Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 1

message: Someone started a Dwarf Planets article, too. I will merge it here. The encyclopedic article should be in the singular.Derek Balsam 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dwarf Planets

message: According to space.com, there could be up to 53 dwarf planets according to the new definition  and the asteroids that were mentioned in the article are also mentioned by New Scientist here: . However, the phrase "The list of dwarf planets which are also plutons could also be vastly extended with round or near-round solar system bodies like Quaoar, Orcus, 2005 FY9, and others." needs a citation, and the term "near round" properly defined. AFAIK, Ceres is barely round enough to recieve planetary status. However, I recall reading in another article that any planet less than 500miles across would not be spherical enough to be a planet, hence the official word of only 12 planets. I can't find the article now but I'll keep looking. Eccentricned 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The three "round" asteroids and the KBOs listed are included in many pages which carry the news as "runner up" candidates, including the BBC. -- Jordi·✆ 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra possible dwarf planets 

message: Could someone explain the context to the size?  It's probably explained on other pages, but as stated on this page, it might strike the reader as an arbitrary cut-off (whereas the roundness criteria was at least based on objective physical properties).  Pluto is very different in composition from the four planets that come before it...  is the Mercury cutoff an approximate guess at where that transition might occur in other solar systems?  Or is it simply a conservative definition that makes the smallest possible change to textbooks?  --Interiot 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size, context? 

message: Since Neptune has failed to clear the neighborhood in it's orbit of Pluto, by the stated defintion it is also a dwarf planet.  They need to refine the definition a bit more.
**CalRis: Your concern was raised at the general assembly of the IAU but negated by those responsible. My interpretation/explanation: Neptune DID clear its neighbourhood (partially during its accretion phase, but also later when it - probably - migrated radially outward, at that time probably by resonance sweeping). The result: objects remaining after Neptune's creation in its neighbourhood were either ejected out of the solar system, moved further inside or outside. Some, Pluto most probably one of them, were trapped (by "resonance-trapping") inside so-called mean-motion resonances (in the case of Pluto in the 3:2-resonance). What further proof of Neptune's ability to "clear" (other drafts of the resolution preferred the word "dominate") its neighbourhood is needed?
::Thanks for this explanation. Perhaps the article needs to explain what is meant by clearing it's neighborhood. A question from a non-expert: Could a resonance-trapped object ever be considered a planet? Or does this essentially become a type of satellite? –RHolton≡– 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a definition is required, and I don't have one.  As is explained in the Pluto article, Pluto and Neptune don't actually "share" an orbit anyway, so I do not understand why the "cross" with Neptune means that Pluto has not cleared the neighborhood of its orbit.  I also agree that if Pluto has not "cleared the neighborhood," it is difficult to see how Neptune has.  When I first heard about this neighborhood thing, I thought they were going to say that Pluto fails the test because other objects in the Kuiper belt infringe on its orbit, which would make sense.  But saying that it fails because of its relationship with Neptune does not make sense, or at least I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation.  I also am wondering about the wisdom of the designation "dwarf planet," when none of the stated criteria have to do with size.  What are they going to do if (when?) they find a Kuiper belt (or other trans-Neptunian) object that has not "cleared its neighborhood" but is larger than Mercury?  Then they would have a "dwarf planet" that is larger than one of the classical planets.  It is unlikely that such an object exists, but then again, when I first learned about the planets (in the early 60's), there was no moon of Pluto, most of the moons of the gas giants were unknown, Saturn was the only ringed planet, and the Kuiper belt was an unsubstantiated theory.  Even two years ago, no Kuiper belt object larger than Pluto had been discovered, and now one has.  Who is to say that there definitely isn't one larger than Mercury?  6SJ7 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Clearing the neighborhood article has been started, and it has a tag on it saying that an expert's help is needed.  And it is, but the article is a start.  It turns out, anyway, that Neptune has nothing to do with any of this.  Pluto has not cleared the neighborhood of its orbit because other Kuiper belt objects infringe on its orbit, and if it was a real planet it would have been big enough to absorb those objects as it was forming, or at least capture them as satellites.  Or at least that is what the IAU appears to be saying, and it seems logical.  Neptune and Pluto do not share an orbit, Pluto just happens to get closer to the Sun than Neptune does at times.  6SJ7 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Neptune a dwarf planet? 

message: I think we should turn this article into a category.  Discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.42.208.182 (talk • contribs) .
*Suggestions offered with no supporting reasoning are unlikely to be taken very seriously. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildas: ~~~~. Responding to your suggestion, I'd say that there could be a :category:Dwarf planets, but this page should exist with or without the category. –RHolton≡– 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a category, but it clearly shouldn't replace the article.  I will make one. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Dwarf planets exists. 132.205.44.134 04:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldnt this be a category? 

message: Please, a nicer table....--TheFEARgod 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.Derek Balsam 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: What does "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit" mean? --Fang Aili talk 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second.  I have no idea what this means.. someone please explain! --Djedi 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are objects sharing the orbits of the eight planets, the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter, Cruthine in Earth's orbit.  But they survive only because they have a stable resonance with the major body. By the same token, Pluto is in a 3 to 2 resonance with Neptune, as are some other bodies out there.  Whereas the Kupier Belt objects seem to coexist without having much effect on each other.  That, I'd assume, is the point. --GwydionM 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, when planets pass through their orbit they essentially "pull" asteroids and other small bodies in and thus remove them from the orbit.  That's what is meant by "clearing" the orbit.  Pluto, on the other hand, is too small and its orbit too large; its orbit is not clear of asteroids and other small celestial objects.  -4.153.225.232 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Orbit neighborhood is pretty selfexplanatory then, I thought it might be a technical term or something. Recury 20:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The size of the orbit doesn't matter.  However, in Pluto's case the eccentricity and obliquity of its orbit do matter.  I don't know (nor do I feel like doing the math) if the obliquity of Pluto's orbit will ever bring it close enough to Neptune for the issue to really matter, though.  (obviously, if Pluto did come close enough it would be cleared, probably not by accretion, but probably by being captured, or by being flung out into space). •Jim62sch• 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clearing the neighbourhood of its orbit" 

message: With all of the potential dwarf planets out there, the Kupier Belt is now a Dwarrowdelf, a dwelling-place of dwarves.  The word is real, used by J. R. R. Tolkien
--GwydionM 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe the -delf in Dwarrowdelf is supposed to reflect the word delve, so perhaps "digging-place of dwarves" is more accurate. It would be nice though if astronomers were inspired by the new term to start naming Kuiper Belt Objects after Tolkienian dwarves or dwarfs of mythology  (Thorin, Ori, Bombur...:-). Thylacoleo 03:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to the Dwarrowdelf 

message: I think the list on Mike Brown's website plus discussion of the asteriods listed as candidates in the earlier definition (Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea) might be the best approach to the candidate section of this page.  Right now it seems thrown together as people find wikipedia articles that list diameters that they think might fit.  --Aranae 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (19308) 1996 TO66 was just removed from the list of possible dwarf planets.  It's one of the 45 on Brown's informal list but is certainly less well understood than many other objects and there are probably larger objects not included.  Again, what are the criteria we're using to determine inclusion into this list?  The edits seem like a mix of random opinions.  --Aranae 05:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is, as yet, no official lower bound; as none even of the larger candidates has yet been accepted as a dwarf planet; and as a very long list of objects with very uncertain sizes would be confusing, I think it's best to confine the list to the few largest candidates.  Most of these are listed at Trans-Neptunian object#Largest discoveries.  Drawing an arbitrary line at c. 750 km happens to exclude any object which doesn't currently have a wiki.RandomCritic 05:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Red links should never determine these things.  It looks like 400-500 km might turn out to be the cutoff for roundness for ice composition and 800-900 km for rocky composition.  I've seen 800 km bounced around a lot and I think would represent the conservative estimate.  600 is another figure that is used in news articles.  For mass, 5x10^20 is being cited in news articles.  750 seems very arbitrary and just seems like a number pulled out of a hat that fits in the ranges.  Personally, I think we should use the "candidate 12" plus Charon and minus Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea, but discuss those.  Those are really the only remotely official dwarf planet candidates listed anywhere.  I don't see that we can justify 2002 UX25 and 2002 TC302 which were excluded from the IAU's list presumably due to uncertainty about their sizes and not include objects like 2003 AZ84, 2005 RN43, 2003 MW12, 1996 TO66, or even Chaos.  Those error bars are quite large and the small differences in estimates become somewhat meaningless at that point.  I wouldn't be opposed to a list of candidates and a separate list of objects which may turn out to be dwarf planets but for which much more information is needed.  That may be too crystal-ballish for wikipedia, though.  --Aranae 06:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 750 is a number that is pulled out of the hat, but given the uncertainties it's no better or worse than 600 or 800.  It just also happens to be a dividing line at which the Brown list you point to, and the very different figures used on Wikipedia, happen to nearly agree.  The "candidate 12" press release image you link to just appears to a haphazard guess as to what bodies fit the IAU definition.  There is apparently no access to the IAU's supposed "planet watchlist", and I'm not at all sure that such a document exists other than in hypothetical terms.  Anyway, if you want to delete UX25 and TC302 be my guest; but you may have to argue it out with the people who added those candidates. :) RandomCritic 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section is unofficial and unpublished.  The key is that the objects in the image I linked to represent the unofficial speculation of an official committee charged with making a proposal.  Brown's website represents his unofficial speculation, but it's the unofficial speculation of one of the top researchers in the field.  Right now, our list is the unofficial speculation of the wikipedia community.  I think the first two choices are much more appropriate.  I am just one of the many nonexperts attracted to these pages by the recent press.  I'd rather see this call made by a few of you more regular types.  --Aranae 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all objects that orbit the sun that are biger then 1 Ceres should be included though it looks like all, if not, most are.Omega13a 08:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of possible dwarf planets

message: The new definition for dwarf planets only addresses objects around our sun.  If you use the generic star then any larger than Mercury extrasolar objects are immediately classified as dwarf planets but this was not addressed in the new definition.  I think it should say the sun and not a star which matches the wording of the new definition.  --Daniel Schibuk 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you meant to say either "smaller than Mercury" instead of "larger than Mercury" or "planet" instead of "dwarf planet".  --Aranae 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally meant what I wrote but it seems that everybody is on the same page with a dwarf planet orbiting the sun.  I was just saying if you use just the generic star we may not know the neighborhood of an extrasolar object.  This therefore means an object larger than Mercury that may not have cleared its neighborhood would be considered a dwarf planet.  It would really strange to call that object a dwarf planet when it is a very large object and possibly bigger than the Earth.  -- Daniel Schibuk 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is exactly the problem with the IAU definition.  Hopefully it will be refined at their next convention.  Many planetary scientists are refusing to acknowledge the current IAU definition as it is heliocentric in its specific mention of the Sun, and the language is intrinsically self-contradictory and thus useless.  I write software (six years on NASA research funding so far), and I consider this an example of namespace polution.  My parser would throw a fit if I tried to pass it a piece of code so poorly written.  I'm just sticking to calling all bodies large enough to be round by their own gravity yet smaller than brown dwarfs, planets.  If they happen to be in close orbit with another planet such that their barycenter is beneath the surface (where is Jupiter's surface again?), then I'll call it a moon, even though it is still also a planet.  They really jumped the gun on this one, but hopefully the controversy sparked will force a better understanding of physical reality.  Seriously, should an electron be called a 'dwarf electron' if it hasn't 'cleared it's neighborhood'?!  Fisherted1 19:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sun or a star 

message: Please reword the first and fourth of these so that they do not appear to contradict each other. Georgia guy 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just realized that this is the same complaint that I had, just not quite as descriptive. :P  -4.153.225.232 20:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bulleted list above the TOC 

message: What does the new classification mean by stating that an object must be "in orbit around a star but ... not itself a star," and must not be "a satellite"?
If it's an object in orbit around a star, it is a satellite of that star.  Is it referring to man-made satellites?  -4.153.225.232 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not a satellite" 

message: is not a satellite of a planet, dwarf planet, or other nonstellar body.
This doesn't seem to make sense. A dwarf planet can not be a dwarf planet?--Jersey Devil 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see now, it can't be the "satellite of a dwarf planet". My mistake.--Jersey Devil 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake?

message: But isn't an ice dwarf necessarily a dwarf planet, and thus a subcategory of dwarf planet, because they need be larger than comets, which would make them into dwarf planets anyhow? 132.205.45.148 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Consensus is do not merge. 132.205.45.148 18:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Conclusion

message: Dwarf planets are dwarf because they did not cleared the region (neighbourhood) they live in that means, that 
instead of:
:Name 	Category
:Pluto 	Plutino 	
:UB313	Scattered disc object
:Ceres 	Asteroid 
it should be
:Name 	Region of the Solar System
:Pluto 	Kuiper Belt 	
:UB313	Scattered disc
:Ceres 	Asteroid Belt 
--Pedro 11:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PedroPVZ, there is no basis in either of the IAU resolutions for your claim that Ceres is "no longer an asteroid".  Why did you put an "original research" deprecating flag on this article?RandomCritic 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Category' is fine. The objects are indeed members of each of those categories, whatever else they may also be. Pluto is a plutino. UB313 is an SDO. Ceres is an asteroid. They are also dwarf planets. Kind of like this: Jupiter is a planet. It is also a gas giant. UB313 is an SDO. It is also a TNO. Things can belong to more than one category.Derek Balsam 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "IAU watchlist" is not a verifiable source, as it has never been published.  It is doubtful whether an artist's interpretation qualifies as a source.  In any case the Possible Dwarf Planets table is just that -- a table of objects that might, given the criteria, be classified as dwarf planets.  It is not an attempt to replicate an unpublished IAU document.RandomCritic 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The diagram is wrong.  The words "original research" and "wrong" do not mean the same thing, however.RandomCritic 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if the original artist is willing to change the diagram and will suspend the diagrams out of the visible text for the time being.RandomCritic 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The text was poorly worded, but was hardly fantasy, and could easily be reworded.RandomCritic 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That the category Small solar system bodies includes asteroids does not imply that all asteroids are small solar system bodies.  In fact, the IAU definition of SSSBs precisely states that it includes "most of the Solar System asteroids" and "most Trans-Neptunian objects", which very clearly indicates that there is some small number of asteroids and TNOs that are not SSSBs. RandomCritic 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, most because Ceres was an asteroid now a Dwarf planet. And there are 3 other asteroid that can be reclassified as Dwarf planets.--Pedro 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The term asteroid was not deprecated by the IAU, and was not the subject of their vote.  Asteroids still exist. You need to try to understand that objects can easily belong to more than one category.   Pluto is a dwarf planet. It is also a Kuiper belt object.  It is also a plutino.  Ceres is a dwarf planet. It is also a main belt asteroid.  What is so hard about that concept?Derek Balsam 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Provide an official statement from the IAU that says, precisely, "Ceres is not an asteroid" or "Ceres is no longer an asteroid" and I'm sure everyone will be happy to change the article. RandomCritic 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  És teimoso. You know there's no such statement. But there is no statement that says "Ceres is an asteroid", but there is the strong "Ceres is a dwarf planet", besides "asteroids" were never an official category, asteroids were "minor planets", now "small bodies of the SS". Asteroids have no media attention like Planets. Noone cares if the asteroids loose a member. 
*if you want a "drawing":
*popular -> official
*moon -> satellite
*asteroid -> minor planet
after the definition:
*small planet + bigger minor planets -> dwarf planets
*remaining minor planets -> small bodies of the SS.
That's enough. I think the IAU does't write for children. They just said Pluto, and Ceres are dwarf planets, ditto: pluto is not a planet, Ceres is not a minor planet. 
--Pedro 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change category to region

message: Is it possible to get a new picture of Pluto, maybe an artists conception? The current one looks like a disco ball. --Pahoran513 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this one? --Exodio 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the caption needs to be changed. It isn't clear which is supposed to be Pluto... why are there two? What is the other? --Kimbalee1 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charon, maybe? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is Charon and which is Pluto? The caption still lacks that information. -24.92.41.95 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pluto is the larger one -- Nbound 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture 

message: ===Support===
# Support.  I don't see why this needs to be a separate article; any necessary information in it should be incorporated into the tables in the present article. RandomCritic 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and incorporated all new information from that table into the one in this article. RandomCritic 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 1. Oppose Most important Wikipedia articles are either already too long or on their way to getting there.  As most of us know, excessive article length contributes to slow loading and other technical problems.  Leave as is with emphasis on link to table.  Rlquall 14:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 2. Oppose We are in process of discovering exoplanets and broadly speaking, exo-objects around other star systems. Sooner or later, more likely sooner, we will discover "exo-dwarf planets" along already discovered "exoplanets". Lets leave separate page for Solar system dwarf planets and for general definition of all dwarf planets, including those in Solar system and in other star systems. We will need also "exo-dwarf planet" page one day. Homo Cosmosicus 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not fair to mix "Planets" and "dwarf planets" into one table and to call it "table of dwarf planets" and then as such merge it with the article Dwarf Planets. Page Table_of_dwarf_planets_in_the_solar_system should contain only the list of dwarf planets, instead now after voting there are mixed "Planets" and "Dwarf planets" together. I fixed that error. Please learn to live with the fact that the "dwarf planets" are not "Planets". Homo Cosmosicus 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 3. Oppose Pluto was demoted because cutting edge research suggests we may be finding tens or hundreds of "dwarf planets" in the coming years. While there may only be three right now, it's just a matter of time before there's thirty. Let the page be, if it was merged back here it would end up getting its own page in a year or two anyhow...  save someone else the time. ;P Utopianheaven 09:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, ever heard of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? aLii 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Table of dwarf planets in the solar system]]

message: # Support.  I don't see why this needs to be a separate article; any necessary information in it should be incorporated into the tables in the present article. RandomCritic 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and incorporated all new information from that table into the one in this article. RandomCritic 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: :1. Oppose Most important Wikipedia articles are either already too long or on their way to getting there.  As most of us know, excessive article length contributes to slow loading and other technical problems.  Leave as is with emphasis on link to table.  Rlquall 14:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2. Oppose We are in process of discovering exoplanets and broadly speaking, exo-objects around other star systems. Sooner or later, more likely sooner, we will discover "exo-dwarf planets" along already discovered "exoplanets". Lets leave separate page for Solar system dwarf planets and for general definition of all dwarf planets, including those in Solar system and in other star systems. We will need also "exo-dwarf planet" page one day. Homo Cosmosicus 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not fair to mix "Planets" and "dwarf planets" into one table and to call it "table of dwarf planets" and then as such merge it with the article Dwarf Planets. Page Table_of_dwarf_planets_in_the_solar_system should contain only the list of dwarf planets, instead now after voting there are mixed "Planets" and "Dwarf planets" together. I fixed that error. Please learn to live with the fact that the "dwarf planets" are not "Planets". Homo Cosmosicus 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 3. Oppose Pluto was demoted because cutting edge research suggests we may be finding tens or hundreds of "dwarf planets" in the coming years. While there may only be three right now, it's just a matter of time before there's thirty. Let the page be, if it was merged back here it would end up getting its own page in a year or two anyhow...  save someone else the time. ;P Utopianheaven 09:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, ever heard of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? aLii 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Re: "Oppose" #2: Leaving aside the technical inability of current planet detection methods to detect ordinary terrestrial-sized planets, let alone "dwarf planets", the term "dwarf planet" has been defined by the IAU for the Solar system -- for extrasolar systems nothing has been defined at all. RandomCritic 16:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hi, can we have an image of the three dwarf planets? Like  the terrestrial planets one. I tried, using :Image:Three proposed planets.jpg and :Image:Plutoncharon.jpg, but failed miserably. Friggin' paint... I think this would improve the article's quality greatly - Jack (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: According to the fifth paragraph of this site <http://skytonight.com/news/home/3707031.html> , the term dwarf planet should be hyphenated (ie) dwarf-planet, not dwarf planet. What is the now official designation ? However, whatever it is, I would expect most people to look for this term unhyphenated. The Yeti 11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation 

message: I can't seem to find any reference that states that this change is only being made to the English terms as the article claims. All German sources that I've checked seem to think that it applies to them as well. 131.181.251.66 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Only? 

message: Should we redirect Candidate planets here?
===Support===
#Support -- Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom Candidate planet 

message: #Support -- Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose Dwarf Planet is currently an IAU defined term. Candidate planets is not and should be merged with the 2006 redefinition of planet article which is where descriptions of failed proposals belong.  Sophia 10:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opppose

message: See the related vote at Talk:2006_redefinition_of_planet#mergefrom_Candidate_planet and related comments at Talk:Candidate_planets#Merge_Suggestions.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: To the "u" out of neighborhood. I don't know if thats the English spelling (as apposed to the American spelling) as near as I could tell it was a misspell. Feel free to change if I was wrong.
:It's British spelling (probably international spelling in this case) and was used in the original wording. --Aranae 09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that it's a waste of time. I'd actually thought that my edits were maintaining the original version, but now that I look back through the history it's hard to determine which came first. Anyways, as you suggested, it's not a big deal. --Ckatzchatspy 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed Spelling 

message: I removed km3 from the volume entry because only a ratio is displayed--unless someone has the actual volumes in km3 handy? AOB 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart: volume

message: Looks like all dwarf planets have now been assigned with minor planet numbers. 1 Ceres,  — and 134340 Pluto.--JyriL talk 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor planet numbers

message: :The following seems to fall under the category of  original research/soapbox and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in the article.  Because of this, further discussion is also not needed here.Michaelbusch 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offering a different planet classification

message: I quote: five orders of magnitude in Λ. What exactly is Λ? Why is it significant?
Rwflammang 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a basic explanation. Please keep in mind that a single point of view is presented here and a single model. Close to a violation of NPOV in my opinion. Eurocommuter 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newbie question

message: The "draft proposal" and "outcome of the vote" diagrams at the end of the article contain some light cyan text on a white background, which is virtually unreadable. I suggest that the diagrams use text colors that have more contrast from the background. -68.102.127.239 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Hope it's a bit better now. Eurocommuter 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Color scheme of draft proposal/vote outcome diagrams

message: I don't understand, we are waiting for the IAU to declare them dwarf planets, or...?--TheFEARgod (listening) 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ixion, Sedna, Quaoar 

message: Hmm several people here want to have pluto with its original name and the two other dwarf planets with the numbers
We must decide whether:
#they will be named with the numbers (1 Ceres)
#without (Ceres)
Let's decide it here. (the decision made should have no exception - Pluto for example)--TheFEARgod (listening) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and one more question. I need a short explanation why Pluto doesn't need and other DPs need numbers??--TheFEARgod (listening) 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pluto was considered to be a planet until recently, although its status as a planet has been under increasing attack ever since  1978 (when Charon was discovered and showed that Pluto is much smaller than originally thought) and more so since 1992 (when the Kuiper Belt objects started being discovered).  In fact Pluto lacked a minor planet number until this year, when it formally became cataloged as number 134340.  The result is that Pluto has traditionally been described without a number (if only because it lacked a number).  The time has come to change that, but the old habit is going to be hard to break.  There are now related discussions going on at talk:Pluto and talk:136199 Eris. --EMS | Talk 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pluto handily beats the other uses of its name in name recognition right now.  Therefore "Pluto" goes straight to the dwarf planet instead of a disambiguation page.  The same can't be said for Ceres and Eris at present.  The reason for the number is that it is a (the) technically correct name that needs to be at the beginning the article that also serves to disambiguate.  If Pluto fades into obscurity in the future such that Roman Hades and/or Mickey's dog are equally well-known usages, then Pluto would also warrant a number to disambiguate.  --Aranae 04:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Having the numbers in the name is superfluous for anyone but an astronomer. This is not an encyclopedia for astronomers, but one for the general public. The full designation should be listed somewhere in the article, but the article should use the name that people, and the general news media, use. Saying that the number should be included is like saying that the cocaine article should be renamed as methyl 3-benzoyloxy-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]octane-4-carboxylate. No-one other than a chemist would use that name, so trying to force it onto the general public is inherently illogical. aLii 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a planetary astronomer, I am biased, but the full designation is needed in many cases to remove ambiguity.  Ceres, Eris, etc, are all mythological figures, so we would need rename all of the pages to something like Ceres (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet), etc.  Even that doesn't cover all cases, because there are a few duplicates in the catalog: Europa is both a moon (at Jupiter) and an asteroid (52 Europa) and two different asteroids are named Romulus.  The cocaine analogy is false, because there there is near-zero potential for confusion and even a chemist would call cocaine cocaine.Michaelbusch 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you honestly trying to tell me that while you're sitting around discussing dwarf planets over a cup of tea with other planetary astronomers, you actually use the term 134340 Pluto instead of simply Pluto? If that is what you are saying I don't believe you. Even If you were writing a scientific paper about dwarf planets my guess is that you'd state the full official name once, and then use the colloquial name for the rest of the paper. There is obviously more of a problem with naming the Eris article Eris, but Eris (dwarf planet) is fine. Re-direct pages can be made for all the various designations, but I think we should go with the simplest possible name for each body, not the most "officially correct" (whatever that means). For many asteroids, comets and even stars the simplest name will infact be a designation code, but for major bodies it doesn't seem necessary for codes to make up part of the article title. aLii 23:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in favor of names only where the body is not a point of confusion like the example between Europa and 51 Europa provided above.  For example Pluto, Ceres, Eris... if you're talking planets there is no confusion about which giant space rock you're talking about. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment - if we just choose the name only, then we will need to move Ceres. This will need to be approved on that page too. Arguably, Ceres, the dwarf planet, is no more well known than the goddess. Richard B 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwarf planets names 

message: I wondered how the different POV's which we all know from the newsmedia are sketched in this article. But as far as I can see the "unofficial" POV is not mentioned at all: only the recent majority-vote POV is mentioned. This despite the fact that the term was certainly not recently invented nor is it owned by any group. Thus for the time being, I put the NPOV marker. Harald88 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article presents only one opiniated definition of planet vs dwarf planet, while we all know that a big disagreement exists about this matter. Purposefully omitting other notable POV's is definitely misinformation against WP:NPOV. Harald88 11:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the term not the redefinition itself -- Nbound 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine - if indeed indicated as a term as introduced and used by a certain group of people. Let's make that clear. Harald88 12:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  The term is used by all but a few people, certain group does not do it justice -- Nbound 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I now add such remarks as well as a link to the abovementioned article, and consequently I'll remove the NPOV banner. It's of course a matter of taste where such remarks fit best; the main point is to have them in there. Harald88 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur: the term is official. NPOV should be put instead on Orbital domination section instead: it presents a single (while respectable, of course) model and opinion (see #Newby question). Other models and opinions (on whether the physical parameters alone, without orbital consideration should be defining characteristics of dwarf, uber, inter … planets) should be added, and in the meantime, the existing text NPOV’ed with in one model for example... One cannot read a single paper and build an article (Orbital domination) around it IMHO. Eurocommuter 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I would expect that it could be as many ways to model  orbital dominance as to skin the cat. I do not have any special interest in this field, but this Wikipedia article before by small addition/explanation could imply that the lambda parameter is as established as the gravitational constant. Just wanted to encourage editors to look for alternative models/papers. Or, to confirm that this model of dominance have been actually endorsed by IAU. If this is the case, please just quote the source related to IAU. Regards Eurocommuter 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: In light of the 136199 Eris recently being renamed Eris (dwarf planet) and any renaming of Pluto being rejected, I have started Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming.  I hope to have editors from all of the "dwarf planet" pages use it to hammer out a coherent policy on this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subpage on naming 

message: (from the Naming sub-page)
You can now enter  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.  will give  i.e. 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 -  will link to 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)
thread_title: New Template for dwarf planet names

message: Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:
"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."
"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet." --Ckatzchatspy 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU 

message: Hmm, it looks like no one mentioned here, that there is a new proposal for the naming of articles for the dwarf planets at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming#A New Proposal.  Nfitz 01:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Naming - a new proposal