KBO to be listed as [[234567 Incognita]] and those who want it listed as [[Incognita (dwarf planet)]]. I say leave things as they are and we'll have the least amount of trouble in the future. RandomCritic 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose: Completely pointless, and the numbers are only generally used when talking about more obscure minor planets anyway. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta - the four most well known minor planets are all refered to by number on a consistent basis in scientific literature (just check each's references) - Nbound 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   That's because they have always been minor planets, and have always been referred to as such. Ryūlóng 08:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Not entirely true, but they have been minor planets for significantly longer. In any case, they have not been famous for about a hundred years, and so giving an easily-looked up number is useful. However, I do not believe at this time that any information on Pluto is actually listed under its number in currently published sources, seeing as it's only had it a week or so, and that Pluto has been a subject of interest for several decades. It will be some time before the number designation is useful for finding information on the subject, and until it's useful, skip it, I say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • The latest IAU circular (the same one that recently named Eris) uses the MPC catalog number for Pluto -- Nbound 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • Yes, so the union that voted for the renaming uses it to reinforce its decision. But will it be taken up in general use is what matters. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • They were all classified as planets in the 1800's, and old classifications have no bearing on new ones -- Nbound 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   • So? They have been minor planets much longer than Pluto has been considered a planet, too. Ryūlóng 09:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose, I'd strongly prefer NAME (dwarf planet) for all of them. —Nightstallion (?) 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose There no confusion can appear with dwarf planets to keep numbers.--Nixer 09:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Strongly Oppose, articles for dwarf planets (and notable other SSSBs) should be at [[NAME]] where NAME is free or where the SSSB is most important (as in Pluto), and at [[NAME (dwarf planet)]] in all other cases. Catalog numbers are not names! We do not have [[I Mercury]], [[II Venus]], [[[III Earth]] either. -- Jordi·✆ 09:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Thats because they dont have catalog numbers like that, the closest ive even see to that is in some science fiction wehere Earth would be Sol III (third planet of Sol) -- Nbound 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    The Moon has official name Earth I, but we still have not such article.--Nixer 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Humourously, "Earth I" was redirected to "Moon" back in 2006 March. I have never seen it in reference to the Moon re: the scientific literature, nor even popular culture (though I am no big follower of the latter). Tempted to file an AFD on that... mdf 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Catalog numbers are names, and perfectly good ones at that. That things like "NGC 231" or "PSR B0531+21" or "823746 Kallisti" look weird to some people is not our problem. Why worry about it? Just use the solutions others have proposed and are using themselves. mdf 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose - a large number of people voted on this issue at 123456 Eris (or whatever it is) and the majority was in favour of moving to Eris (dwarf planet). That means numbers are essentially opposed for two of the three bodies in question. SteveRwanda 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is not a democracy... thats why it was moved back -- Nbound

    It was moved back because Ryūlóng is a member of wikimafia.--Nixer 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Calm down mate... and besides if u havent noticed... so far in this debate he's been on the opposing side like you -- Nbound

13. Oppose - for name (dwarf planet) or only name. They are now dwarf planets, not asteroids any more. (the IAU should now put 1 Pallas, 2 Juno, 3 Vesta, but that's my opinion)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    What a terrible idea. Can you imagine the confusion that would result? You don't want to tell NASA (or ESA or JAXA) to send a spacecraft to asteroid 90210, only to have them find out later that you really meant asteroid 90209. If 1 Ceres were to be "delisted" (the likelihood of which I think is close to nil) I imagine that they would just "retire" the number, like the number on a famous football player's jersey. RandomCritic 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Thats not true anyway... the dwarf planets retain previous designations, 1 Ceres is still an asteroid, 134340 Pluto is still a Kuiper Belt Object, and 136199 Eris is still a Scattered Disk Object. -- Nbound

14. Conditional Oppose - WP:NC states that articles should use the most common name. "Pluto" is far more common than 134340 Pluto (I actually had to look that number up to make this post). I would be happy to see other dwarf planets named using their number and name as opposed to their name and then "(dwarf planet)", however in the case of Pluto, there should be an exception. If this comprimise is implemented, I will support, however I will not support a policy that will result in the renaming of Pluto. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    This is why we have redirects: so the many and varied "lay names" can be attached to the single "official" name. This is good, because not only do we do the Right Thing, but it also implicitly educates the reader about these matters, without having to explain whatever crazy nomenclature is ultimately invented by the denizens of Wikipedia. "Oh cool, "Fly Agaric" is actually Amanita muscaria!" and so on. mdf 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Also Wikipedia:Naming conflict states we should use the scientific name over a common name when available -- Nbound

15. Oppose We should keep the numbers in the article, but for the titles keep XXXXXX (dwarf planet). Less clutter on the screen, easier to recognize for non-astronomers, and consistent. Pluto may redirect to Pluto_(dwarf_planet), and so should all the XXXXXXX_Name. Pmbarros 22:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, as I generally oppose attempts to impose a pedantically correct article name over the most commonly used name (overwhelmingly the most commonly used name, in this case). Precise article naming is not important, precise article content is important. --ajn (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose per above and media usage is often simply "Pluto". - Kookykman|(t)e 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts (now with added straw vote :P )

The newly-discovered dwarf planets (Eris, say), as well as the asteroids now promoted (Ceres, etc), have most information about them classified using their number. However, Pluto has been a subject of research for many decades, but has only had a number for a week. This means the number is significantly less useful for Pluto.

I vote we suspend movement until we can see whether this number is actually being used in new scientific papers: say a month or two. If it is then being used in a majority of papers on the subject, by all means move it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fallback Proposal (if no consesus on above)- What if we revisit this issue in a few months? we arent getting anywhere here, and their certainly isnt any consensus. Until then we'll use the MPC number on all bar Pluto? and discuss Pluto at a later date (ie. when the dust settles) -- Nbound

Everyone's thoughts on this?

1. Agree - it doesnt look like consensus will be formed here why not wait for the dust to settle -- Nbound

Comment, this page has only been open for one day! I think we may as well leave it open for a week before declaring no concensus (although I agree that is the likely outcome). aLii 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

True, i guess i just want this issue out of the way... changed title -- Nbound

1. Disagree There was already a 3:1 conensus to move 123456 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) in the vote there ... so surely the fallback position is to leave Pluto alone and move Eris as previously agreed. Nfitz 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: My proposal refers more to Pluto, the most controversial of the three. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed, but the vote that has started here by Nbound is on all 3 articles; as the ongoing discussion here, is being used to block the name change to Eris (dwarf planet) which already finished discussion, then that has bearing now too. Unfortunately ... Nfitz 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: At a minimum I think the dust should have settled enough so that these discussions took place while the topic was no longer on the main page. At this point the entirety of the conversation has taken place while the Eris note was posted there. --Aranae 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a proposal here: instead of going by simple numbers of people "voting" one way or the other, surely any decision made should be based more on the arguments put forward by either side? Chaos syndrome 17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Consider what happens if we move all minor planets to the parenthetical form. We're going to have a hell of a lot of "should it be at (Kuiper belt object), (scattered disc object), (extended scattered disc object), (scattered disk object), (trans-Neptunian object)..." debates springing up! Chaos syndrome 18:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Nobody suggests doing so for all minor planets. We already have Mars (planet), Venus (planet), Titan (moon), nothing wrong would happen if we have Eris (dwarf planet). There are only three categories of bodies on Sun-centered orbit specified by IAU.--Nixer 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  At the least, let's stick to the issue at hand, which is creating a standard relating to the "dwarf planets". To imply that any decision made here will automatically impact other classes of bodies is a red herring. There apepars to be no debate about retaining the <MPC number> name format for the small Solar System bodies. Even for the dwarf planets, the use of the (dwarf planet) suffix will mean that there will be a redirect to it from the formal title. For example 1 Ceres → Ceres (dwarf planet). --EMS | Talk 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  True. Just somewhat amusing to redirect from an official designation to a Wikipedianism, but hey, what the people want, the people get. Chaos syndrome 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I checked my print encyclopedia and it calls 1 Ceres just "Ceres." Likewise Comet Halley isn't called 1P/Halley at Wikipedia. I think the official name in astronomical catalogues is not always the best for an encyclopedia. That said Ceres (dwarf planet), Pluto (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet), etc I think would be fine. Apologies if this was redundant.--T. Anthony 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  All periodic comets on wikipedia excluding Halley and Encke are named with the proper designation -- Nbound

  Indeed, there's that common-name precedent I keep talking about! Famous comets are given common names. Nice point about your print encyclopedia. After a quick check I see that the Britannica online also uses "Ceres" [1]. aLii 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why do we have all this discussion again? It looks to me that there are valid arguments on all sides and that we will reach no consensus on the naming convention. We should probably leave everything as is for now and talk again sometimes next year. Redirects are working nicely in the meantime. As I stated earlier, my guess is that, being sizeable objects of the solar system as planets and large moons, the designations of 'Ceres' and 'Eris' will become far more popular than their official counterparts so that they will eventually end up in the same exception category than 'Pluto'.ArthurWeasley 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, seriously, enough. Let's wait for any sort of massive numbers to appear in serious scientific journals, and then we can make our decision based off of what others use. Ryūlóng 00:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Disagree. I still strongly believe we need consistency in the naming scheme.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrenlex (talk • contribs)