Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)

Naming conventions for open clusters

It appears that specific clusters (see Category:Open_clusters) are generally named with a capital C (e.g. (Arches Cluster). This makes sense to me as it distinguishes a specific cluster from a more generic term such as Open cluster or Embedded cluster. However, there are exceptions e.g. Coronet cluster, Quintuplet cluster. What is the naming convention for clusters? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is covered in the Capitalisation section of the guideline - capitalise if it's part of the proper noun. Modest Genius ^talk 15:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions for planetary moons

This seems to be the standard, but I am not aware of it having been written up anywhere. So maybe we could add it?

• If the moon is named, the default title is just the name if it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, e.g. Enceladus. But due to mythology it usually isn't, so we disambiguate using "(moon)", e.g. Titan (moon).
• If the moon is numbered, but not named, the default title is the Roman-numeral designation, e.g. Jupiter LIV.
• If the moon is neither numbered nor named, the default title is the provisional designation, e.g. S/2003 J 10.

Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Late reply here, but yeah sure; go ahead and add it to the page. Somehow the conventions for planetary moons don't have their own section here yet. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Added (a bit less colloquially). Double sharp (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviating catalogue designations (2MASS, WISE, etc.)

I've noticed that there's a bit of inconsistency with abbreviations for catalogue designations like 2MASS, WISE, and DENIS. For example, 2M1101AB has several different abbreviations used in scientific literature, including 2M 1101-7732AB (Luhman 2004), 2M 1101 AB (Steltzer and Micela 2007), and 2M1101AB (Faherty et al. 2020). Another dilemma is whether to truncate the letter 'J' preceding the numbers in an object's designation. There's WISE 1828+2650, but it is called WISE J1828+2650 in the discovery publication by Kirkpatrick et al. 2011 (not to mention that it is also called WISEP J1828+2650 by Cushing et al. 2011). Should there be some kind of preference for which abbreviation to use?

Similarly there's also some vagueness surrounding the usage of full catalogue designations such as 2MASS J03480772−6022270. There's plenty of excruciatingly long designations mixed in with the eight-digit abbreviations in Category:2MASS objects and Category:WISE objects, but I don't see any apparent standard for abbreviating or using full designations. Should all full designations be abbreviated for the sake of searchability, or by notability and press coverage? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Renerpho and Modest Genius for additional input. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Some designations are indeed 'excruciatingly long', but that's because the catalogues they're taken from are excruciatingly comprehensive, containing billions of sources. The IAU has rules on how to designate astronomical sources which are supposed to be followed by all professional astronomers. Unfortunately not all of them do, there's no effective enforcement mechanism, and nicknames are often used for press releases or in the popular media. The IAU rules say designations "should never be altered (e.g., neither truncated, nor rounded, nor shortened)". In practice that only really applies to the first mention in a publication - it's allowed to then specify an abbreviation for use thereafter, provided the first mention is the full, unabbreviated designation. If the designation is based on coordinates, the J, B or G indicate which coordinate system is being used, so should never be omitted - even in abbreviations. I think 2MASS J03480772−6022270 is a good example of correct usage, giving the full form in the article title and defining an abbreviation in the first sentence of the lead.

Those are of course IAU rules, not Wikipedia rules. The NCASTRO guideline is to follow whatever the dominant name is in reliable sources, but to favour professional literature over popular media in the case of disagreement. If the professional literature predominantly uses a nickname or abbreviation, that's what we should follow, despite the IAU. For 2M1101AB, the 'correct' name according to the IAU rules is 2MASS J11011926-7732383, which is exactly what Luhman uses in the original discovery paper ("2MASS J11011926-7732383 (hereafter 2M 1101-7732)"). The recent Faherty paper also introduces it with the full name before defining a different abbreviation ("binary brown dwarf 2MASS J11011926-7732383AB (2M1101AB) found in the Chameleon star-forming region") ['AB' refers to the two members of the binary, so is being more explicit without changing the underlying designation]. I've not dug into every mention in the literature, but from my quick search the dominant usage is the full designation, with various forms of abbreviation in use but only after quoting the full 2MASS J11011926-7732383.

As for the initial letters, those come from the abbreviation of the catalogue. The definitive listing of those abbreviations is the CDS Dictionary of Nomenclature which explains the differences between WISE, WISEP, WISEA etc. For your example, it's in multiple WISE catalogues so has several valid prefixes. If we look at the Kilpatrick discovery paper, they introduce this object as WISEPA J182831.08+265037.8 then later abbreviate it WISE 1828+2650 (which is technically not a valid abbreviation as it omits the J).

So to summarise a very long reply: this needs to be handled case by case, depending on dominant usage in the professional literature. In most cases, that will be the full unabbreviated designation following the IAU rules, with possible abbreviation thereafter, but not always. Modest Genius ^talk 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: So someone has to review every abbreviated 2MASS/WISE object article to check whether the abbreviation is more widely used in the scientific literature? I wouldn't mind if all of these page titles get moved to their full designations. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the guideline, though it doesn't seem worth the effort of checking unless there's a specific issue or dispute. Modest Genius ^talk 10:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: While moving all those abbreviated pages, I came across this requested move discussion from 2012. There was no consensus, but it seems that all of them were moved during 2014-2016. I'm torn; I need additional input from everyone involved before I resume (or revert) the WISE page moves. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JorisvS and the original requestor @Hekerui for additional input. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the shortest unambiguous abbreviation style. Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The only unambiguous form is the unabbreviated one. Pretty much all possible two- or three- letter abbreviations are already in use for other catalogues. The number of digits in the designation is deliberately chosen to be just enough to avoid ambiguity between multiple sources in the same catalogue. If you abbreviate the designation of an astronomical object, it almost always becomes ambiguous with another astronomical source. Modest Genius ^talk 10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In the same catalogue I mean, don't understand your answer. The name always includes a catalogue name, no? Hekerui (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that abbreviated designations should be used whether possible. We should stop accepting everything that IAU says as "an unquestionable and inviolable truth". Our objective is to make useful articles to readers, not to serve the interests of some people. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How does whether the article title is abbreviated affect how useful it is to readers? The designation can still be abbreviated in the article text where necessary. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

because the shortened name is more likely to be searched by readers. That's why we have 2M1207 and not 2MASS J12073346–3932539. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely that depends on what name is used by sources? If a source uses the unabbreviated form that's what a reader seeing that source will search for. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

When non-ASCII characters are not preserved online at the MPC/JPL/USGS

We're to preserve diacritics, and also "if the name contains an ʻokina it should be preserved." Does that mean we should even if the MPC substitutes the ʻokina with an ASCII hyphen in its online DB? I know they have technical problems with the non-ASCII blocks of Unicode; I was involved in a round of emails trying to get Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà corrected, and although they appreciated the help, in the end they only got it half right. (They were even reluctant to approve the name Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà because they knew they wouldn't be able to accommodate it properly, and asked the discoverers/proposers if they couldn't spell the name a different way to make it easier on them. That was a conflict with their stated aim of being culturally inclusive.) Currently, JPL lists its moon as ⟨(229762) G!kun||'homdima I Gǃòʼé ǃHú⟩ – that is, half ASCII-ified and have Unicodified. That obviously is a formatting issue, not an authority for using those specific characters. (Besides, WP can't accept "G!kun||'homdima" as an article title.) It's not uncommon for the MPC, JPL and the USGS to use different Unicode characters in a non-ASCII name, so the characters themselves are not authoritative.

I take it from the statement that ʻokinas should be preserved, that other non-ASCII letters should be preserved as well. (Specifically, at 594913 ʼAylóʼchaxnim, where the MPC substitutes ASCII punctuation marks for the glottal stops.) To clarify, I amended the wording to "if the name contains an ʻokina or other non-ASCII character, it should be preserved."

Might never come up, but potentially a similar issue with Caesar's comet. If the MPC number were used in the title, it should be ⟨C/−43 K1⟩ with a proper minus sign, not a hyphen. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems a topic to resolve at the MOS level, not within WP:AST. The official names of comets and asteroids are those listed in the IAU bulletins (of the WGSBN), not JPL or MPC. Similarly, official names of moons and surface features are those in the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. Note Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Common names favours the official name only if it is also the WP:COMMONNAME. How we should turn non-English characters in those sources into article titles (or mentions in the text) is a matter of Romanisation, not specific to astronomy. WP:ROMAN has guidelines for some languages, but not the ones you're querying. WP:DIACRITICS is the closest guideline I could find, but that unhelpfully says the use of special characters is 'neither encouraged nor discouraged'. Maybe ask on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)? Modest Genius ^talk 14:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT none of them address which Unicode character to use when there are options, but the precedent of using a proper okina for Hawaiian names (rather than a quotation mark, which may look identical) suggests that we should do the same for other languages. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: The WGSBN Bulletin only dates from May this year. What's our ref for objects named before then? I'm curious if the okina was actually used for the Hawaiian names our guidelines say we should maintain the okinas for. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Prior to the new bulletin, names with diacritics were published in the PDF versions of the MPCs (not MPECs). They're very large files though. For example, in the Nov 2019 MPC new names are listed from pages 990-994. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: Thanks. Do they have an index, either of named bodies or just of MPCs? I don't know how to look up the bodies in question. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved the section on diacritics and apostrophes, which was under 'minor planets', up to its own section, as it's also relevant for moon and star names. Added examples, including 3 distinct cases where we do want an ASCII hyphen. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I gave examples of where we omit a diacritic or other orthographic element because the IAU does, in Schöner vs Schroeter and in Namaka (moon). However, if communities complain that their personages are misformated, e.g. that it should be Nāmaka, we might wish to revisit this. I'm neither advocating that we should strictly follow IAU spelling in a case like Namaka, nor that we should 'correct' their spelling, merely describing what's been our practice so far, which is to retain all the elements of the IAU name, while choosing Unicode characters for them according to the MOS. (For the examples above, it's quite common to omit the macron in Hawaiian names even when retaining the okina, just as it's common to use <oe> for <ö> in German, but it's distinctly odd to retain the "ś" in Aśvaghosa (crater) while dropping the "ṣ" in the last syllable: it's common enough to strip all diacritics from Sanskrit names, but a copy-editor would see "Aśvaghosa" as a typo.) — kwami (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the lunar crater van't Hoff was spelled "van 't Hoff" in our article, like the person. The IAU name only has one space. I "fixed" it to one space per the IAU, but thought I should mention it here in case others disagree. (The title was as per the IAU, but in the text an extra space had been added.) — kwami (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Funny that the IAU named the crater van't Hoff, but the corresponding asteroid van 't Hoff. Spaces in asteroid names are rare, and only used when deemed necessary (for example, the space between first and last names is almost always left out). If one needed an example that the IAU does not always follow its own guidelines (a.k.a. its unwritten rules), here it is. Renerpho (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I brought some cases to their attention where the diacritics were wrong (a macron for s.t. else, perhaps due to a low-res copy of the source doc), or where one diacritic was dropped and another kept. We'll see if they clean them up. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, without the space it just looks like a typo. :( Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to minor planet / dwarf planet page titles

On Talk:90377 Sedna#Requested move 6 June 2024, ArkHyena has recently proposed to rename 90377 Sedna → Sedna (dwarf planet), 225088 Gonggong → Gonggong (dwarf planet), and 50000 Quaoar → Quaoar. This is the second time in two years that these moves are proposed (which resulted in "no consensus" in 2016 and 2022). I have suggested there, as an alternative to the requested move, that we make a change to how minor planet and dwarf planet articles are named.

The question is when the MPC number should be included in the title. While it isn't written policy, right now we de facto follow the official IAU definition. We have titles like Ceres (dwarf planet) for the five official dwarf planets, versus something like 324 Bamberga for all other minor planets. There is no reason why Wikipedia should follow the IAU definition, explicitly or implicitly, and I'd argue that the current approach isn't very sensible (indicated by the repeated failed attempts to reach a consensus, and the inconsistency between different articles). The proposal is that we

move our "arbitrary line" from the IAU list to whatever articles are on the recently created Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets list. Inclusion to (and removal from) that list adds quite a high bar for articles to pass (similar to what the IAU list does). More importantly, this would be a bar that is in Wikipedia's own hands, and that would be easy to communicate. The subject's status will have been discussed during the FA/GA nomination, which would ensure self-consistency within the encyclopedia.
The featured topics list currently includes the five official dwarf planets, together with the three objects from the requested move, but not 90482 Orcus. Orcus is rated a good article, and there appears to be consensus about its dwarf planet status, so there is no reason why it couldn't be included in the FT. Under my proposal, it should then be renamed to Orcus (dwarf planet). Should an article be demoted from FA/GA status, the default would be to rename it to the "MPC number+name" format, unless it is decided that an exception is warranted (this should be treated more as a stable reference rather than an absolute policy).

Consider this a first draft. The final change to our naming conventions wouldn't include the rationale, and can be more concise.

Would you agree if we adopt a version of this as policy/guideline? Renerpho (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified/tagged: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Astronomical objects, and users Double sharp, Kwamikagami, Vpab15, Fyunck(click), Paintspot, as participants in the 2022 move discussion. Renerpho (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Opposed. We don't know which bodies are DPs, even within the "official" five (which aren't actually official). We could have endless arguments over whether a body is or is not a DP. I think all should be named with the MPN, e.g. 1 Ceres, with the single exception of Pluto, due to the fact that Pluto wasn't named with a MPN and it also wins that spot per COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Okay, but that doesn't seem to be the current consensus (which at the very least handles the five official IAU dwarf planets differently), and there's a good chance that the ongoing move request will be successful, further extending the list. Since those articles already say that these are dwarf planets, we may as well handle them as such, and on our (Wikipedia's) own terms. For the record, I voted "oppose" to the ongoing move request (or "conditional support" if we do it under the conditions of my alternative proposal). Renerpho (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with Kwamikagami here, on the grounds that it is not up to us to decide what objects are dwarf planets, it is up to the consensus of astronomers. Any debate over which object(s) to include as dwarf planets would hinge on our interpretations of the astronomical consensus, not our own verdict on what should and should not qualify as a dwarf planet. Though this in of itself can be unclear due to the potential for varying interpretations of literature, it nevertheless provides a relatively stable point of reference: the general list of "consensus" dwarf planets has not changed for roughly a decade by now, and likely will not change until another large TNO is discovered. ArkHyena (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@ArkHyena: I am surprised, since you have indicated before that you liked the proposal.[1] Why the change of mind? Renerpho (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Error/unclear wording on my part, I intended to reply to Kwamikagami. ArkHyena (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hah, alright. Renerpho (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

For that matter, Ceres wasn't named with a MPN either (and, like Pluto, was originally classified as a planet). Regarding COMMONNAME status, Quaoar should also be moved to the non-disambiguated title either way (as it isn't the deity's main name, Chinigchinix, and the base title already redirects to the space snowball). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Supporting this proposal, per my reasoning given in the aforementioned move request (Talk:90377 Sedna#Requested move 6 June 2024). Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets reflects the current list of what objects astronomical consensus considers dwarf planets (with the exception of 90482 Orcus's exclusion at present), and, as any change will require discussion, it can be expected to remain as a reasonably good reflection of astronomical consensus in the future. ArkHyena (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Copied from the move request discussion, per [2] and [3]: Renerpho (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*:Also, support alternative proposal (which somehow got hatted), provided that both the list and the naming convention try to stay consistent with, well, reliable sources. Every line that can be drawn is arbitrary, but we should reflect the one that the sources draw. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
*Support of both the original proposal and Renerpho's alternative proposal. AstroChara (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for your support. "Which somehow got hatted" -- that was my own doing. Since the alternative proposal is about a change to the policy, not the requested move, the discussion has been moved to the appropriate policy talk page. I'll copy your votes to comments there if you don't mind. I have linked the second discussion, so hopefully any further discussion about it will take place in the appropriate place. Renerpho (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

My position is basically what's in the copied vote, with emphasis on the fact that the featured topic should follow the current consensus of astronomers and be updated to reflect it (even if that means temporarily losing FT status). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a standard that applies to any FT/FA, right? Since the list consists of WP:FAs and WP:GAs, it would be ground for demotion from that status (and thus removal from the list) if any of them were found to not reflect current consensus. That is quite a strong incentive for keeping them up to date, so this is unlikely to ever happen. For the topic itself to lose FT status for such a reason, something would have to go very wrong... Renerpho (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ceres was given a MPN in the 19th century, soon after the system was devised. "1 Ceres" is as baked in as "5 Astraea" (rather than the earlier "1 Astraea"). Pluto wasn't given a MPN despite having them available, and is grandfathered in that way.

I oppose the move of Quaoar. There are thousands of minor planets with unambiguous names, like Mikebrown, but consensus has always been that we title them with the MPN anyway because so many of them are so obscure, and it would be a huge waste of time to argue COMMONNAME for 100,000 articles. Besides, Quaoar is the deity's name. That's like saying Pluto isn't the god's name. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I have to agree with kwami about your suggestion to rename Quaoar to Chinigchinix. At the very least, this here is the wrong place for that discussion, but it also doesn't sound like a good idea to me. @Kwamikagami: For the vast majority of minor planet articles, there is consensus to keep the MPN, and I am completely in line with that. Those thousands of minor planet articles are unaffected by the proposed change, which only affects those objects that current scientific consensus actually handles as a separate class. Renerpho (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested renaming Quaoar to Chinigchinix? Quaoar already points to the (possible) dwarf planet, so either it should be moved there, or Quaoar should point to Chinigchinix. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Sorry, I think I misunderstood your comment. Are you suggesting that Quaoar should no longer redirect to the dwarf planet, but to the article about the deity (Chinigchinix), to make it consistent with Gonggong? If so then that may actually be a good idea, although I admit I am not familiar with how articles about deities are generally handled. Renerpho (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The move request, as ongoing, is for it the dwarf planet article to be moved to Quaoar, which seems to be what you're suggesting as well? Renerpho (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying it should either do one or the other, for consistency. Sorry for the misunderstanding! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Don't worry, that probably was entirely due to the late hour on my side... I'm all for consistency! Of course WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has to be considered, and it beats any consistency argument, per Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Inconsistency resulting from primary topic determinations. As I said, I am not particularly familiar with the mythology side of this (I believe this is a topic that Kwami knows much more about than I do), but I'm sure this is one thing that could actually be handled on a case-by-case basis. Why Quaoar is currently handled the way it is, I do not know, but I don't believe that to be a pressing issue. Would you disagree? Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you, and would be happy to defer to the opinion of someone more well-versed in mythology! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The articles have now been moved as proposed. I believe we should go ahead and make the change to the naming convention, to make clear what line Wikipedia is using to distinguish articles that follow the XX (dwarf planet) convention from those with the more common [number] XX names. Renerpho (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Formulating the policy/guideline

You have an idea how to actually phrase the new policy/guideline? Let us know, or start working on it here! Renerpho (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just throwing this out, but perhaps this could be affixed to the Dwarf planets subsection:

All objects agreed to be dwarf planets by demonstrable scientific consensus (specified below) should be titled under the following guidelines:

1. Follow the guidelines on common names above. Disambiguation should be marked with (dwarf planet).

   a. No disambiguation is required if the dwarf planet is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; e.g. Pluto.

2. All dwarf planet article titles should not include the objects' respective minor planet numbers; e.g. Eris (dwarf planet), not 136199 Eris.

   a. The MPC designation should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article's lead section, preferably incorporating a link to the minor planet number article; e.g. Eris (minor-planet designation 136199 Eris) is ...

3. If the object is accepted as a dwarf planet by astronomical consensus but has yet to receive an official name, the article title should contain only the object's provisional designation; e.g. 2007 OR10 (now Gonggong (dwarf planet)).

An object's dwarf planet status is considered to have demonstrable scientific consensus should it suffice for inclusion in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets following a discussion of its inclusion. To be included, scientific consensus must be demonstrated by multiple reliable academic sources explicitly labelling or arguing for its dwarf planet status, and there must be minimal or no academic opposition against its dwarf planet status. ArkHyena (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You can argue that dozens of objects are dwarf planets based on sources like Sterns (multiple sources by him or colleagues), and for many of these there is no debate because no-one else really cares. Among named objects, there are Varda, Ixion, Varuna, Chaos, Dziewanna and Huya. I don't know that we have the sources to argue that they are not DPs, except by omission. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I would suggest to keep the general discussion limited to the section above. This section here was created specifically to work on the guideline, and I don't see anything in your comment that addresses ArkHyena's proposal. You have my go-ahead to also move my comment to there, to ensure that the discussion is actually heard, and so that work down here isn't cluttered.

Regarding your arguments: I have read the recent discussions at Orcus (here and here), where you brought up similar points. In my opinion, the issues you raised about the main sources discussed in the List of possible dwarf planets article (Tangredi et al., 2010; Grundy et al., 2019; Emery et al., 2023) were sufficiently addressed. If my interpretation of the consensus building there is wrong then surely I'll be told off by someone else for claiming a false consensus. In any case, that discussion will go its due course, and its results aren't really relevant to what we're working on here.

More weight is generally given to the latter two of these sources (Grundy and Emery), because they are less old, and because they apply stricter criteria. The fact that all three of them essentially agree on the objects that are currently on Wikipedia's dwarf planet featured topics list is what constitutes the stable scientific consensus necessary for inclusion in that list.

I understand your concerns. It is important to be careful, and to make consensus for DP status a high bar, and the voice of caution is appreciated. I myself have opposed moves in the past (like in the 2022 discussion at Sedna) for similar reasons. But you have repeatedly expressed your opinion about the issue, and brought up the same arguments multiple times, and I'm not sure you have actually listened to the counter-arguments. All the relevant sources are conservative and quite strict with their criteria, and none of the additional objects you bring up make it on their lists (even though, as you noted, Grundy and Stern have coauthored papers on the subject, and Stern is known to not be impartial about the matter). We have been cautious about this, I think, so I fail to see a problem. Renerpho (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

My point was that if the only sources we have that address the matter call some minor body a DP, then the scientific consensus (as near as we can determine it from RSs) could be argued to be that it's a DP, and thus subject to the naming conventions you outline. The bodies subject to this convention would then not be a natural category, but depend on haphazard sources. IMO that should be dealt with up front, rather than waiting for it to be a problem. I'm not sure the proposed wording does so. Maybe it does -- I just thought this was a potential spanner I should mention.

As for "the stable scientific consensus", I'm not sure there is one. We use the preponderance of sources, but I don't think we have any good reason to think that reflects a broad consensus. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@ArkHyena: Thanks for the start! Some points:

• I think point 2 is intended to read "... e.g. Eris (dwarf planet) ...", without the broken wiki-link.
• "to be in consensus" is a wording I have not come across. Is this correct English?
• Either way, "astronomical consensus" should be "scientific consensus".

Renerpho (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Good catches; "to be in demonstrable consensus" should be reworded as "to have demonstrable consensus", perhaps ArkHyena (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I leave that to a native English speaker. :) Renerpho (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair; I've modified my suggestion above to address your points ArkHyena (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the article, using the version above (with some minor typographical edits). Of course we may rephrase it still further, but I think this reflects the decision made at the Requested move 6 June 2024. Renerpho (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed dwarf planets

This text is now in the guideline:

If the object is accepted as a dwarf planet by astronomical consensus but has yet to receive an official name, the article title should contain only the object's provisional designation; e.g. 2007 OR10 (now Gonggong (dwarf planet)).

There are currently no examples of this, but I don't agree with applying this convention to unnamed dwarf planets. If the title of a minor planet article is only a provisional designation with no number in front, that implies the object hasn't been numbered. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point that I somehow managed to completely missed; I've amended this as

the article title should contain both the object's minor-planet number (if applicable), in parentheses; and provisional designation; e.g. (225088) 2007 OR10 (now Gonggong (dwarf planet)). ArkHyena (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing this section. Renerpho (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

MPC designation

I'd suggest removing the following paragraph from the new guideline: a. The MPC designation should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article's lead section, preferably incorporating a link to the minor planet number article; e.g. Eris (minor-planet designation 136199 Eris) is .... I don't think the MPC designation is useful for the few (nine?) dwarf planets we have. Those are much better known by their names. The numbers are helpful for identifying the much more numerous asteroids. The MPC designation is anyway always included in the infobox in the rare cases it is of interest.

I've landed here after ArkHyena undid my edit removing the number from Pluto, where I think it is particularly unhelpful. Tercer (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That is needed for the SSSB's, but not for these. More useful would be the temporary designation, which is what is used in the early references. (Apart from Pluto, of course.)

At a minimum, Pluto should be an exception because the MPC des is almost never used to identify the object. It should of course be mentioned in the section on naming, and perhaps further down in the lead where it mentions that Pluto lost its status as a full planet. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceres is also almost never referred to by its MPC designation, and also lacks a provisional designation. Tercer (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen 1 Ceres quite frequently, at least in historical sources. If our naming conventions didn't require the MPC number, we could still include it where it would be beneficial, as IMO in the case of Ceres. — kwami (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceres, Pluto, and Eris are rather unusual cases. Ceres spent quite a while as simply an asteroid / minor planet, before "dwarf planet" was coined, and its MPC number 1 is hard to forget. Pluto spent a long time as a major planet without an MPC number, and that not-very-round number 134340 was only given when "dwarf planet" became a term. Eris is yet another case: the number 136199 was assigned only a few days before the name was (numbered 7 September 2006, named 13 September 2006), because that object was the entire reason the IAU voted on a planet definition in the first place. Haumea and Makemake were assigned numbers together with Eris; it's possible that they were delayed even when their orbits were well-known because of the classification problem, but I'm not sure (would need to do some research). Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice round 100000 was even proposed for Pluto, but the IAU wasn't ready yet. Might be different if they'd gone with that number. For a while they saved round numbers for large object (20000, 50000); too bad they gave that practice up before they got to the really big ones. — kwami (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, (50000) Quaoar now has the number removed from its WP-article title, too. Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally ambivalent as to whether or not DPs should have their MPC designations in the introducing sentence, so it's probably best to seek the consensus of other editors. ArkHyena (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see an alternative proposal, and am opposed to its outright removal. I definitely think that the minor-planet designation should be mentioned in the lede. Whether it belongs in the first sentence is another matter. As kwami has noted, not all dwarf planets are equal, and giving more leeway for how to handle them could be beneficial. Renerpho (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)