Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 2

message: page moved (by Shimgray - poll closed early as original move from 1 Ceres to Ceres should not have taken place without debate)
Ceres → 1 Ceres – 1) To keep consistency with other asteroid pages; 2) to avoid needless confusion between this article and the one about the mythological Ceres; 3) to avoid needless changes for the sake of change to links and redirects which are now fouled. RandomCritic 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this back and I'm now fixing redirects. The original move was excessive and shouldn't have happened without discussion. Shimgray | talk | 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 1

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Support====
* Strong support (which I gather now means keeping this page in place).  1 Ceres is the official designation, and serves to disambiguate this page.  I also fail to see that the change of status (to a dwarf planet) has done a thing to increase people's awareness of Ceres.  --EMS | Talk 02:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Strong support (which I gather now means keeping this page in place).  1 Ceres is the official designation, and serves to disambiguate this page.  I also fail to see that the change of status (to a dwarf planet) has done a thing to increase people's awareness of Ceres.  --EMS | Talk 02:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Oppose We do not need numbers for dwarf planets. Other dwarf planet articles named without numbers (Eris (dwarf planet) and Pluto). Consistency with other dwarf planets is more important than consistency with asteroids.--Nixer 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *Comment - I am personally disgusted that the 1 Ceres → Ceres move was done without any poll or notice.  IMO this move should be reversed for that reason alone.  OTOH, I would like these pages to stop moving around until the issue of how to describe the dwarf planets is settled.  Please see talk:dwarf planet/Naming.  This business is especially disturbing as I have no indication that Ceres is suddenly more well known since the IAU decision.  People are much more aware of Pluto not being a planet now than of Eris and Ceres as fellow dwarf planets.  (Indeed, most people have no idea that "Xena" is now Eris.) --EMS | Talk 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this back and I'm now fixing redirects. The original move was excessive and shouldn't have happened without discussion. Shimgray | talk | 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Option 3 won on the naming page. It proposes a move to Ceres (dwarf planet) by a margin of 22:10 See: Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming User:Hopquick 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the move, and have indicated this on the naming talk page.  I would have done this sooner, had I known this conversation was taking place. Michaelbusch 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The text above is a misstatement of the terms of "option 3". (In fairness to the anon who posted it, the text was also truncated at the bottom of the "dwarf naming" discussion page.) The actual text of the decision was as follows:"Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages."The bold text is my addition, to illustrate the error. The link is also incorrect - it should be Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. --Ckatzchatspy 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this move has already been opposed twice due to an undiscussed change and the above "poll". We should still wait a few months to decide on what to do here. Ryūlóng 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, so the relevant discussion is now if this article should be at Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet). 1 Ceres is out in any case. -- Jordi·✆ 07:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has only been a vote at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming, no consensus yet. Ryūlóng 07:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, this is just passive resistance.  Option 3 is now 22:7 the option amongst those with an opinion.  3:1 is greater than the 2:1 threshold for consensus.  The question was whether we wanted to move in agreement with that "consensus" which EMS said we had acheieved.  100% agreement is not equal to consensus.  While supermajority is not considered a standard of judging consensus, at some point a small minority needs to be ignored. Hopquick 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely that goes against wikipedia policy? If a page needs disambiguation it goes afterwards in brackets? --144.32.196.4 22:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to Ceres (dwarf planet).  There is clearly a large majority who would like the article title without the number.  Of these "votes", several of the oppose votes are just based on the claim that there is no reason to move the article.  This further weakens the oppose standpoint, as there is really no issue with moving a page as long it is the general will of the community. —Mets501 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will the page comply with Option 3

message: 25 for, 12 against as of 11/10/2006
:Um, I'm not sure you're supposed to do tallies. Seem to recall it's considered rude for some reason - don't ask me why, and I could be wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 19:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. can't find where I got that from. Still, I wouldn't take a tally yet: Gets out of date so very quickly. Adam Cuerden talk 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is up to us editors to close. An admin should get around to looking at this requested move given enough time, and then either move the article or not. At this time the move talk would be effectively closed. aLii 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, its up to an admin, but next Monday sounds like a sensible date to me. Ten days sounds like a sensible length of time. Unless, of course, votes are still coming in. In which case it makes sense to give it longer. The Enlightened 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ten days sounds reasonable to me ... generally a week or so is normal.  Polls been running for 4 days already, but with the holiday weekend here, this is the first glance I've had at Wikipedia in 5 days! Nfitz 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I find next Monday as a closing date most agreeable; might I also interject a further time constraint of at least 12 hrs of lapse between close and last posting of position.  Abyssoft 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The notes on the Pluto and Eris talk pages seem fairly neutral to me. --144.32.196.4 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Tally

message: I do wish that people hadn't gone around asking for others to come in to vote, but phrasing it in a very pro-motion format. It's somewhat biasing of the results, even if - as I do fully believe - it was done in good faith. Adam Cuerden talk 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notes on the Pluto and Eris talk pages seem fairly neutral to me. --144.32.196.4 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note