This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I restored the note about Sedna's mass on the theory that it's a routine calculation, and as such not OR per WP:CALC. Please feel free to revert my undo if you disagree. —RP88(talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, the use of Pluto's density in the calc is presumably the source of a possible claim of OR. —RP88(talk) 01:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To qualify as a dwarf planet, Sedna must be shown to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case, and several astronomers have called it one.
Are there some astronomers who believe it doesn't qualify as one?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there are any astronomers who have unequivocally said it wasn't (I don't think they would do so without pretty strong evidence, of which there is none), but not everyone is completely ready to say that it is. Some won't be happy without a telescope image, while others are happy with a diameter estimate. Serendipodous 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
At a diameter 995±80 km, no one seriously thinks that it could be irregular, AFAIK. Note that even rocky Vesta at a diameter of 525 km is rather round, aside from Rheasilvia basin (which has precluded it from regularly being called a dwarf planet) and at a diameter of 213 km icy Phoebe used to round but was severly battered. Then again, Saturn's moonsMimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, and Iapetus all are clearly round, but careful measurements of their dimensions has revealed that they deviate from strict hydrostatic equilibrium (of Saturn's moons only Rhea and Titan have dimensions in correspondence with hydrostatic equilibrium). So if you go for hydrostatic equilibrium in its strict sense, none of the IAU-accepted dwarf planets (Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake, and Haumea) are really known to fit. --JorisvS (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
If 2002 UX25 has the <0.9 density that Brown says it does, it would not be a dwarf planet (since DP can't be porous). UX25 was thought to be too large to be porous: how large can a porous object get? There's also the Saturn moons, as you mention. Would Iapetus be considered a DP if it was a TNO? I think the reason that Sedna is not generally labelled a DP is a recognition of the lack of understanding of these bodies (or, rather, lack of proof of current understanding), rather than uncertainty about Sedna's size or other properties. Most days, though, I think it's simply that whether or not something is a DP is not scientifically interesting, so most astronomers just blindly follow the IAU list, or just ignore the issue altogether. Tbayboy (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A big strike against Sedna is that since it does not have a known moon, we do not know its mass or (estimated density). -- Kheider (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that were Iapetus in solar orbit, it would be considered a DP (but would likely also be generating discussion about that it is not technically in HE). 2002 UX25 is an interesting case! Large enough that is should be a DP, but a very low density possibly requiring porosity and lightcurve measurements that cast doubt on its DPness...--JorisvS (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this should remind us that DP is a rather stupid class. It was created to save Pluto's planetary status, but since that never happened, it serves no purpose except to determine which body at the IAU gets to name a new object. Iapetus would not be a DP if it were in Solar orbit, and there's a good chance that Haumea and Makemake are not DPs either. If they aren't, then Sedna probably isn't, but they would each require an orbiter, not just a fly-by, to determine if they're actually in HE. In other words, a completely useless category.
Serendipodous, if astronomers are willing to accept telescope images, then they're effectively saying the IAU definition can be ignored.
I think we should follow Brown's rec and use "planetoid" (literally, "planet-like") for bodies which we can reasonably expect to be round (that is, to be "worlds"), without demanding that they fit an technical definition that we can't actually determine. There's no problem calling Sedna a "planetoid". — kwami (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the class is fine, but we now know that requiring technical hydrostatic equilibrium for it is meaningless, thanks to the Saturnian moons. Those are all clearly rounded and really should be considered DPs if they were in solar orbit. Looking for rounded objects, one notices also Phoebe and Vesta, both of which appear to have been battered out of a nicely round shape. Because technical HE does not do it, a simple impact on a DP should not suddenly make it lose its DPness. --JorisvS (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Because of Saturn's moons, we know that equilibrium shape does not mean HE. But without close-up observations, it's also impossible to know if irregular bodies like Phoebe were once in HE. Certainly if a HE body were split in half, the two halves would not count as separate DPs, so where do we draw the line? What if an ex-HE body is disrupted and comes back together as a rubble pile? Or 21 Lutetia, if it proves to be the battered core of a DP? — kwami (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
See 31 Euphrosyne: With a density over 6, it must be a fragment or core of something big. Tbayboy (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I find the usage of "overtake" in footnote [b] to be ambiguous. It is apparently used in reference to one object approaching nearer to the sun than another, but this is not a terminology that would be used by astronomers. (It is trivial, also). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Other than Wikipedia no one else seems to call this anything but Sedna. Google sources and IAU seem to always call this planetoid simply Sedna. Sure it was 2003 VB12 early after its discovery but isn't its official name now Sedna? Can't we move this from its strange "90377 Sedna" where no one looks for it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"90377" is simply its minor-planet number, see its use for example at JPL: . All named minor planets that are not officially listed as dwarf planets are located at "[minor-planet number] [name]". The number is not necessary for identification purposes (minor planets cannot share names; only the number is also sufficient for identification purposes in the context of the Solar System), but is useful for disambiguation purposes (with at least the namesake of the minor planet and possibly others). In all, in the text, it is unnecessary to include the number, but it is useful and consistent to have it in the title. --JorisvS (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Using that same chart Pluto is "134340 Pluto." Titles here at Wikipedia are supposed to be the common name or if disambiguation is need, and extra term in parentheses. So Pluto or Pluto (dwarf planet). The IAU does not give it an official name of "90377 Sedna"... it's simply Sedna. Makemake and Haumea are not at some minor-planet number, nor should they be. Here it should follow similar naming either just Sedna or perhaps Sedna (minor planet). The TNO object Quaoar redirect is ridiculous... no one calls it by that and it should be redirected back to its proper title. Wikipedia is supposed to title by sourced common name or proper official name...90377 Sedna is neither. Encyclopedia Britannica gives it a proper name. Only before it's officially named by the IAU should we give it an astronomical number. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Except that Pluto is on the official list of dwarf planets. The name is "Sedna", but its number is "90377". Numbers exist alongside names. Pluto is a case in point: It was given a minor-planet number in 2006 when it was reclassified as a dwarf planet. If numbers were only in use until an object were named, then Pluto wouldn't have needed one. "Sedna" has other uses than the minor planet, and explicit disambiguation (dab) is preferred over dabbing using parentheses: WP:DAB. Using the number is a straightforward way of avoiding parentheses in the title. --JorisvS (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Especially now that this story is cracking open, the planet is known as simply "Sedna" (common name): , which would make something like Sedna (planet)—or "(dwarf planet)", if you prefer—a better article title than the number. czar 04:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Except that it is not a planet, and according to the IAU it is not a dwarf planet either (and because of the HE clause, we probably won't know if it is or not for a long time.) Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Numbers are fine to me as quite often astronomers have nothing more than a generic license plare number like 2012 VP113. -- Kheider (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The number does help as a disambiguation, but better choices might be: Sedna (minor planet) or Sedna (Oort Cloud object). Those are much more common names/designations for the object. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the idea (minor planet), much better to grasp for the layperson. prokaryotes (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
And considering the amount of laypersons, kids, non-scientists, etc... (minor planet) works and is still an official term used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Though it was sometimes called one in the past, Sedna is not an Oort cloud object. Its orbit does not reach far enough to be affected by stellar tides and with the likely existence of Planet Nine, its orbit can be readily explained. It is a minor planet, but a piecemeal move is outright stupid; we'd have to move all the thousands of articles following the convention of minor-planet number + name. --JorisvS (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You bring up two points. First is the Oort Cloud designation. I can only go by sources and sources tell me you are wrong. We have plenty of sources that say it's an Oort Cloud object. In Nov 2015, Scott Sheppard, astronomer at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C, called it an Inner Oort Cloud object. "Universe Today" from Aug 2015 also talks of it being in the Inner Oort Cloud. I can only go by sources. Now with "in the past" you mean 2 months in the past, that seems a little too restricting to me.
As for point two, a piecemeal move is not stupid at all. It's actually stupid to lump them all together as if they all have the same characteristics. They do not. We would not have to move thousands of articles. It is extremely rare to find this object called "90377 Sedna" in any writing. It is almost always called Sedna or minor planet Sedna or even dwarf planet Sedna. With all the sources calling it Sedna that's what our readers (and young readers) should see as an article title. Since it can't be because of duplicate names, Sedna (minor planet) is by far the best fit. It's what the average wikipedia reader would expect. Plus the last naming that had consensus did not choose 90377 Sedna. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I did say that it has been called an Oort cloud object. The thing with this has always been that its orbit does not fit what would be expected for an actual Oort cloud object (does not get far enough away to be affected by the galactic tides) and all of this was before Planet Nine became such a likely scenario. Planet Nine can actually pull typical SDOs into sednoid orbits.
This article has been at this location for eons, which also falls under consensus. I would personally be fine with "Sedna (dwarf planet)" if the several objects that are equally likely to be and as often called dwarf planets are also moved; and equally fine with being conservative and following the IAU list in article titles. I'm not fine with only moving this article to a different title. It'll have to be based on a set of identifiable criteria. So, if you propose to move only a few, which clear criteria do you propose to use? --JorisvS (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Here I would disagree with your premise that everything fits a criteria. Every wiki project has criteria for notability but we also have wikipedia's general notability (GNG) to cover things that would normally not be notable per nice neat lists. This happens with baseball players, cricket players, etc... The same type of thing is happening here. WikiProject Solar System and WikiProject Astronomy have come up with a good working article naming that fits 99% of objects. There's no real reason to mess with that. But certain objects have gotten more press and therefore more sourcing, and have become much better known to the public by a certain name. When Pluto became a dwarf planet we didn't move it to a number because it was massively well known by just Pluto. Even if the god was just as well known we would have disambiguated Pluto and called it Pluto (dwarf planet). I'm not suggesting at all that Sedna has even come close to Pluto in popularity... not even in the same zip code. But it has crossed over from being a simple catalog item to something being talked about in the main stream press.
When smaller papers like the Lexington Kentucky Herald start talking about "Sedna, a large minor planet" we need to realize that the item in question has changed. That warranted closer scrutiny here at wiki imho, and it's why I brought this RM. Will this affect one more body? Two?, Six? I'm not sure because I was looking only at Sedna. For all I know this is the only anomaly. We have perfect boxed lists in wiki sports articles I work on to put things in nice categories. It usually works. But then someone comes along and says that one personality breaks the normal mode. We discuss it, argue about it, and (often grudgingly) agree that it's a special case. We don't change the usual criteria we created, we just know that not everything fits in a neat tidy package. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There have to be criteria, otherwise we are left with complete arbitrariness, which is bad. If your argument is really for using simply "Sedna" (popularity≈notability→primary topic), then that's a rather different question for me, one I could possibly support, although in that case I would say 50000 Quaoar and 90482 Orcus need to moved just like this article. But moving it to "Sedna (minor planet)" A) does not make the title any simpler, and B) adds parentheses instead of using natural disambiguation, which is just violating the principles of WP:NATURALDAB. The number 90377 is simply added as a natural way to disambiguate "Sedna", which in most contexts would not even be necessary (typical scientific articles, news articles, blogs, etc., and in the body of our article). --JorisvS (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Which is why this is a case by case occurrence. We follow the sources. I find "90377 Sedna" to be completely "unnatural" and is not what is intended by NATURALDAB. Naturaldab says that we can disdain from using parentheticals if we can find "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources." "90377 Sedna" is almost never used in any English reliable sources therefore it is not natural to call it that. We could use "Sedna (90377)" but "Sedna (minor planet)" is imho much better for our wide swath of readers who come from all walks of life, and aren't familiar with the MPN number used in catalogs. I hope whoever closes this doesn't just take a head count but actually decides on what's best for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It is natural because it does occur like that; not particularly often, but it does happen. Parentheses like that, however, do not occur in running text, which is why that is, in fact, "unnatural". "Sedna (minor planet)" is at least clear and follows part of our article naming conventions, just skipping any non-parenthetical option that should be considered first per WP:NATURALDAB. "Sedna (90377)" is outright ridiculous: it is not recognizable in the slightest. It does not actually disambiguate, just confuse; minor-planet numbers are not placed in parentheses after the name. --JorisvS (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after over two weeks of discussion. Cúchullaint/c 15:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
90377 Sedna → Sedna (minor planet) – In 2004 a name was chosen for this article... Sedna (planetoid). I don't see any other RM discussions in its history to make it what it is today so I don't know who actually changed it. Now 12 years later it seems that (minor planet) is a better fit than planetoid. Per the discussion above it seems clear that the common name of this minor planet is not "90377 Sedna." Furthermore it is confusing to new readers to see an MPC designation before the name Sedna. That number may be fine for asteroids or other bits of flotsam, but this possible dwarf planet has had much talk in the news; more so lately because of a possible new 9th planet. Even our own Minor planet designation article says 90377 is more just a catalog entry than an actual name designation. Let's call it what it is, a minor planet, per this very article and the minor planet article, and most sources. If some day it gets promoted to dwarf planet we'll deal with it then. For now, with the simple name Sedna being brought up more and more often in the press it's time for a change here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~.
Oppose: Using the minor planet number is the standard method Wikipedia uses to disambiguate minor planet names from other uses of the word, from 2 Pallas to 90482 Orcus. The only exceptions are the five recognised dwarf planets. Why should Sedna be any different? Serendipodous 14:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: As per Serendipodous. Also, many papers use only the number when discussing TNOs, so it's nice to have it prominent. Tbayboy (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: While the number might be the standard, i think that needs to change. I see no reason to have that number in the title. This could very well be pointed out in the lede. Per WP:TECHNICAL -- prokaryotes (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. "Sedna" is the best fit for the naming criteria (policy). It's what our most prominent English sources () call it. There are other more prominent Sednas, so it needs a disambiguator. I'm fine with whatever, but the point is that reliable sources don't use the number identifier and—outside of the technical parts of the article—neither should we. czar 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Since Sedna still has to have a disambiguation page, why not include the MPC number? As mentioned, peer-reviewed papers often use the number. -- Kheider (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Some include the number but rarely "90377 Sedna." They would usually simply call it minor planet Sedna. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Many times it is simply listed as 90377 in a table. -- Kheider (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: I feel using the name as a layperson is most like to search for it makes the most sense. The technical name would remain as a redirect. WilliamKF (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Support The most common use I see is without the numeric prefix. Our target audience is high school student educated people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Weak Support: there's no clear preference in the published papers I've seen, but most astronomy books appear to use the proper name without the identifier. I'm fine with either really; it's the content that matters. Praemonitus (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Serendipodous, and on general principle against the nonsensical "common name" practice. — Huntster (t@c) 23:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Support in common with the supporters and its probable status as a dwarf planet and its general notoriety. --Smkolins (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose maybe reconsider later if the usage becomes more common. For the moment I don't think this article name is confusing at all. It's also more concise than Sedna (minor planet). JehochmanTalk 04:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, it is most often referred to simply by "Sedna", because that is usually clear. However, it is sometimes referred to only by "90377", as Kheider has already pointed out. And sometimes it is referred to using "90377 Sedna". Because we need Sedna to be a dab page, we need an alternative article title. Explicit dabbing is preferred over using parentheses, which means that the current title is preferred. And if we were going to deviate from wiki-wide naming conventions, we'd still need to move the thousands of articles that follow the exact same convention. --JorisvS (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I would change the one item to rarely called "90377 Sedna." More often it's called the "minor planet Sedna" (or Sedna the minor planet) or even "dwarf planet Sedna" (though it is not formally a dwarf planet). As for having to change thousands of articles, that's absurd and extremely misleading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, recognized dwarf planets are excluded, as it is unclear whether they are still technically minor planets. Serendipodous 13:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to help confuse things more: "Technically", in some sense, there is no "minor planet" category: it's either a planet, dwarf planet, or small solar system body. But they still assign "minor planet" numbers to DPs and non-comet SSBs (and comet designations to cometary SSBs), so it looks like a dwarf planet is still a minor planet. Tbayboy (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Because of astrology, the first four asteroids *may* be notable enough to the general public, but surely 10 Hygiea, 50000 Quaoar, and 90482 Orcus are not. -- Kheider (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
OpposeWP:NATURALDAB. The form used is frequently found in papers, so is a viable form of disambiguation by alternate title. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment if you think that the KBO is the most likely topic, then why not propose it as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and move it to Sedna ? (without any form of disambiguation) -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, 90377 Sedna is widely used in scientific papers. Sedna is not a dwarf planet either, it's simply a notable KBO. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Those "widely used" scientific papers that use exactly "90377 Sedna" are few and far between. Many it seems use (90377) in parentheses because of its catalog number. A million other google sources use simply Sedna while calling it a minor planet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To add to that, the usage of "90377" in scientific papers speaks only to how the scientific community uses it. Sedna is now discussed in major outlets, such as our newspaper of record, The New York Times, and is described without its number. WP is a generalist encyclopedia and is written for the general public in the voice of the general public, not only the scientific community. czar 15:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So what exactly should we use as a metric to determine sufficient notability for designation removal? Because I can't access the NYT from London. Serendipodous 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. As already noted, Sedna does seem to be most commonly identified simply as Sedna in a wide range of significant and reliable sources, from Britannica to Space.com, CalTech, Universe Today, NASA, etc. While our common practice of applying the numerical minor plant designation to bodies like this is entirely reasonable, sometimes it also makes sense to depart from it and favor common usage, particularly if the body becomes widely known by it's non-numerical name alone — and Sedna appears to be in that category. ╠╣uw[talk] 18:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Then we should do the same for the "very well known" Vesta. -- Kheider (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I would agree. ╠╣uw[talk] 09:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Look, if you guys can come up with some objective criterion that can define "very well known", then I'd be fine with this. I don't see how you could though. Serendipodous 10:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness."
"it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
" the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used."
Some of the above comments have presented evidence along these lines - others have not. Survey the existing citations - count up the variations and titles - let's see what happens.--Smkolins (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Recognizability and similar points are not the only points to take into account, because there are other topics that compete for the same title, "Sedna". Unless we can agree that this article is the primary topic, that's where WP:NATURALDAB comes in. And the most natural way is still by prefixing the minor-planet number, not using parentheses. This has nothing to do with, nor is supposed to say anything about, the frequency with which the string "90377 Sedna" can be found relative to "Sedna" referring to the minor planet. --JorisvS (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I still find this to be false. If you can't call something a Mustang because of too many other uses for the term, then certainly you'd look at Ford Mustang as a naturaldab in creating the article. It is a term in common usage. 90377 Sedna is not a common term by any stretch of the imagination. It is rarely used. Minor planet Sedna gets used in conversation more often. Sedna (minor planet) just flat out works best for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as per Serendipodous. Until it's officially declared a dwarf planet by the IAU, it's just a minor planet like any other. Changing it in this particular instance opens up a quagmire for all the other minor planets considered "notable". I do appreciate that the discussion was opened though. 8bitW (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If we do make this change, are we going to do so for every other named minor planet article? There are quite a few, and they all follow the established convention. Or are we just going to assume that Sedna is "special"? Serendipodous 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't make this a universal standard. Sedna is a special case just like 1 Ceres. Anyway, many sources say that Sedna is most likely a dwarf planet. Praemonitus (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This renaming could only be done for articles which receive more coverage. prokaryotes (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that this is a case by case thing. Most minor planets don't get enough coverage and sourcing to warrant removing the number designation. The general population isn't looking them up on a regular basis. If they get enough press, drop the number and use (minor planet). Otherwise no change. The only RfC/RM on this subject actually decided on Sedna (planetoid) 12 years ago. But it seems today that (minor planet) is the preferred designation of sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree too though I think the line is dwarf planet but these are still coming along on a case by case basis. --Smkolins (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not about 'receiving enough coveraget to warrant removing the number'. That is uses a number has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of coverage. Zip. --JorisvS (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think coverage in the press is a huge deal. It why the dwarf planets don't need a number here. Leave the catalog numbers to the thousands of minor body articles that really have no sourcing other than those catalogs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
comment just wondering what is non-nonsensical about using "common name" as complained about by Huntster above? Right now we have it under a name that is neither common nor used in most astronomical sources. Almost all sources use simply "Sedna" while calling it a minor planet. EncBrit calls it Sedna also, it's MPC number not even being mentioned. And again it talks of possible dwarf planets and uses names for the more important ones, and numbers for the general populous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think WP:CRITERIA applies. I'm not quite sure I understand Huntster's concern. Praemonitus (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm curious why this rendering of Sedna includes a spherical planet in the background if Sedna has no known moons? (Oh - I see original copy at  says "In the distance is a hypothetical small moon, which scientists believe may be orbiting this distant body.") I'll add that sentence to the image description, although I'd support removing it since we have no evidence any moon exists at all. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's because Sedna was originally thought to have a very long rotation period, which would be best explained by a sizable moon. We now know it has typical rotation period and no moon has been discovered. The artist's impression is thus misleading and should be removed (which I've already done). --JorisvS (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I see. The moon could alternately be digitally removed. As-is, the image is still being used in other wiki languages. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried a quick moon removal to the image. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That would make it less misleading (the surface of the dark side can be seen in it, though, as well as strange purplish clouds). Regardless, I see no useful purpose this artist's impression could have in the article, which is ultimately why one may (or may not) be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorisvS (talk • contribs)
Seriously guys, this is an overreaction. I don't see a moon there; all I see is a star. And the image is an accurate depiction of what current understanding says Sedna looks like; red and icy. Serendipodous 13:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The moon has been removed by Tom Ruen. There are still the two weird things I've pointed out above. Plus, "icy" is not something that can be seen. The main point now would be the real added value of including it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
In this case, I think the value of the artist's impression is its accurate depiction of Sedna's reddish hue and great distance from the sun. Because of quirks of human psychology, a picture of these features conveys the information much better than prose or diagrams. I don't see the purplish clouds you mention, but agree that the visibility and odd coloration of the dark side are potentially misleading. However, these features are unlikely to convey false information about Sedna - they're more just an incorrect depiction of lighting in space. Also, it's not lead image, which makes inaccuracies like this a bit more forgivable. On the balance, I would say the information conveyed by this impression outweighs its potential to mislead, which gives it positive value. A2soup (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I support keeping the image. Although I am a little uncomfortable without explaining the moon's removal. I'd put a date on the image and state that a hypothetical moon existed and was removed and why. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
With the moon removed, it can't be seen. And if it can't been seen, there is no point in mentioning it. --JorisvS (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The purplish cloud is part of the background, as 'nebulae'. --JorisvS (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)