# Talk:Gonggong (dwarf planet)

Cool! This one, at least, should get named. kwami (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

still not named. Hmmm... an object where the name is not "known" for a long time. I am for sure not the one to propose a name, but it would be fun if it would be named after Rumpelstiltskin ;-) --Andi47 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Was it Mike? Can't find it anywhere. Serendipodous 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Mike, see [1]. Ruslik (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That paper probably should go into Sedna. I'll get going on it tomorrow. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Serendipodous, sorry I forgot to log in when I edited the article - it's been a long time since I was last on.  The comparison of OR10 to Sedna is original research (the links given are only the plots of the orbits and size estimates, not any external source making the comparison), and not justified on scientific grounds, since the only similarity between the objects is their size and 'Sedna-like' would be just as meaningful as 'Quaoar-like' or 'Varuna-like'.  'Sedna-like' is used in the literature to refer to objects on dynamically detached orbits (high perihelion and large semimajor axis), which OR10 most definitely is not.  And now I go away again. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the object was detected as part of a survey to locate Sedna-like objects, though none were found. Serendipodous 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some astrologer posted a blog claiming OR10 is nicknamed 'Cinderella'. The original posting now appears to be offline, but it's been quoted a couple places, and now added here. Just a head's up—unless that really is its nickname? kwami (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unlike Mike not to have posted something about this by now. He hasn't updated his blog since November. Serendipodous 09:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Here it is: Snow White. Iridia (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Good. Now that Mike's posted it, we can mention the name here without worrying about complications. It would've been nice if he'd actually spelled out that it's 2007 OR10, though. If someone claims that's not a conclusive source, do we have any way of proving it? (Not that it's likely anyone will.) kwami (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
He did, in the comments to that post. Iridia (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It IS currently the 3rd most distant "large body" known to be orbiting the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
And if we don't like nicknames, we can just call it Orten. Nice unambiguous name, that, even if it doesn't mean anything. kwami (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's snow white.
173.246.35.182 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really.
Made mention of the "seventh dwarf" meme. Delete if not credible. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we'll finally get a name! (See Mike's blog.) — kwami (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing "Unihipili" as a nickname (now that "Snow White" is no longer thought to be appropriate), but that might just be astrologers. Not notable? — kwami (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole talk section is full of weird made-up names... -- Kheider (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look as though Mike is going to propose a name after all.  — kwami (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt he will propose a name unless he thinks he has a good one that is a proper fit for it. Snow white was a bad nickname given the relatively low albedo. -- Kheider (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Given the 3:10 resonance, how about "Toyuma"? ;) (or just "Yuma") 209.93.141.17 (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"0.500" - really, with 3-fig precision? — kwami (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh! JPL has it as 0.5001794, and all other orbital elements with a similarly high precision, but with only a condition code of 3. The three-plus digit precision is also used on the pages of several other larger TNOs though, and it matches the source. Tbayboy (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

2007 OR10 should probably be made to be rosy in color. The nickname Snow White was based on the assumption that OR10 would turn out to be an icy-bright member of the Haumea family. OR10 is now estimated to have an albedo of around 0.19. Primary image: EightTNOs.png -- Kheider (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask you if you would do that, but having already asked you to do so many things with that picture, I thought I'd lay off. But, while we're on the subject, Makemake is probably too red in that image; it should probably more resemble this picture. Serendipodous 05:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, there's an article on space.com on the color / compositin of Snow White: http://www.space.com/13332-snow-white-dwarf-planet-water-ice-methane-atmosphere.html 91.64.80.69 (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re resonance certainty, JorisvS claims all three types agree (from the source). However, the numbers in the columns differ for some fields (e.g., imax). Also note that there are many Es following the 10:3 at the top, whereas for well secured resonances (e.g., 134340 Pluto) there is only one E after the 3:2. I'm not sure really how to interpret it, but it looks like it's only a weak match to the resonance. Tbayboy (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Skimmed the paper, and it looks like the Es are just e to an exponent spelled out long-hand (because of ascii font), truncated to 6 because that's all the room in the field. Each column tries different measurements to account for 3-sigma errors in the measurements, and each column agrees to the type of orbit. So I think JorisvS is correct. I.e., per DES, the 10:3 resonance is deemed secure. Tbayboy (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Tbayboy's (9 January 2012) edit is a good 3rd party compromise given that this has been debated since August 2011. -- Kheider (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of it is OK. However: "Some astronomers think it is most likely a dwarf planet" is not supported by the first two citations; they call it a DP, not likely a DP. Using these as refs for this statement is OR. --JorisvS (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's silly (in general) to list the opinion of every astronomer in their exact words, especially in the lead.  The attempt here is to summarise the opinions of those who think there is an extremely high probability of it being a DP (i.e., likely enough that that's it's reasonable to call it one until we finally get a good look at it). Kwami's revision had one as "likely", so I kept that, but I don't object to stronger wording. "some ... consider it a DP" or "some ... classify it as a DP".
I also don't like the "IAU formally recognised" phrase, since it implies that there is such a formal procedure. The uncertainty of this is at the root of this whole disagreement. Maybe "the IAU has called it a DP". Tbayboy (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I share JorisvS' objections, but I agree with your concern about the 'formal' wording being misleading, though the IAU does make formal announcements. Could be "the IAU has not named it a DP" or even just "the IAU has not addressed its status".
I also agree that naming specific people is a bit silly, but I think it's come out of the edit warring. The point is that this is one of only a dozen objects that a RS has called a DP, whereas there are scores if not hundreds that are likely to be DPs. When we have s.o. like Tancredi (published by the IAU) or Brown etc. accepting a body as a DP, I think that should be stated explicitly (if not necessarily by name) in the lead, second only to the IAU accepting it as a DP. — kwami (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
They? Who exactly? Ruslik_Zero 11:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am letting this 15 JAN edit slide for now. The problem with Mike Brown's bot is that it uses an assumed albedo and thus assumed diameter for generating a result for OR10. The bot has no idea of the mass of any of the objects on its list. Any object assumed to be 1400km in diameter is a great dp-candidate. As for the Keck reference, is there a direct quote where Brown specifically calls it a dwarf planet or should I assume the use of "dwarf-planet" is the wording of Marcus Woo? Were we lying or should we tread on generating our own synthesis? -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Woo is a staff writer at Caltech. He is not an astronomer. His words should be treated with caution. Ruslik_Zero 14:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


### POV tag
Kwami, why don't you just tag all of Wikipedia while you are at it? You just refuse to let any editor word something other than YOUR way. The lead should promote the scientific consensus and not burden the average reader. I have allowed my basic version to be replaced by a 3rd party because I am tired of the horse beating. What you should do is create a subsection (at the bottom of the article) called "dwarf planet status" were you can list the name and comment of every astronomer. -- Kheider (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We have continuous POV-pushing across several articles, not helped by one nameless editor (I don't mean you) who doesn't even understand the IAU definition of a DP, and any compromise is just an invitation to further push that POV. I expect that articles, esp. FAs, reflect the sources. When we have significant figures in the field who comment on whether these bodies are DPs, then we should reflect that in the lead. We shouldn't say they "are" DPs unless that is what the lit says. That's all. WP policy is to follow sources, not just to follow them if we agree with them. — kwami (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You lament "any compromise"? That is the part of your editing that concerns me greatly, and why I choose to try going with a neutral 3rd party version from someone that has not been involved in making dozens/hundreds of posts on various dp related articles/talk pages. -- Kheider (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Compromise on matters of opinion is fine, and I have accepted many compromise edits from you. Most of your edits I have no problem with. But compromise on matters of fact is not fine. If we have two sources for the number of moons around Pluto, one saying three and one saying one, shall we compromise and call it two? And then when we get a source saying no, it's really four, compromise again and say three?
When we report what sources say, we should report what they say, and not a compromise between what they say and what someone here wants. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


### 1752km?
Now that I know Tancredi2009 assumed 2007OR10 was 1752km in diameter, I feel I should publish my own book on the subject. Since this is a reliable source, should we add his size "estimate" to the article? -- Kheider (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not his estimate. You'll notice that he had little confidence in that figure, and wouldn't even evaluate it as a DP ("objects without a lightcurve or any other kind of information to decide whether they can be considered as “dwarf planets” or not"). It's also dated compared to the 2011 paper we currently use. And where did he get that value? We've generally gone with the source of the estimate with other objects. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The number comes from using an assumed albedo of 0.10. That is the only figure I see Tancredi list for OR10. Obviously, Mike Brown's 2011 paper logically thinks dps>~1000km have a higher albedo than 0.10. -- Kheider (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
1230-1290 km Now Amazing 13 years now  116.240.248.12 (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In the article there is the statement "2007 OR10 has no known satellite, so its mass is unknown.". But can't the volatile-retention model provide a mass estimate? --JorisvS (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's poor organization to start the DP topic by saying the IAU does not accept OR10 as a DP. This isn't a point we make on other articles. We don't say in the Eros article for example that the IAU does not accept Eros as a DP. The whole reason for saying it at all is that some astronomers do accept OR10 as a DP, or think it's likely to be one. Since that's the point, and the only reason for mentioning the IAU in the lead, it should go first. The "but" logically comes after the thing it contradicts, and so goes second. The reader might wonder why the IAU hasn't signed up, so we then mention how poorly we know this body (though we don't know that's actually the reason, it is an important point to convey). — kwami (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's too tortured: we don't need to enumerate all the phrases in the lead, just summarise and leave the particulars to the body. Also, "some astronomers believe" makes it sound controversial. I try a more summarised lead, leaving the detail to the body. Also put the poorly know mass+size first, since that leads to the categorisation. Tbayboy (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It's tortured because we can't treat DPs as a scientific topic and simply present RS's. However, it's more than just "likely"; it's one of a handful which are DPs according to some of our sources. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In the section on DP status, we of course start with those claiming OR10 is a DP. Contradictory claims are fine (although there actually aren't any, AFAIK), but twisting the prose to say the IAU hasn't adopted the classification is no way to introduce a section. The point of the section is not that the IAU hasn't adopted this, but that Brown and others claim it. Basic English composition principles. To start off stating that the IAU hasn't adopted this, we'd need to present OR10 as a DP in the rest of the article, and then have a section on "Doubts as to DP status" or the like. — kwami (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I've rolled back to before your initial changes until this is resolved. You cannot seriously expect to claim that the IAU's position does not warrant inclusion here. --Ckatzchatspy 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course I don't claim that. I never have.  What I object to is your insistence on twisting the prose of our articles to better fit your POV. The section is not about the IAU not adopting OR10 as a DP, it's about claims that OR10 is a DP. That, being the topic of the section, is what we should lead off with. You should have had this in high school. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Your latest edit is even worse. Now we go on and on explaining the reasons there may be doubts about the claim that OR10 is a DP, before even getting to where we note that there are claims that it is a DP. Utterly ridiculous.
(And I see you're back to playing games with POINTy edits. The edit is not disputed by anyone but you, and that was only about inserting the comment on the IAU. There's no dispute about the improvements I made.) — kwami (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, all I've done is roll it back to the version prior to your changes today, for that section only, until we can resolve your refusal to include the IAU position. As for "POV", It's your POV (and your blocks for aggressively pushing said POV, and your insulting behaviour when anyone calls you on it) that is the real issue. As for this article, any discussion of dwarf planet status would by its very nature require a statement of the governing body's position. --Ckatzchatspy 05:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I have never refused to include the IAU position. You know that full well.
I have restored your edit, reordering per normal English composition conventions. Is that acceptable? — kwami (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This could have been avoided if you'd simply done that to begin with, instead of deleting it while making spurious claims about "POV" and "tortured prose". It would also help if you refrained from changing and expanding your comments after someone has already replied to them. --Ckatzchatspy 05:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I should have done that to begin with. I am so used to your past automatic reverts of my edits that I didn't give you the consideration I should have. You were editing in good faith, so I owe you an apology.
(The exansions to my edits were due to edit conflicts with your replies.)
If I get into a conflict like this with you again, I will try to remember this, and to give honest negotiation a better chance. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

thumb|100px
I just removed the artist's rendering used as lead image. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks these kind of images are (in most cases) inappropriate. Sometimes "not knowing" means simply not knowing. Of course, that's just my opinion, and as far as I know there are no guidelines to follow. Rfassbind -talk  00:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that image was modified when new information about the object's surface was revealed. So it isn't entirely imaginary. It is, for instance, the right color. Serendipodous 00:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This one just looks weird to me. It's shiny in the top left, and there's ambient light illuminating what should be the dark side. The surface looks weird, but Pluto blows that complaint away -- any fever dream of a crack-head dropping acid is fair game. A pinked-up picture of Dione or a brightened, pinkened Uranian moon would be better. Since there's so little known about it that can be illustrated (just the red), I don't see any point to art here. The one recently added for 20000 Varuna is better, despite similar problems, since it's a good illustration of the likely shape. Tbayboy (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say, that, for articles about specific objects of the Solar System, an artist's concept should not be displayed as a lead image (infobox) but may be used in the article's body if helpful?-- Rfassbind -talk  15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion an artist's conception is fine as the lead image so long as: (a) no actual image is available, (b) the concept image incorporates the known physical characteristics, (c) it is not misleading, and (d) it is from a source we'd normally consider acceptable as a reference (for instance, NASA). Thus I think concept images produced by a Wikipedian are not OK, although I might tolerate a concept image that originally was from reliable source to which a Wikipedian has applied an appropriate image transformation. —RP88 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)To clarify my remark, I would not have removed this particular image from the infobox. —RP88 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm very happy to have artist's impressions on articles if there's no better source, and the artist is from an organisation of the competence of NASA. And nor would I have removed it, and I think it should be put back - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Rfassbind: I think if it's good enough for the body, it's good enough for the infobox (if there's no real picture) -- it's not a big page that one could hide it away. I would rate the one here as a small fail, since it doesn't look like anything we have a picture of, i.e., it doesn't look like a real body in space. This one doesn't even look like an artist's impression, but more like a generic computer generated blob, coloured to match. And even the red seems overdone, since I think Mars is the reddest object in the solar system, and it's more orange than red. But I would welcome a better artwork for this page. Actually, I think the images of Makemake or Sedna in the 8 TNOs image on the page are better as OR10 than this one. Tbayboy (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The image looks cropped from File:EightTNOs.png and OR10 is redder than Makemake. -- Kheider (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (225088) 2007 OR10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (225088) 2007 OR10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225015100/http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/Sedna2076.txt to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/Sedna2076.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's strange that a known moon cannot conclude the exact mass.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haojian (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC) 

The moon is visible only in Hubble Space telescope and its time is a very precious resource. So, because determination of the orbit requires multiple observations, it may take a significant time. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the article's external links have since been updated with one pointing to a HST mission proposal document seeking just that kind of timeslice - for an "18 orbit mission" (presumably, a mere 28~29 hours, as Hubble orbits Earth once every ~95 minutes) to study the satellites of both OR10 and Makemake (which also has a recently spotted and very faint moon). Which suggests you maybe need 8 observations (maybe a thirty-minute exposure each time, or a big stack of shorter ones upon which to perform motion compensation and recombining) for suitably exact science, working out the orbit of each moon plus their masses and those of their parent (potential-)dwarf planets, plus one spare each in case something goes wrong... 80.189.129.246 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

S/2010 (225088) 1 needs a redirect page to the section of the article: (225088) 2007 OR10#Satellite  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 

I'm not sure exactly what names are proper, but extra redirects are harmless. I think you can do this yourself. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The mass and density of the dwarf planet (225088) 2007 OR10 (Submitted on 13 Mar 2019)

The satellite of (225088) 2007 OR10 was discovered on archival Hubble Space Telescope images and along with new observations with the WFC3 camera in late 2017 we have been able to determine the orbit. The orbit's notable eccentricity, e≈0.3, may be a consequence of an intrinsically eccentric orbit and slow tidal evolution, but may also be caused by the Kozai mechanism. Dynamical considerations also suggest that the moon is small, Deff < 100 km. Based on the newly determined system mass of 1.75x10^21 kg, 2007 OR10 is the fifth most massive dwarf planet after Eris, Pluto, Haumea and Makemake. The newly determined orbit has also been considered as an additional option in our radiometric analysis, provided that the moon orbits in the equatorial plane of the primary. Assuming a spherical shape for the primary this approach provides a size of 1230±50 km, with a slight dependence on the satellite orbit orientation and primary rotation rate chosen, and a bulk density of 1.75±0.07 g/cm−3 for the primary. A previous size estimate that assumed an equator-on configuration (1535+75−225 km) would provide a density of 0.92+0.46−0.14 g/cm−3, unexpectedly low for a 1000 km-sized dwarf planet.
Yes, Tomruen. This is already in the article. Is anything wrong with it? Renerpho (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I was waiting for the paper, and excited, but didn't edit right away. I linked the new diameter the next day[2] 2 months ago. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have greatly simplified the Introduction text for readability. There was little variety in the adopted style - 6 "it is" or  dozen of using "it" , and the text is a little too wordy. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Arianewiki1. I appreciate most of the changes, thanks. I reverted one of them though (the one that called 2007 OR10 "asteroidal"), as it goes against the common use of the term. TNOs are not considered asteroids. Maybe you have an idea how to make that paragraph more readable without that term? (Edit: And yes, I agree the text needs to be trimmed.) Renerpho (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Arianewiki1 I have made some attempts to make it more concise. Is this better? Renerpho (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated the precovery image for deletion, as I believe that it is not properly licensed. Renerpho (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The winning name for 2007 OR10 is Gonggong! If the new name gets approved by the IAU, every other page that uses {{mp|2007 OR|10}} would need to be edited. Schwamb's blog post is here: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2019/or10-vote-results.html

Any idea who's idea it was to include "Gonggong" in the naming proposals? I actual think simply using a transliteration of OR10 such as "Orten" would have been better or even just leaving it at OR10. How can one take astronomy seriously when significant astronomical objects are given ridiculous names like Gonggong and the unpronounceable Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
That's an extremely blinkered and anglophonosphericentric (how's THAT for a word) as well as classical-southern-european-culture-centric point of view. There are way more languages and mythologies on the Earth than Roman/Latin, Greek, English and Norse, so why would we limit the infinite tracts of space to the same? Especially when we've burned through almost all of what they have to offer already (I'm amazed Holle and Vili were still available). The Chinese are the world's biggest demographic, they can be allowed naming rights on the solar system's 25th largest object (after missing out on everything larger), can't they?
The word isn't even all that difficult or strange, especially in the face of stuff like "Uranus" (if you're bothered by wonky naming, *that's* a good place to start, as it should by rights have been "Caelus", but it seems Herschel was a(n English-speaking and thus entirely aware of the implications) historical troll, working under the cover of "no-one would have known that's supposed to be said Cee-lus... but they'll totally know this is meant to be Oorann-uss"). The spelling looks odd, but you can pronounce it simply "Gon-gong" (or Gong-ong, if you prefer). Seems alright to me.
On which note, Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà may be a bit difficult for us Anglophones, but it wouldn't be especially strange to anyone who speaks Xhosa or is familiar with it, which counts 20+ million native speakers (and who knows how many others), and a place amongst the official languages of two reasonably major countries. They're allowed a shot at an astronomical body or two as well, out of the many thousands, aren't they? It's not even that big or important a rock. And there's enough words in English (or Latin/Greek/Norse) that cause native speakers of other languages problems, maybe even those brought up on Xhosa, but certainly Chinese, Japanese, and various other southeast Asian countries (who together make up a huge slice of total world population). Plus I think it would be somewhere between interesting, generally horizon-expanding, and just plain funny for future generations to have to learn how to make those beatbox-esque African-language vocal sounds with their own bodies in order to properly pronounce the names of anything that's been given such a label.
It's kinda scandalous really that we've got down to this planetoid level without considering a wider worldview. The problem with that, even, is that any body whose "western" name caused them too much difficulty, they just came up with their own separate name for anyway - and now, we're short of additional names because we can't re-use those ones.
(All that said, I'm slightly disappointed they didn't just take the obvious route and call it "Orten", as well as calling 1992QB1 "Cubewan". They've been called by those elided-serial-number nicknames for long enough that they may as well be the official name, and there's little if any collision between the use of those letter/number combinations in that year with their reuse in other years because there's only a limited number of bodies large enough and thus of widespread enough interest for the names to get used with any regularity. Both are perfectly good words, which sound rather like proper names even if they're not, and are certainly unique. "Albion" and "Gonggong" could then have been used for other objects with serial numbers that don't roll off the tongue quite as easily, and any smaller objects with the same serial from different years can be given more unique names if felt necessary, or just described using their full codename if not...) 80.189.129.246 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Uranus was not actually named by Herschel, who wanted to call it Georgium Sidus; it was named by the German astronomer Johann Elert Bode (because just as Saturn is the father of Jupiter, Uranus is the father of Saturn). "Gonggong" works fine with English phonotactic constraints: "Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà" is more problematic on that front, but it can easily be Anglicised as  (GOON-hohm-DEE-mə), as its article suggests. (I can't ever remember how to spell it myself, but I can always use copy-paste.) Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Not the place to vent your frustrations. That said, simply put, we're running out of gods. The asteroids pretty much took all the available Graeco-Roman gods and the Norse pantheon was taken by moons of Saturn. Serendipodous 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite frankly, irregardless of my own opinion, who proposed the name is indeed relevant to the article and if the identity of the proposer is known it should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
My guess is Mike Brown proposed it (among the 3 co-discoverers), matching makemake's name structure, but I've not seen him take credit. Mike is probably too humble to need credit. My own proposal Enyo (with a similar SDO orbit as Eris) was sadly ignored. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe it was said to be released in november

The winning name was mentioned here (the source used in this Wikipedia article), here (in Russian) and here (in German). It wasn't as widely reported as the naming competition itself, but there are sources for it. November would have been the deadline at which point everybody may have suggested a name (10 years from numbering, see here). That is now irrelevant, as the discoverers have decided on which name to propose. Renerpho (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this should be put into the article. A revision by an IP user gave a link to a YouTube video showing a demonstration of a spam bot intended to repeatedly vote "Gonggong" on the naming poll. So far, no official sources have addressed the fact that Gonggong was chosen as a result of someone manipulating the poll. Nrco0e (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not until it's covered by a reliable source. Keep an eye on it. It is worth noting that multiple voting was not against the rules of their poll, so using a bot to vote is technically permitted. Renerpho (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I asked Meg Schwamb, she confirms it wasn't against the rules, and was hopefully balanced out by others doing the same for the other names.[3] Unless this is covered widely in the media (at which point it may become relevant), there is no need to bring it into the article. The vote was never meant to be taken that seriously. Renerpho (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Gonggongian? Gonggongese? Gonggong...ish? I don't know. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk 12:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The first question should be: Do you really need a demonym? Renerpho (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Renerpho: There's a dwarf planet satellite thing on Wikipedia (edit: here), where it lists things like Eridian, Haumean, Quaoaran, etc. So... what would Gonggong be?
Thanks for making me aware. I just removed those "pseudo-demonyms" from that page. Wikipedia isn't there to invent vocabulary, and most of these (like Quaoaran) are not used anywhere outside of Wikipedia."Quaoaran"+astronomy+-wikipedia&oq="Quaoaran"+astronomy+-wikipedia"Quaoaran" Renerpho (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:90377 Sedna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:90377 Sedna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: You've removed the pronunciation , with an edit summary "remove terrible uncited pronunciation that isn't even true to the Chinese pronunciation". The article about the mythological being, Gonggong, has had that same pronuncation since it was added by Kwamikagami in April 2019 (a month before the name for the dwarf planet was announced). No citation is given in that article, but if you have information about what it should be then please share that with us.
I think  is correct for the English name of the dwarf planet (this is how I say it, and it's the only way I have ever heard people pronounce this), regardless of whether that is correct for the creature that it was named after. It's possible though that the name of the god may be pronounced differently in Chinese. Renerpho (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

yes, the chinese pronunciation is irrelevant - we're writing in english — kwami (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I see. It's out of my field of expertise, so I have no objection then (for the time being at least). Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
the only variants i've heard are that some videos [not by astronomers] stress both syllables [as in 'Hong Kong'] or only the second [rhyming with 'belong'] - which if significant in real life would be worth adding — kwami (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: wikt:Gonggong disagrees about vowel, presenting /ˈɡɔŋ(ˈ)ɡɔŋ/ as the American pronunciation. This does include the alternative with both syllables stressed. A hidden comment "{{a|cot-caught}} {{IPA|en|/ˈɡɑŋ(ˈ)ɡɑŋ/}}"[4] was added there in 2023 (Cot–caught merger). Renerpho (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I suggest we give both variants, and cite the OED. Renerpho (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
we can cite the oed, but both variants are already indicated — kwami (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, let's go with that. Renerpho (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
wiktionary uses a different transcription system than we do -- they list each dialect separately, whereas we have a pan-dialectical system
it should be the CLOTH vowel, as in long or gong - if you have reason to believe that people don't pronounce it with the vowel in those words, then yes, the listed pronunciation would be wrong — kwami (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion involving this object is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dwarf planets#Unhelpful short descriptions. Everybody is welcome to comment there. Renerpho (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)