Jump to content

Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The problem and how we can fix it

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.

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:

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.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:40, 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)
  • Go with option 2.
    • 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.
    • 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!
    • 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!
    • 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 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)
  • Option 1, Ceres and Eris should remain at their current number name combos. Pluto should remain the exception. Despite it's redesignation Pluto will remain more notable and well known then the other dwarf planets for a generation or more, in addition to being primarily referred to without the number. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 6, absolutely. Full scientific names should only be used if they are "equally clear" when compared to the common name. In the case of the dwarf planets, this is certainly not the case. --Algorithm 11:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is definitely the most attractive. The dwarf planet numerator before the name should serve as enough of an indication as to what people are looking at. If not, Option 5 is at least tolerable. The numbers should be included regardless. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

I say we leave Pluto the exception for the various reason that have been stated over and over and over and put the other two less notable rocks at their scientific names. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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:

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.


New Template for dwarf planet names

You can now enter {{dp|Name}} and it will automatically bring up the correct minor planet number without you needing to look it up, but it will display only as the name. E.g. {{dp|Ceres}} will give Ceres i.e. [[1 Ceres|Ceres]].

These can be used mid-article to provide links to the correct article titles, without using redirects and saving time writing minor planet numbers in.

Only covers the dwarf planets - {{dp|Pluto}} will link to [[134340 Pluto|Pluto]] at the moment - just in case it ever changes - but you wouldn't need to currently use the template for links to the Pluto article - it's just at Pluto

The template can of course be amended if the naming convention changes e.g. if the IAU issues a new dwarf planet catalogue system - meaning that no links would have to be changed - just the template. Richard B 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work -- Nbound 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would try to put in the information for minor planets such as Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, etc. now. At least for ease in linking to them. Ryūlóng 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, now done, see Template Talk:Dp for which ones are available. Richard B 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It might be particularly helpful if you used that to automatically update to the consensus - e.g. have {{dp|Pluto}} direct to [[Pluto]] now, but, should the consensus change, arrange it to be easily updated to [[Pluto (dwarf planet)|Pluto]] or [[13430 Pluto|Pluto]] - that way the template would be an excellent way of keeping links updated. Adam Cuerden talk 09:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, see you do. Just a little confusingly written. Adam Cuerden talk 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Overtaken by events?

Even as we debaate here, 1 Ceres has been renamed to Ceres, bringing it into line with Pluto. I very much want to see a policy on this issue, but at this time each page is going in its own dierction based on the whims of its editors. Also, I cannot help but note that most of the interest in this page has come from the Pluto people who want to defend the priority of the former planet.

As much as I would like there to be a policy, it seems to me that any attempt to impose order on this chaos at this time is only an invitation to more chaos. --EMS | Talk 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly came here from Pluto, and am not in favour of imposing a pedantic naming system on all solar system bodies, but as you can tell from Talk:Pluto I'm not one of the "save Pluto" mob either. Wanting a commonsense attitude to naming articles about well-known entities shouldn't be confused with having a particular position on the status of those entities. Having said that, I think the moving of 1 Ceres to Ceres without discussion is regrettable, even though I think the new location is the right one. --ajn (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia supposedly "comes to a concensus" that is at odds with a standard promulgated by an international body, and actively used for decades in the published literature, then what is to prevent it from coming to a concensus on the exact value of the fine structure constant or the size of the orbit of Jupiter? I used to think this kind of kooky nonsense was only possible in politics (and the realms it has poisoned beyond redemption), where the main job by their actors in that field is to actively hide or mangle information, as opposed to just laying it out flat on the table for view by anyone. To observe it in the "hard sciences" makes Wikipedia look pretty foolish, IMO. But you get what you pay for, I guess! mdf 17:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, somebody has gone and moved 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) without warning or attention to the discussion here. This is getting troublesome; are we going to end up with an edit war between admins? RandomCritic 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I see that the Ceres move has been made with small regard for the structural integrity of Wikipedia; it is now impossible to find the article on the goddess Ceres (except by guessing the correct name) and most of the links to the goddess Ceres now go to the asteroid Ceres' page. RandomCritic 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a clear link from the top of Ceres now, and I've disambiguated all links from pages obviously pointing to the goddess. Some other links to Ceres, to towns called Ceres etc, still remain incorrect (and have done for ages) - I'll look at those tomorrow if no one else does so first. Personally I think equal disambig to Ceres (mythology) and Ceres (dwarf planet) might be the way forward here, but the piped Ceres (mythology) links will hold good in future whatever happens. Cheers — SteveRwanda 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I've cleared up many of the remaining links to Ceres; but really the person who moved it should be responsible for doing that. RandomCritic 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said earlier Wikipedia is not a democracy. This discussion is not coming to a concensus between us, nor is a vote going to solve anything. I applaud whichever admin saw through all these poorly-informed ideas for including numbers in article titles. It obviously runs against policy, and the move was the right thing to do. aLii 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You're mistaken if you think there was a coherent plan behind this. The changes have left the situation more incoherent than ever; Ceres and Eris, formerly agreeing in format, now disagree. As for the numbers, they have been and will continue to be part of article titles for the vast majority of asteroids and other minor planetary bodies. What is unclear is why anyone should insist that Ceres (or Eris) should be an exception to the general rule. RandomCritic 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
All three articles now agree with the above proposition 6. I agree that the numbers are indeed useful where no common-name has been established, and should stay in those cases, but for bodies like Pluto and Eris it is obvious that their exposure demands a less obfuscated name. aLii 19:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not so obvious to me. How do you determine "exposure" anyway? If Eris is so "exposed" (poor lady), then why isn't she at Eris? RandomCritic 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'd say that Eris and Ceres being mentioned together with Pluto constantly in the media amounts to far more exposure than most minor planets. For example (*puts hand into hat*) 54411 Bobestelle, hmm... never heard of it. A google search returns 10 results, 5 of which are Wikipedia. A search for Eris "dwarf planet" returns more than half a million results. Eris (dwarf planet) isn't at Eris because I suspect no-one has yet been bold enough to call for the move. It will probably happen given time. aLii 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
More evidence why naming things based on how many hits you get at Google is silly. Suppose it is revealed tomorrow that 54411 Bobestelle is composed of pure gold, and thus attains half a million hits at Google, do we change it's name to just "Bobestelle" because of this instant notoriety? And when, after a number of months, the articles about the Asteroid of Gold that appeared in the "human interest" section of the media drop off Google's radar, do we name it back? Then, when it is shown the original result was flawed, and another million hits are seen at Google, is it time to rename it once again? Hey! Maybe we can automate this process: build a little robot at Wikipedia which continually trolls Google, automatically renaming things as the information market twists and turns? Not just asteroids, but basically everything. Why not? Such a construction would, at least, prevent the current fiasco of simply ignoring a nomenclature well used by the people who bring us the news of these objects: at least we can point to the robot. mdf 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Current status

I think think that some sanity is beginning to appear. The article on the asteroid/"dwarf planet" Ceres is back at 1 Ceres, where it belongs for now. The dwarf planet Eris has been moved by a consensus of the editors to Eris (dwarf planet), and the discussions on that page can hopefully cease pending a decision here (even if the decision is not to impose a policy). Pluto remains move protected, and that is just as well. --EMS | Talk 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No to (dwarf planet)

Some arguments as to why the disambiguator (dwarf planet) should not be used in the titles of articles.

  1. It is not consistent with current Wikipedia article naming practices. Of the new categories invented at the late IAU meeting in Prague, no article uses NAME (small solar system body). Only one article, Mercury (planet) uses the NAME (planet) form, and that for special reasons (particularly, the existence of the element mercury).
    Note also Europa (moon), Io (moon), Ganymede (moon), Callisto (moon), Titan (moon) etc.--Nixer 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. (dwarf planet) is a long and cumbersome disambiguator and looks ugly on the page.
    But it is official term regardless how ugly it looks.--Nixer 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps a solution is to simply call it Eris (planet); as there are no planets called Eris, then this wouldn't cause confusion, and it's simpler ... it's not like we have page called Ganymede (Jovian moon) Nfitz 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Most of the objects likely to be named dwarf planets already have MPC numbers. If they are all to be changed to (dwarf planet) it will entail a great deal of unnecessary work. We should maintain designations that are not going to change.
  4. The category "dwarf planet" was a compromise between those who wanted Pluto and Eris classified as planets and those who wanted them classed as minor planets. The category does not, however, supersede former categories like asteroid and KBO any more than "small solar system body" supersedes the categories of comet and meteor. "Dwarf planet" is a general term for an astronomically diverse group of objects, and is not an important enough category to be recognized in Wikipedia titles.
  5. "Dwarf planet" is a disputed term among astronomers, and may not survive the next IAU meeting.

For these reasons, I think that labelling articles as "dwarf planet" is a poor idea; it breaks down existing consistencies, causes unnecessary work, elevates a secondary categorization to undue prominence, and creates instability in that there are objects that may either enter or exit the category, but which could be allowed to maintain unchanging designations. RandomCritic 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick response:
  1. It is consistent, that is why the pages are being moved.
    Not consistent within Wikipedia, and certainly not consistent outside Wikipedia, where of course nobody uses "Eris (dwarf planet)".
    Outside of Wikipedia all other encyclopedia will use the term "Eris", just like they all use "Ceres". The structure of Wikipedia is such that only one article can inhabit a particular name, and so Eris currently has the disambiguation (dwarf planet). This is also inline with how most articles are disambiguated on Wikipedia. The only place where "136199 Eris" is used is within scientific papers.
  2. Irrelevent and only your personal POV.
    Aesthetics is an important part of design, and ultimately this whole argument is about web page design.
    Yes but the argument is centred on understandability more than aesthetics.
  3. It's currently three objects, not 140,000. I really don't see the problem.
    It is currently three objects, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that it is going to grow to at least nine and (by some accounts) more like fifty.
    Fifty sounds managable to me.
  4. We have a dwarf planet article, and therefore many people would seem to think that it is an important enough category. You yourself have even made edits to the article! Have you changed your mind?
    Changed my mind about what? What relevance does the existence of the article have? We also have a Small solar system body category, but nobody's suggested changing 9495 Eminescu to Eminescu (small solar system body), although that is the only nomenclature that would be "consistent" with Eris (dwarf planet). Why not?
    Because no-one has heard of it.
  5. Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
    The real question is whether we can use a terminology that we know is always going to be there and will never need to be changed in the future, instead of blowing around with the current fad.
    No. The real question is "what percentage of the general public know or care about the IAU's MPC numbers?" The answer is far less than 1%.
I hope that has allayed all of your concerns. aLii 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a one of them. RandomCritic 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps now? aLii 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are simplier. If Eris should be marked Eris (Dwarf Planet), then 4 Vesta should be Vesta (asteroid), along with all of the listed asteroids, any object such as a centaur should be so listed, NEAs, comets, etc, and anything else should just be listed (minor planet). This is talking about making hundreds of changes on Wikipedia, if not more. It might just be better in the end, but, it would be alot of work. Not to mention there would be debates as to if an object should be classified as a comet, asteroid, etc. I beleive the reason Wikipedia adopted the use of the minor planet number was to avoid such concerns. Tuvas 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Despite being against the parathetical suffix, if we name dwarf planets that way, we should be naming all other minor planets that way... Thats well over a thousand articles to change. I dont understand why people are treating dwarf planets so differently, they are just asteroids big enough to become round under their own gravity... --- Nbound 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's easier to leave Eris and Ceres where they are. The only real exception is Pluto, and for good reason. Eris doesn't have the exeptional circumstances that Pluto and Ceres do with regard to naming. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Where they were, you mean. Ceres is currently, well, Ceres, Eris is Eris (dwarf planet).Tuvas 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I cannot get why renaming of dwarf planets should automatically require renaming all other bodies. In fact, the moons already were named with (moon) suffix, which does not require moving asteroids or trojans.--Nixer 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's simple, moons don't have minor planet numbers. In theory, they could be named after their planet, but, well, that's a bit extreme... I would just like to see all minor planets named with the same convention, either by their type, or by their number. Tuvas 03:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ceres is current 1 Ceres Nfitz 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sensible Disambiguation

Alright, iI think we need to ask what disambiguation is for, and when one article is clearly more important:

The popularity of the Greek Hades means the ex-planet Pluto is more important than the Roman Pluto (mythology). Pluto should be in the main position.

Arguably, Eris (mythology) and Eris (dwarf planet) or whatever we're calling it are of equal interest, due to dDiscordianism, etc. Disambig page is best.

However, an obscure asteroid like Ceres's promotion to dwarf planet is, in my opinion, NOT sufficient to make it more notable than the not-all-that-uncommon Ceres (mythology), and hence, Ceres as the dwarf planet is a mistake, as would Eris as the dwarf planet.

Obscure astronomical bodies are NOT so important as to win out over more important things. Leave them be unless the astronomical object is quite well known. Only the 8 current planets and Pluto, in my opinion, have anything like this level of knowledge about them. Astronomy does not get to have it's say over every other project. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres now redirects to Ceres (disambiguation) after a ridiculous non-discussed move, and it is back where it was at 1 Ceres, while Ceres (mythology) remains there. I still feel that Eris (mythology) and Ceres (mythology) though need to be put back into their non-disambiguated places. Ryūlóng 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I might accept a disambiguation page for Eris for a short time, whilst Eris is particularly newsworthy, but completely agree on the subject of Ceres. As well 1 Ceres is far less unweildy than 13040 or whatever it is for Pluto, and makes a sensible short disambiguation. It's only the larger numbers that are awkward. Adam Cuerden talk 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
So, right now, we need to fix it so Ceres (mythology) gets moved back to Ceres (there was a move without discussion at Talk:1 Ceres, and then an RM to move it back, which has occured, despite opposes based off of nonsense ideas that the dwarf planet/asteroid gets top billing). Ryūlóng 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd like to point out that we have Mercury (planet), too, because of everyone's favorite liquid metal, hydrargyrum. Ryūlóng 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on all of this, I propose that we take each dwarf planet's naming on a case-by-case basis. Right now, Eris (dwarf planet), Pluto, and 1 Ceres work perfectly where they are. Pluto and 1 Ceres are established as their names, whereas Eris was up in the air until an administrator looked through the RM and moved it. If Quaoar, Sedna, Varuna, etc. are classified as dwarf planets, then they, too, will go through various discussions concerning their article name. Right now, Quaoar is a redirect to the numbered name. That won't be as much of a bad move to be without the number. Sedna is a disambiguation page, and should stay as such; a disambiguation epithet for the planetoid like (dwarf planet) would probably work, but should be discussed first. Varuna is the page for a major Hindu deity, and again, should remain where it is, and the planetoid be disambiguated. Ryūlóng 22:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got to love how calls for name moves, ostensibly based on the need for consistency, have ended up with each "dwarf planet" having a distinct name inconsistent with the others. I may make my peace with "Eris (dwarf planet)" based on the amusement factor alone, as evidence of the incorrigible tendencies toward chaos of the human race. (Well, the English-speaking branch of it, anyway.) RandomCritic 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to see the Eris move done and the Ceres move undone (although people now need to go to talk:1 Ceres and make their opinion known about the idea of moving that page). I agree that each object needs to be considered seperately for disambiguation purposes. However, I would like to see come consistency in the naming. I suspect that the (dwarf planet) suffix will win out. After that, it can stand of fall on its own mertis (of lack thereof). --EMS | Talk 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not all that pleased with at least the treatment of the original deities within the moves, but I think the only consistency will be within the removal of multiple digit numbers. 1 Ceres isn't all that bad, but I did sort of have a change of heart with the Eris move. As I said in my original "case by case" thing, if 50000 Quaoar is designated as a dwarf planet, then the move will just need an administrators help (Quaoar is a redirect to there), but on objects such as Sedna, Varuna, Orcus, Santa, Easterbunny, etc. they will need "(dwarf planet)" disambiguations. Ryūlóng 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

--Ckatzchatspy 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I've archived the poll questions on this page (see "Polls" link above) because they seem no longer to be active and they were taking up a great deal of space. RandomCritic 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on current situation

Well, we seem to have even more of an issue right now. We have 3 dwarf planets, all with different naming schemes. Eris currently is the only minor planet to have a disambiguous marker after it's name (Eris (dwarf planet)), Ceres is still 1 Ceres (Or rather, again), and Pluto is still Pluto. So, what do we do about this? Tuvas 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave them where they currently are perhaps? I have less problem with 1 Ceres than the other names as it is a semi-common usage. Pluto and Eris are fine where they are. There is no need for all articles to be named in exactly the same fashion, just that they have individually sensible titles. Systematic-names are generally a bad thing (in Wikipedia), but in some cases are acceptable. Also it is worth mentioning that essentially Pluto and Eris are named in the dame way. Ceres is the only odd one out. aLii 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally what this series of events has taught me is that disambiguating names by type (or category) is a bad idea, because categories are not fixed and can change. An asteroid or a planet can become a dwarf planet the next, and tomorrow, who knows? I think the tactic used by some of the foreign language wikipedias of using fields - like (astronomy) - as the disambiguator is the better one, since while an astronomical object may change category according to the whims of this or that astronomical faction, it remains subject matter for the astronomy field throughout. But even if I thought there was likely strong support for that option, I would wait several months before trying to implement it. RandomCritic 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Except that if we were to do that with all objects, it'd be ambiguous for some - Europa (astronomy) links to one of the galileian moons, but the 7th largest asteroid is 52 Europa. Similarly, there's Amalthea (moon) and 113 Amalthea, Metis (moon) and 9 Metis, Io (moon) and 85 Io, Ganymede (moon) and 1036 Ganymed, Adrastea (moon) and 239 Adrastea, Leda (moon) and 38 Leda etc. etc. - and these are just some of Jupiter's satellites with duplicate names. I'm sure there are lots of other duplicate names in the solar system. Ideally, we'd want to remove ambiguity if we can. Richard B 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
At least -- barring some celestial catastrophe -- moons are unlikely to stop being moons! That makes the (moon) disambiguator one of the more reliable ones. But I am not proposing (and am not likely to propose) a wholesale renaming of all the asteroids. In fact, I am not proposing anything just yet. As I said, I think some months ought to go by before this issue comes up again. RandomCritic 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it is too late now, but what the heck: for the record, all of the above duplicate names were established prior to the existance of the IAU and its Iron Fist of Strict Nomenclature which dictates, in effect, "no more duplicates". So if RandomCritic was followed, these objects would be exceptions to the scheme ... and this is a good thing since this is exactly what has happened outside of WP. mdf 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
For precision's sake I just wanted to point out that on the Italian wiki (which seems to be the biggest which uses the (astronomy) disambiguation) we reached consensus over using that term just for planets, dwarf planets and their moons; all the asteroids remain under their IAU designation with number. Should an asteroid be considered a dwarf planet in the future, its name will be moved from the official designation (with number) to ItalianName (astronomia), for consistency. - 137.204.150.98 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I can understand having some with "Name (dwarf planet)" and others with just "Name", as that can depend on other famous similarly-named things, but to use the minor planet numbers in some and not others is simply ridiculous. Something must be changed for intergrity's sake. 192.17.228.233 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Theres no consensus for any of the options that give us a single naming scheme, so it seems the best is to do each equally, id dare say we may see some pages move in the next few months as some people begin to adjust to the "new" solar system. -- Nbound 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that something will give. The real issue is going to be what will happen when the next dwarf planets are designated. (136472) 2005 FY9, (136108) 2003 EL61, and 90377 Sedna are all prime candidates for redesignation. At that time, the community will decide on a scheme. Once there is some weight behind it, 1 Ceres and/or Eris (dwarf planet) will be renamed to conform to it. Pluto will be subject to a campaign to rename it at that time also, but if the redesignations occur soon that will most like fail at first. However, I do fully expect the Pluto's article will be renamed eventually as its status fades and disambiguation becomes a more appropriate default for that name. --EMS | Talk 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a chance that Charon (moon) could also be designated a dwarf planet, giving us our first double dwarf planet. Re Pluto's status fading, that may happen but in around ten or twenty years as the "new generation" of people who are taught about the eight planets instead of the nine take over the principal editing duties on Wikipedia. There's no point trying to plan that far ahead IMHO... SteveRwanda 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Kindly don't get caught up in the heat of the moment. A lot of people are upset about Pluto losing its status. It may sound odd, but once the Pluto-philes have had time to mourn the loss of Pluto's planetary status, the support for retaining the unqualified name Pluto for that article will quickly diminish. The landscape (should I write "Wikiscape"?) will look a lot different in a year. --EMS | Talk 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thats pretty much my view, just better articulated =P -- Nbound 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That assumes that the dwarf planet defintion sticks around that long... Tuvas 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It will stick around. When you look at the IAU debates and how it all panned out, the real issue was whether to treat the "dwarf planets" as a subcategory of the planets or as minor planets. All the 2006 redefinition of planet proposals called for a "dwarf planet" category and for Pluto's inclusion in it. As the issue of whether to create a dwarf planets category was never debated, I think that it is safe to say that this category is here to stay. --EMS | Talk 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing how much traction "dwarf planet" will obtain, if any. The category exists simply as a fall-back from a "planet". It is much more likely there are finer/more accurate distinctions to be made based on chemistry, dynamics, etc, and these will probably be made sooner than later. Contrast this uncertainty to the decades of history with MPC catalog numbers and names, which will simply never change (short of all copies of the database being thoroughly destroyed). mdf 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with mdf. In my mind, the issue is NOT whether "dwarf planets" are planets or minor planets. The issue was what defines a "planet." Ceres, Pluto, Eris, and the other dwarf planets are now, and always will be, minor planets: they have minor planet numbers. That, in and of itself, did NOT exclude them from being planets. (For several years already there had been interest in the astronomical community in giving Pluto a minor planet number because it is so much like other KBO's, and in many ways is the canonical giant KBO. The intent was to recognize its relationship to other objects, not to remove its status as planet.) The new definition of planet was decided by a small minority of stakeholders, and many astronomers who work in the field are not happy with it (just how do you determine with certainty whether an object has cleared its zone of debris?). I suspect the definition of planet will change. The definition of "dwarf planet" was created in a sort of compromise measure, and although many astronomers are accepting of the term, that doesn't mean they will actually use it! The greater part of me says: this is "current events," and we should not be renaming the article unless and until the category is better accepted in the astronomical community. The lesser part of me says, hey, its wikipedia, and we can always change it again later... so, editors, do your worst. We can argue about it again later. Myrrhlin 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bringing hypothetical planets into the discussion

Currently, all hypothetical planets and moons are being marked (hypothetical planet) and (hypothetical moon), as in Option 3. If we are going to clarify the procedure for naming all other groups of planets, hypothetical planets need to be included in the discussion. Currently, I favor using Option 3 for all bodies concerned because it makes telling a hypothetical planet from a dwarf or major planet easier when looking through a broad catagory. This renders the entire category of astronomical objects clearer and more user friendly. Mrwuggs 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's another issue entirely. In this discussion, we are trying to think of a way to name dwarf planets, not any sort of hypothetical astronomical objects. Ryūlóng 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a larger discussion in which a system of nomenclature is established for all articles on astronomical bodies. Certainly the decision made here on dwarf planets will have considerable bearing on how other planets are marked.Mrwuggs 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this discussion is solely for the dwarf planets. Hypothetical objects are disambiguated on their own, and nearly all of the classic planets do not need disambiguations, as their deity is not as notable. The only exception is Mercury, because of the element Hg. Ryūlóng 01:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And this is the same for Pluto, which is why it should be left alone.

Evidence

I put forward that 1 Ceres is correctly placed. Consider these google searches:

376,000 hits for "1 Ceres" as a phrase. - 104,000 for Ceres and the phrase "dwarf planet" - 382000 for Ceres and asteroid

Since the last two searches do not exclude the 1 Ceres name or each other, whilst the 1 Ceres search can only accept the exact phrase 1 Ceres, it would appear 1 Ceres is preferred. Adam Cuerden talk 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Obviously searching for a name with a description is going to return less results. Googling for "1 Ceres" and "asteroid" returns only 16,000. And anyway, many of those pages will have been made long before the recent change of status. Since then Ceres has overwhelmingly referred to in the media as just "Ceres". The Enlightened 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that both positions are a bit ridiculous. First of all, this is Wikipedia, not Google. Secondly, Ceres has always been refered to as just Ceres in the media. Most science writers find it much easier not to use the MPC numbers, and the articles more readable. Even in Wikipedia, the MPC number is noted in the first sentense of the minor planet articles, and just the name is used afterwards. The full designation is used in the article name
  1. to indicate the the subject is a minor planet, and
  2. to disambiguate the object from the entity that it is named after (which usually is also notable).
We don't need a ton of external evidence here. Instead we need to decide what is best given the needs of Wikipedia and its readers. --EMS | Talk 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes. But it's evidence against demoting the Greek goddess as has been repeatedly proposed. As far as I can tell, she and the dwarf planet are about equally notable. 88.111.116.91 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
On that we are in agreement. Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. I want to see solid evidence over the long term that people looking for Ceres are much more likely to be looking for the asteroid/dwarf planet than for the goddess before even considering the possibility of letting the astronomical object have the unqualifed name. --EMS | Talk 02:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Unqualified name meaning 1 Ceres? It's been 1 Ceres for more than 150 years. Ryūlóng 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and before that, when it was a planet it was called just "Ceres". Now it has a new status, and just because it retains its catalog number doesn't mean its name remains the same. Especially when common usage says just "Ceres" The Enlightened 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And the "1" part doesn't count as a description why? Adam Cuerden talk 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Minor planet number for more info. The only notes I can find on the IAU site which discuss designations at all seem to indicate that the official catalogue entry is (#) NAME, as in (1) Ceres, not # NAME as in 1 Ceres. And just FYI, even as one who voted in favour of NAME (dwarf planet) I am quite willing to accept (1) Ceres as an article name: unlike 1 Ceres the proper format contains parentheses, making it clear that the name is Ceres, and the (1) is part of its disambiguation (in this case, the MPC catalogue entry). -- Jordi·✆ 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Applicability

If I am not mistaken, talk:1_Ceres directs all of the moving discussion here. Is it an incorrect understanding that the editors of 1 Ceres would concede that this forum would stand as their binding decision on the move, since it was agreed that all the pages needed a consistent nomenclature (with the possible exception of Pluto)? Hopquick 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably. There needs to be a discussion here, and then a discussion there based on results here. Ryūlóng 04:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The "discussion" there will go like this: "According to the concensus found on Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming this page should be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet)." Then a bunch of people will agree, and any disagreements will be sent to read this discussion. End of discussion. aLii 08:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
But the vote was for no moves until some time to think about it had passed? Adam Cuerden talk 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
All of these articles have had problems with people doing odd moves on them in the face of the recent change of status. That is the reason why the Ceres folks want to wait on any new moves. However, what they are waiting for is some evidence of a standard for naming the dwarf planets, and that is what is being decided here. Given a consensus result here (and it appears that we have one) suggesting the corresponding move to the Ceres folks should not be a problem. --EMS | Talk 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
While a decision here would be good, we should probably wait on some sort of information in scientific journals that mention the once asteroid's name, which I have not seen as of yet. Ryūlóng 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see any reason why Ryūlóng's reasoning makes any sense. If in the future a journal uses the term 1 Ceres then nothing has changed from the current situation and it has no bearing on the Ceres article name here. However if, for example, the IAU deems the name Fred to be the new official term for Ceres, then there could be a new debate — but that's hardly likely and certainly not something we should wait around for. aLii 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I also fail to see Ryūlóng's point. The name of the object in Ceres. The MPC designation is 1 Ceres. Those facts have not changed. What has changed is Ceres becoming part of a new category of solar system objects called "dwarf planets", and there being a consensus of concerned Wikipedia editors who feel that the dwarf planets should forego the MPC # and use the suffix "(dwarf planet)" in the article title for disambiguation purposes instead. --EMS | Talk 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceres renaming

To those who participated here: The Ceres renaming motion is in trouble, with there now being somewhat less than a 2:1 level of support for it. This may not be enough to for a consensus to be determined to exist on that motion. Many of those who participated here have not yet weighed in there, and it is being requested that you all do so. --EMS | Talk 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the general rules on dwarf planet naming should supercede local votings. In fact that should not be vote "to move or to not", but a vote "move to Ceres or move to Ceres (dwarf planet)"--Nixer 16:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In principle I agree (although there is a consensus by general agreement that Ceres should remain a disambiguation page). However, by what authority are we to say that this is an official Wikipedia policy or guideline? We have not gone through the formal process of doing so, nor do I think that we should. I see the results of this discussion as compelling evidence that the (dwarf planet) suffix should be used (and more importantly that it will be used in the future). However, this discussion has no force in and of itself on any other page. Instead, it is up to the participants here to enforce this decision if they should choose to do so, and can muster the numbers to do so. Otherwise, this is a moot isue. --EMS | Talk 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Does it mean that the very existence of this page is purposeless?--Nixer 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This page has served its purpose in determining a majority vote. Now it is up to more of the community to decide at the individual talk pages. Ryūlóng 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

EMS, you're not supposed to try and pull people in with biased advertisements. I know you mean no harm by it, but it could throw the poll off. Adam Cuerden talk 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam, please. Most people here thought the issue was done. He is reminding them that certain people are now vigourously trying to tip the discussion back towards their opinion. Anything that gets a larger community involved is good. Hopquick 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if you're gonna rename one of them and give it an extremely bulky name, you better rename them all, or it just looks like you were being a dick. It's been 1 Ceres for 202 years. Stormscape 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I moved the old polls and poll-related discussions to the Polls archive. RandomCritic 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming/Archive_2&oldid=1136338412"