Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming/Archive 2

message: :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 no consensus.
I am starting this subpage since there is a real problem with the naming of the "dwarf planets".  Simply put, there is no rule for it.  What we now have for the "dwarf planet" names are:
* 1 Ceres
* Pluto and
* 136199 Eris (recently renamed to Eris (dwarf planet) and then moved back as there is an ongoing discussion as to moving it and the move was done against consensus).
So we now have three different styles of names for each of three dwarf planets.  Ideally, there would be a consistent way of describing these objects, yet in the current confusion there is none.
If there is to be a consistent way of handling this new class of solar system object, then we Wikipedians need to decide how they are to handled as a group.  Options include:
# Leave the things alone at this time.
# Use the proper name (with the minor planet desgiantion) for all "dwarf planets".  (So Pluto → 134340 Pluto and Eris (dwarf planet) returns to 136199 Eris [or stays there, as it appears to be hopping about between the names]).
# Suffix all "dwarf planets" with (dwarf planet).  (So Pluto → Pluto (dwarf planet) and Ceres → Ceres (dwarf planet) and 136199 Eris → Eris (dwarf planet))
# Use no suffix (as with most of the full fledged planets).  (So 1 Ceres → Ceres (which is currently the page for the Roman goddess Ceres) and Eris (dwarf planet)/136199 Eris → Eris (which is currently a diambiguation page but was about the goddess Eris until the "dwarf planet" was named).
# Use both the minor planet number prefix and the (dwarf planet) suffix.  (So we end up with 1 Ceres (dwarf planet), 134340 Pluto  (dwarf planet), and 136199 Eris (dwarf planet).
# Use the common-name (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). Then going by how well-known an object is, and their various disambiguation problems, we would end up using Pluto, Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet)
A related issue in how to handle the direct names of these objects, as they invariably also refer to a deity.  Once again, each "dwarf planet" has a different default behavior for its name.  Pluto is for the "dwarf planet", Ceres is for the goddess, and Eris disambiguates.  My advice at this time is to leave this alone, but it may be worthy of some thought for the future.
In any case, it is my hope that we can get editors from all three of these pages and the dwarf planet page to agree on something here.  Otherwise there are more edit wars in store on this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem and how we can fix it

message: I decided to check on how the other Wikipedias that have the same problem are handling the situation.  Here's a summary:
French:    	(1) Cérès                    	(134340) Pluton             	(136199) Éris              	numbers throughout
Italian:   	Cerere (astronomia)          	Plutone (astronomia)        	Eris (astronomia)          	parenthetical (astronomy)
Spanish:   	(1) Ceres                    	Plutón (astronomía)         	(136199) Eris              	mixed
German:    	Ceres (Zwergplanet)          	Pluto (Zwergplanet)         	Eris (Zwergplanet)         	parenthetical (dwarf planet)
Swedish:   	1 Ceres                      	Pluto (dvärgplanet)         	136199 Eris                	mixed
Portuguese:	Ceres (planeta anão)         	Plutão                      	Éris (planeta anão)        	mixed
Dutch:     	Ceres (dwergplaneet)         	Pluto (dwergplaneet)        	Eris (dwergplaneet)        	parenthetical (dwarf planet)
Polish:    	1 Ceres                      	134340 Pluton               	136199 Eris                	numbers throughout
Russian:   	Tserera (karlikovaya planeta)	Pluton (karlikovaya planeta)	Erida (karlikovaya planeta)	parenthetical (dwarf planet)
Sum total is: 
*Ceres: Numbers 4, (dwarf planet) 4, (astronomy) 1
*Pluto: Numbers 2, (dwarf planet) 4, (astronomy) 2, alone 1
*Eris: Numbers 4, (dwarf planet) 4, (astronomy) 1
The consistent ones are:
*French and Polish - numbers only
*Italian - (astronomy)
*German, Dutch, and Russian - (dwarf planet)
*Spanish, Swedish, and Portuguese are inconsistent, but none in exactly the same way as the English wikipedia.
This all is just for comparative purposes.
RandomCritic 07:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative research 

message: The main problem I see with option 4 is the fact that the Eris and Ceres articles already exist. While Pluto will have no problem here, it will be very hard to convince any major editors of othse two articles to move to a different article.
It will also double the amount of changes that we need to make to links to reflect the change. Also, what happens if or when (presumably when) new dwarf planets are discovered? It will start the process all over again. I believe we can cross option 4 off the list simply due to how many conflicts it may raise now and in the future. E946 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 4 conflicts 

message: Perhaps 5 is the best option, the two main sides get what they want... granted it is not the best option, but it may be the one we can come to a consensus on... -- Nbound 07:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alliance of the "Dwarves" and the "Integerians"? 

message: We have now moved back to a semi-coherent naming scheme, it is possible to leave just Pluto as the singular exception. But i really think we should move it in line with the others... Thoughts? -- Nbound 08:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we leave Pluto the exception for the various reason that have been stated over and over and over and put the other two less notable rocks at their scientific names. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Half-Solved 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would try to put in the information for minor planets such as Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, etc. now. At least for ease in linking to them. Ryūlóng 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now done, see Template Talk:Dp for which ones are available. Richard B 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be particularly helpful if you used that to automatically update to the consensus - e.g. have  direct to Pluto now, but, should the consensus change, arrange it to be easily updated to Pluto or Pluto - that way the template would be an excellent way of keeping links updated. Adam Cuerden talk 09:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, see you do. Just a little confusingly written. Adam Cuerden talk 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Template for dwarf planet names

message: Even as we debaate here, 1 Ceres has been renamed to Ceres, bringing it into line with Pluto.  I very much want to see a policy on this issue, but at this time each page is going in its own dierction based on the whims of its editors.  Also, I cannot help but note that most of the interest in this page has come from the Pluto people who want to defend the priority of the former planet.
As much as I would like there to be a policy, it seems to me that any attempt to impose order on this chaos at this time is only an invitation to more chaos.  --EMS | Talk 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly came here from Pluto, and am not in favour of imposing a pedantic naming system on all solar system bodies, but as you can tell from Talk:Pluto I'm not one of the "save Pluto" mob either.  Wanting a commonsense attitude to naming articles about well-known entities shouldn't be confused with having a particular position on the status of those entities.  Having said that, I think the moving of 1 Ceres to Ceres without discussion is regrettable, even though I think the new location is the right one.  --ajn (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If Wikipedia supposedly "comes to a concensus" that is at odds with a standard promulgated by an international body, and actively used for decades in the published literature, then what is to prevent it from coming to a concensus on the exact value of the fine structure constant or the size of the orbit of Jupiter?  I used to think this kind of kooky nonsense was only possible in politics (and the realms it has poisoned beyond redemption), where the main job by their actors in that field is to actively hide or mangle information, as opposed to just laying it out flat on the table for view by anyone.  To observe it in the "hard sciences" makes Wikipedia look pretty foolish, IMO.  But you get what you pay for, I guess!  mdf 17:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, somebody has gone and moved 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) without warning or attention to the discussion here.  This is getting troublesome; are we going to end up with an edit war between admins? RandomCritic 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that the Ceres move has been made with small regard for the structural integrity of Wikipedia; it is now impossible to find the article on the goddess Ceres (except by guessing the correct name) and most of the links to the goddess Ceres now go to the asteroid Ceres' page.  RandomCritic 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a clear link from the top of Ceres now, and I've disambiguated all links from pages obviously pointing to the goddess. Some other links to Ceres, to towns called Ceres etc, still remain incorrect (and have done for ages) - I'll look at those tomorrow if no one else does so first. Personally I think equal disambig to Ceres (mythology) and Ceres (dwarf planet) might be the way forward here, but the piped Ceres (mythology) links will hold good in future whatever happens. Cheers — SteveRwanda 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that.  I've cleared up many of the remaining links to Ceres; but really the person who moved it should be responsible for doing that. RandomCritic 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said earlier Wikipedia is not a democracy. This discussion is not coming to a concensus between us, nor is a vote going to solve anything. I applaud whichever admin saw through all these poorly-informed ideas for including numbers in article titles. It obviously runs against policy, and the move was the right thing to do. aLii 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaken if you think there was a coherent plan behind this.  The changes have left the situation more incoherent than ever; Ceres and Eris, formerly agreeing in format, now disagree.  As for the numbers, they have been and will continue to be part of article titles for the vast majority of asteroids and other minor planetary bodies.  What is unclear is why anyone should insist that Ceres (or Eris) should be an exception to the general rule. RandomCritic 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three articles now agree with the above proposition 6. I agree that the numbers are indeed useful where no common-name has been established, and should stay in those cases, but for bodies like Pluto and Eris it is obvious that their exposure demands a less obfuscated name. aLii 19:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so obvious to me.  How do you determine "exposure" anyway?  If Eris is so "exposed" (poor lady), then why isn't she at Eris? RandomCritic 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd say that Eris and Ceres being mentioned together with Pluto constantly in the media amounts to far more exposure than most minor planets. For example (*puts hand into hat*) 54411 Bobestelle, hmm... never heard of it. A google search returns 10 results, 5 of which are Wikipedia. A search for Eris "dwarf planet" returns more than half a million results. Eris (dwarf planet) isn't at Eris because I suspect no-one has yet been bold enough to call for the move. It will probably happen given time. aLii 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More evidence why naming things based on how many hits you get at Google is silly.  Suppose it is revealed tomorrow that 54411 Bobestelle is composed of pure gold, and thus attains half a million hits at Google, do we change it's name to just "Bobestelle" because of this instant notoriety?  And when, after a number of months, the articles about the Asteroid of Gold that appeared in the "human interest" section of the media drop off Google's radar, do we name it back?  Then, when it is shown the original result was flawed, and another million hits are seen at Google, is it time to rename it once again?  Hey!  Maybe we can automate this process:  build a little robot at Wikipedia which continually trolls Google, automatically renaming things as the information market twists and turns?  Not just asteroids, but basically everything.  Why not?  Such a construction would, at least, prevent the current fiasco of simply ignoring a nomenclature well used by the people who bring us the news of these objects:  at least we can point to the robot.  mdf 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtaken by events? 

message: I think think that some sanity is beginning to appear.  The article on the asteroid/"dwarf planet" Ceres is back at 1 Ceres, where it belongs for now.  The dwarf planet Eris has been moved by a consensus of the editors to Eris (dwarf planet), and the discussions on that page can hopefully cease pending a decision here (even if the decision is not to impose a policy).  Pluto remains move protected, and that is just as well. --EMS | Talk 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status 

message: Alright, iI think we need to ask what disambiguation is for, and when one article is clearly more important:
The popularity of the Greek Hades means the ex-planet Pluto is more important than the Roman Pluto (mythology). Pluto should be in the main position.
Arguably, Eris (mythology) and Eris (dwarf planet) or whatever we're calling it are of equal interest, due to dDiscordianism, etc. Disambig page is best.
However, an obscure asteroid like Ceres's promotion to dwarf planet is, in my opinion, NOT sufficient to make it more notable than the not-all-that-uncommon Ceres (mythology), and hence, Ceres as the dwarf planet is a mistake, as would Eris as the dwarf planet. 
Obscure astronomical bodies are NOT so important as to win out over more important things. Leave them be unless the astronomical object is quite well known. Only the 8 current planets and Pluto, in my opinion, have anything like this level of knowledge about them. Astronomy does not get to have it's say over every other project. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceres now redirects to Ceres (disambiguation) after a ridiculous non-discussed move, and it is back where it was at 1 Ceres, while Ceres (mythology) remains there. I still feel that Eris (mythology) and Ceres (mythology) though need to be put back into their non-disambiguated places. Ryūlóng 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might accept a disambiguation page for Eris for a short time, whilst Eris is particularly newsworthy, but completely agree on the subject of Ceres. As well 1 Ceres is far less unweildy than 13040 or whatever it is for Pluto, and makes a sensible short disambiguation. It's only the larger numbers that are awkward. Adam Cuerden talk 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, right now, we need to fix it so Ceres (mythology) gets moved back to Ceres (there was a move without discussion at Talk:1 Ceres, and then an RM to move it back, which has occured, despite opposes based off of nonsense ideas that the dwarf planet/asteroid gets top billing). Ryūlóng 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'd like to point out that we have Mercury (planet), too, because of everyone's favorite liquid metal, hydrargyrum. Ryūlóng 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You've got to love how calls for name moves, ostensibly based on the need for consistency, have ended up with each "dwarf planet" having a distinct name inconsistent with the others.  I may make my peace with "Eris (dwarf planet)" based on the amusement factor alone, as evidence of the incorrigible tendencies toward chaos of the human race. (Well, the English-speaking branch of it, anyway.) RandomCritic 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy to see the Eris move done and the Ceres move undone (although people now need to go to talk:1 Ceres and make their opinion known about the idea of moving that page).  I agree that each object needs to be considered seperately for disambiguation purposes.  However, I would like to see come consistency in the naming.  I suspect that the (dwarf planet) suffix will win out.  After that, it can stand of fall on its own mertis (of lack thereof). --EMS | Talk 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not all that pleased with at least the treatment of the original deities within the moves, but I think the only consistency will be within the removal of multiple digit numbers. 1 Ceres isn't all that bad, but I did sort of have a change of heart with the Eris move. As I said in my original "case by case" thing, if 50000 Quaoar is designated as a dwarf planet, then the move will just need an administrators help (Quaoar is a redirect to there), but on objects such as Sedna, Varuna, Orcus, Santa, Easterbunny, etc. they will need "(dwarf planet)" disambiguations. Ryūlóng 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensible Disambiguation

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: I've archived the poll questions on this page (see "Polls" link above) because they seem no longer to be active and they were taking up a great deal of space. RandomCritic 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Well, we seem to have even more of an issue right now. We have 3 dwarf planets, all with different naming schemes. Eris currently is the only minor planet to have a disambiguous marker after it's name (Eris (dwarf planet)), Ceres is still 1 Ceres (Or rather, again), and Pluto is still Pluto. So, what do we do about this? Tuvas 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave them where they currently are perhaps? I have less problem with 1 Ceres than the other names as it is a semi-common usage. Pluto and Eris are fine where they are. There is no need for all articles to be named in exactly the same fashion, just that they have individually sensible titles. Systematic-names are generally a bad thing (in Wikipedia), but in some cases are acceptable. Also it is worth mentioning that essentially Pluto and Eris are named in the dame way. Ceres is the only odd one out. aLii 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally what this series of events has taught me is that disambiguating names by type (or category) is a bad idea, because categories are not fixed and can change. An asteroid or a planet can become a dwarf planet the next, and tomorrow, who knows?  I think the tactic used by some of the foreign language wikipedias of using fields - like (astronomy) - as the disambiguator is the better one, since while an astronomical object may change category according to the whims of this or that astronomical faction, it remains subject matter for the astronomy field throughout. But even if I thought there was likely strong support for that option, I would wait several months before trying to implement it. RandomCritic 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that if we were to do that with all objects, it'd be ambiguous for some - Europa (astronomy) links to one of the galileian moons, but the 7th largest asteroid is 52 Europa. Similarly, there's Amalthea (moon) and 113 Amalthea, Metis (moon) and 9 Metis, Io (moon) and 85 Io, Ganymede (moon) and 1036 Ganymed, Adrastea (moon) and 239 Adrastea, Leda (moon) and 38 Leda etc. etc. - and these are just some of Jupiter's satellites with duplicate names. I'm sure there are lots of other duplicate names in the solar system. Ideally, we'd want to remove ambiguity if we can. Richard B 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least -- barring some celestial catastrophe -- moons are unlikely to stop being moons! That makes the (moon) disambiguator one of the more reliable ones.  But I am not proposing (and am not likely to propose) a wholesale renaming of all the asteroids.  In fact, I am not proposing anything just yet.  As I said, I think some months ought to go by before this issue comes up again. RandomCritic 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it is too late now, but what the heck:  for the record, all of the above duplicate names were established prior to the existance of the IAU and its Iron Fist of Strict Nomenclature which dictates, in effect, "no more duplicates".  So if RandomCritic was followed, these objects would be exceptions to the scheme ... and this is a good thing since this is exactly what has happened outside of WP.  mdf 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For precision's sake I just wanted to point out that on the Italian wiki (which seems to be the biggest which uses the (astronomy) disambiguation) we reached consensus over using that term just for planets, dwarf planets and their moons; all the asteroids remain under their IAU designation with number. Should an asteroid be considered a dwarf planet in the future, its name will be moved from the official designation (with number) to ItalianName (astronomia), for consistency. - 137.204.150.98 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand having some with "Name (dwarf planet)" and others with just "Name", as that can depend on other famous similarly-named things, but to use the minor planet numbers in some and not others is simply ridiculous. Something must be changed for intergrity's sake. 192.17.228.233 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that something will give.  The real issue is going to be what will happen when the next dwarf planets are designated.  , , and 90377 Sedna are all prime candidates for redesignation.  At that time, the community will decide on a scheme.  Once there is some weight behind it, 1 Ceres and/or Eris (dwarf planet) will be renamed to conform to it.  Pluto will be subject to a campaign to rename it at that time also, but if the redesignations occur soon that will most like fail at first.  However, I do fully expect the Pluto's article will be renamed eventually as its status fades and disambiguation becomes a more appropriate default for that name. --EMS | Talk 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a chance that Charon (moon) could also be designated a dwarf planet, giving us our first double dwarf planet. Re Pluto's status fading, that may happen but in around ten or twenty years as the "new generation" of people who are taught about the eight planets instead of the nine take over the principal editing duties on Wikipedia. There's no point trying to plan that far ahead IMHO... SteveRwanda 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kindly don't get caught up in the heat of the moment.  A lot of people are upset about Pluto losing its status.  It may sound odd, but once the Pluto-philes have had time to mourn the loss of Pluto's planetary status, the support for retaining the unqualified name Pluto for that article will quickly diminish.  The landscape (should I write "Wikiscape"?) will look a lot different in a year. --EMS | Talk 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That assumes that the dwarf planet defintion sticks around that long... Tuvas 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will stick around.  When you look at the IAU debates and how it all panned out, the real issue was whether to treat the "dwarf planets" as a subcategory of the planets or as minor planets.  All the 2006 redefinition of planet proposals called for a "dwarf planet" category and for Pluto's inclusion in it.  As the issue of whether to create a dwarf planets category was never debated, I think that it is safe to say that this category is here to stay. --EMS | Talk 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no way of knowing how much traction "dwarf planet" will obtain, if any.  The category exists simply as a fall-back from a "planet".  It is much more likely there are finer/more accurate distinctions to be made based on chemistry, dynamics, etc, and these will probably be made sooner than later.  Contrast this uncertainty to the decades of history with MPC catalog numbers and names, which will simply never change (short of all copies of the database being thoroughly destroyed).  mdf 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with mdf.  In my mind, the issue is NOT whether "dwarf planets" are planets or minor planets.  The issue was what defines a "planet."  Ceres, Pluto, Eris, and the other dwarf planets are now, and always will be, minor planets: they have minor planet numbers.  That, in and of itself, did NOT exclude them from being planets.  (For several years already there had been interest in the astronomical community in giving Pluto a minor planet number because it is so much like other KBO's, and in many ways is the canonical giant KBO.  The intent was to recognize its relationship to other objects, not to remove its status as planet.)  The new definition of planet was decided by a small minority of stakeholders, and many astronomers who work in the field are not happy with it (just how do you determine with certainty whether an object has cleared its zone of debris?).  I suspect the definition of planet will change.  The definition of "dwarf planet" was created in a sort of compromise measure, and although many astronomers are accepting of the term, that doesn't mean they will actually use it!  The greater part of me says: this is "current events," and we should not be renaming the article unless and until the category is better accepted in the astronomical community.  The lesser part of me says, hey, its wikipedia, and we can always change it again later... so, editors, do your worst.  We can argue about it again later.  Myrrhlin 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on current situation 

message: Currently, all hypothetical planets and moons are being marked (hypothetical planet) and (hypothetical moon), as in Option 3. If we are going to clarify the procedure for naming all other groups of planets, hypothetical planets need to be included in the discussion. Currently, I favor using Option 3 for all bodies concerned because it makes telling a hypothetical planet from a dwarf or major planet easier when looking through a broad catagory. This renders the entire category of astronomical objects clearer and more user friendly. Mrwuggs 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another issue entirely. In this discussion, we are trying to think of a way to name dwarf planets, not any sort of hypothetical astronomical objects. Ryūlóng 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, this discussion is solely for the dwarf planets. Hypothetical objects are disambiguated on their own, and nearly all of the classic planets do not need disambiguations, as their deity is not as notable. The only exception is Mercury, because of the element Hg. Ryūlóng 01:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bringing hypothetical planets into the discussion

message: If I am not mistaken, talk:1_Ceres directs all of the moving discussion here.  Is it an incorrect understanding that the editors of 1 Ceres would concede that this forum would stand as their binding decision on the move, since it was agreed that all the pages needed a consistent nomenclature (with the possible exception of Pluto)? Hopquick 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. There needs to be a discussion here, and then a discussion there based on results here. Ryūlóng 04:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "discussion" there will go like this: "According to the concensus found on Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming this page should be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet)." Then a bunch of people will agree, and any disagreements will be sent to read this discussion. End of discussion. aLii 08:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the vote was for no moves until some time to think about it had passed? Adam Cuerden talk 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of these articles have had problems with people doing odd moves on them in the face of the recent change of status.  That is the reason why the Ceres folks want to wait on any new moves.  However, what they are waiting for is some evidence of a standard for naming the dwarf planets, and that is what is being decided here.  Given a consensus result here (and it appears that we have one) suggesting the corresponding move to the Ceres folks should not be a problem. --EMS | Talk 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While a decision here would be good, we should probably wait on some sort of information in scientific journals that mention the once asteroid's name, which I have not seen as of yet. Ryūlóng 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see any reason why Ryūlóng's reasoning makes any sense. If in the future a journal uses the term 1 Ceres then nothing has changed from the current situation and it has no bearing on the Ceres article name here. However if, for example, the IAU deems the name Fred to be the new official term for Ceres, then there could be a new debate — but that's hardly likely and certainly not something we should wait around for. aLii 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also fail to see Ryūlóng's point.  The name of the object in Ceres.  The MPC designation is 1 Ceres.  Those facts have not changed.  What has changed is Ceres becoming part of a new category of solar system objects called "dwarf planets", and there being a consensus of concerned Wikipedia editors who feel that the dwarf planets should forego the MPC # and use the suffix "(dwarf planet)" in the article title for disambiguation purposes instead. --EMS | Talk 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicability 

message: To those who participated here:  The Ceres renaming motion is in trouble, with there now being somewhat less than a 2:1 level of support for it.  This may not be enough to for a consensus to be determined to exist on that motion.  Many of those who participated here have not yet weighed in there, and it is being requested that you all do so. --EMS | Talk 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general rules on dwarf planet naming should supercede local votings. In fact that should not be vote "to move or to not", but a vote "move to Ceres or move to Ceres (dwarf planet)"--Nixer 16:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In principle I agree (although there is a consensus by general agreement that Ceres should remain a disambiguation page).  However, by what authority are we to say that this is an official Wikipedia policy or guideline?  We have not gone through the formal process of doing so, nor do I think that we should.  I see the results of this discussion as compelling evidence that the (dwarf planet) suffix should be used (and more importantly that it will be used in the future).  However, this discussion has no force in and of itself on any other page.  Instead, it is up to the participants here to enforce this decision if they should choose to do so, and can muster the numbers to do so.  Otherwise, this is a moot isue. --EMS | Talk 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it mean that the very existence of this page is purposeless?--Nixer 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has served its purpose in determining a majority vote. Now it is up to more of the community to decide at the individual talk pages. Ryūlóng 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam, please.  Most people here thought the issue was done.  He is reminding them that certain people are now vigourously trying to tip the discussion back towards their opinion.  Anything that gets a larger community involved is good. Hopquick 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres renaming 

message: I moved the old polls and poll-related discussions to the Polls archive. RandomCritic 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive