Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 4

message: 's minor planet number is 136199.--JyriL talk 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor planet number

message: With today's announcement of the naming of Eris (the dwarf planet), there are two major public references to Eris. Given that Eris-related pages are getting jostled around, I'm suggesting that Eris be left as a disambiguation page. There are certainly strong arguments to be made for both mythology and astronomy fans with regards to claiming Eris, but a dab page seems to be the fairest approach to head off what would otherwise be an ongoing edit war. (This message appears on Eris, Eris (mythology), and 136199 Eris) --Ckatzchatspy 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Above suggestion for avoiding discord now appears moot, as the folks at Eris (mythology) have promptly undone everything I just did. Again. --Ckatzchatspy 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case people typing Eris should easily get to this page, otherwise searching for 136199 Eris may be too difficult.--Nixer 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, while I appreciate the effort, I wish you hadn't moved everything around again. The folks at Eris (mythology) are just going to move it back. This constant shuffling is precisely what I was hoping to avoid. Sigh... thanks though. --Ckatzchatspy 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding edit wars 

message: See Pluto. It doesn't have the number in the name, and see here. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf
Now: or both have the number or they don't--TheFEARgod (listening) 08:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At Pluto, the decision was to stay with the exisiting name ("Pluto"), as it reflected common usage. I don't think there's been sufficient time to have that discussion here. Based on what I've seen in the press, I highly suspect that the common usage for "136199 Eris" will simply be "Eris". However, given that there is Eris (dwarf planet) and Eris (goddess), the article is likely to stay here. The lead, however, can easily use both the common and proper names. (That's what I meant when I said "in line with Pluto"). Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: At Ceres the link goes to the god, with a disambihuation to the goddess.  Considering that this is a larger and far closer dwarf planet, I think that Eris should follow this model. The Goddess Eris is far more refered to, especially in an allegorical manner, than Ceres.Moheroy 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name 

message: ====Support====
#Support What's wrong with Eris (dwarf planet)?  It seems less messy to me, and more consistent.  BovineBeast 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support What's wrong with Eris (dwarf planet)?  It seems less messy to me, and more consistent.  BovineBeast 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Support'''

message: #Oppose Ceres has a number and so do the other TNO's this should have one too, the only reason pluto is it hasnt been moved from its original article yet (and is currently locked there). for consistency Ers should remain numbered -- Nbound 09:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Oppose'''

message: #Comment If we move Pluto and Eris to (dwarf planet) suffixed articles, then we should do the same to Ceres (ie. 1 Ceres --> Ceres (dwarf planet) ) -- Nbound 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments'''

message: Why is the name of the arcticle "136199 Eris" instead of just "Eris"?
I think that 136199 Eris should be shortened to Eris because there is no use having such a long tiltle for the page. People searching fo to the point information are likely to get confused. Ujjwal Krishna 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there's no particularly good reason to favour a ball of ice at the edge of the solar system over a goddess of discord perhaps? Chaos syndrome 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: hmm several people here want to have pluto with its original name and the two other dwarf planets with the numbers--TheFEARgod (listening) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which is bad because we need consistency... -- Nbound 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Should be Eris (dwarf planet) and likewise Pluto (dwarf planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet). Consistency! --Exodio 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Would all the people who supported changing the title of this article pitch in and help deal with the consequences by doing the following:
* 1) Go to the main article page
* 2) Click on "What links here"
* 3) Click on "500" at the top or bottom of the page
* 4) Scroll down until you see items indented under the header "136199 Eris (redirect page)"
* 5) Go to the articles listed under that header and start changing instances of Eris to , starting with the redirects and the templates. Remember that there may be multiple instances of a link in a single article. Don't bother with the userpages and talk pages.
Thank you.
RandomCritic 02:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? That's what redirects are for, silly. Have an ice cream. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called cleaning up after yourself.  If you don't understand what happens when you fail to implement redirection changes, try clicking on an old search term like Planet Xena.  There are a lot of redirects associated with this article that currently fail because of the name change.  That more do not fail was the result of a conscientious effort to make sure that the earlier change to 136199 Eris was carried through in all articles.  One name change is generally not a problem, but repeated name changes often leave a trail of broken redirects in their wake.  That's one of the consequences people need to think about when they advocate for mass changes that affect a lot of articles. RandomCritic 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help please 

message: Who moved this article back from Eris (dwarf planet) to 136199 Eris; the result was quite clear from the discussion above, and those who have moved it back to 136199 Eris do not appear to have discussed it here. Nfitz 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be User:Ryulong, who doesn't seem to understand WP:SNOW. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't speak for Ryulong, but to be fair, there wasn't any indication on the talk page that the debate was closed. I was surprised that the move to Eris (dwarf) went through without some sort of indication, actually. Dhartung quoted WP:SNOW, but I don't think that quite applies here. One part of that guideline states "For instances of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through a full process. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process." While the "move" side was certainly in the lead, it was by no means the unanimous (or near-unanimous) discussion that SNOW is intended for. --Ckatzchatspy 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a discussion going on now at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming to try to resolve the issue, since it relates not just to this article but also to the articles Pluto and 1 Ceres. Ideally a consensus on all three articles should be reached before any one of them is moved.RandomCritic 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is the ideal, but as I watch the discussion on that page I am more and more getting a sense that there is way too much emotion involved with this business.  I would like to see a consensus develop, but perhaps I should be following my own advice: Let the dust settle.  So let's see what the result of this aticle's debate is, and then stand behind it until a more thoughtful consensus can be reached on the overall issue. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The general consensus on the naming talk page is that we're going to wait it out and let everything stay the way it is fot a while. We don't know enough about naming schemes, other possible dwarf planets, or anything else that may come about to choose between (dwarf planet) and numbers. So for now, this article can do whatever it wants.E946 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved? 

message: I have switched around the placement of "Eris" and "136199 Eris" but that seems to be contested. Is there anything wrong in giving the numerical designation, which is the article title, more prominence in the lead? Ryūlóng 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was decided was to use the common name, followed immediately by the official name. This was agreed upon to reflect how Eris is typically referenced by the general public, as well as bringing it in line with the lead over at Pluto. (BTW, articles do not have to begin with the exact text used in the title. If the page was moved to Eris (dwarf planet), we certainly wouldn't write "Eris (dwarf planet) is the..." --Ckatzchatspy 09:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting that. The numbers do not act as a disambiguation (necessarily), and no sort of disambiguations are included in the lead. I am saying that "136199 Eris" should be the first name referenced in the lead sentence. If/when this page is moved back to Eris (dwarf planet), then the lead can be changed back to the one that is up there now. Ryūlóng 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there is no need to state "136199 Eris" first just because it it the article title. The "136.." is the official catalogue designation of Eris, but it not the common term. There are many, many, many examples of good articles on Wikipedia where the lead and the article title differ in wording. --Ckatzchatspy 09:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from on that, but perhaps more stronger opinions can be brought up when it isn't the crack of dawn (in one half [at least mine] of the English speaking world)? Ryūlóng 09:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. Thanks for tweaking it to be exactly in line with Pluto - I didn't notice the slight difference. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the catalogue number is mentioned in the text, there is an obligation to explain the meaning of the number, and that is what the link attempts to do. Please don't revert it without at least a discussion to explain why you think it's a bad idea.Paul venter 12:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor rewrite of the lead 

message: Do you support changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) only if 1 Ceres and Pluto are changed to Ceres (dwarf planet) and Pluto (dwarf planet), but not otherwise?
# Support Kerowyn  Leave a note  20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Option 1

message: Do you support changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) even if 1 Ceres and Pluto remain as they are (or if Pluto is changed to 134340 Pluto) -- that is, under any circumstances?
# Support Nfitz 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Option 2

message: Do you oppose changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) under any circumstances, that is, do you want to leave it as it is?
# Oppose Official names are better than parenthetical disambiguation.  Eluchil404 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose