![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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
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:
The consistent ones are:
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:
It seems we are not the only wiki-group stuck in limbo.
Nbound 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
The be bold and re add it! -- Nbound 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why particularly Pluto? we are working for a consistent naming scheme -- Nbound 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
...Option 5 is ridiculous. It's a double-disambiguation.
Adam Cuerden
talk
07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
-- 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
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Some arguments as to why the disambiguator (dwarf planet) should not be used in the titles of articles.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
-- Ckatz chat spy 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Well thats pretty much my view, just better articulated =P -- Nbound 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I moved the old polls and poll-related discussions to the Polls archive. RandomCritic 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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
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:
The consistent ones are:
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:
It seems we are not the only wiki-group stuck in limbo.
Nbound 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
The be bold and re add it! -- Nbound 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why particularly Pluto? we are working for a consistent naming scheme -- Nbound 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
...Option 5 is ridiculous. It's a double-disambiguation.
Adam Cuerden
talk
07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
-- 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
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Some arguments as to why the disambiguator (dwarf planet) should not be used in the titles of articles.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
-- Ckatz chat spy 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Well thats pretty much my view, just better articulated =P -- Nbound 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I moved the old polls and poll-related discussions to the Polls archive. RandomCritic 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)