Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming/Archive 1

message: * Strongly Support - Obviously ;) - Reasons listed on about 5 different pages :| - also wikipedia policies as above seem to back up this view -- Nbound
* Strongly Support - It's consistent, It's official, it's distinict, it makes sense, it follows the wikipedia policies. Arrenlex
* Support - Although option 5 is a second choice.  That is now how those objects are named, and Pluto can always redirect to the proper name.  The Wikipedia policy concerns noted above do make a solid case for this. --EMS | Talk 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Support All some planets and moons have (planet) and (moon) suffix, others have only their name. We do not move Titan (moon) to Saturn VI. The case of Pluto can be decided separately.--Nixer 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: "The three dwarf planets should continue to have the minor planet number in front of their name to have Number_Name as article title."
# Support - In order to be consistant with every other minor planet, I beleive that the minor planet number should be included, unless someone wants to change every minor planet to include their disambiguous name (Asteroid, dwarf planet, comet, TNO, etc). Tuvas 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6.  Support - For consistency and disambiguation. Ceres, Eris, and Pluto are all minor planets, although they have some features that distinguish them from most of the others. But the MPC and the IAU will continue to refer to them by their numbers. To answer a comment made on the Ceres talk page, while in common conversation we may refer to Ceres, the full name should be given in the article title. This is the standard convention in papers, for example. Michaelbusch 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This vote was added since the poll was closed so I have thus struck it out. -The Enlightened 22:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1 

message: "Dwarf planets should have their title as Name_(astronomy) 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 (astronomy)  should be decided on individual pages."
# Support as this is the disambiguator that makes the fewest assumptions. RandomCritic 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2 

message: "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."
# Support --Nixer 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3 

message: "We take the naming of each newly categorized astronomical object on a case-by-case basis; with discussions on where and how to rename each article. Should the Wikipedia community decide to use a name that conflicts with a scientifically established name, so be it."
::::Ryūlóng 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Option 4
 

message: My feeling at this time are to let the current poll run its course over the course of a week or so.  If no consensus develops, I strongly suggest that we ababdon this effort for at least three months, or until after new dwarf planets have been named.  Just to review the current situation:
* Pluto is retaining its title in accord with a consensus of its editors.
* Eris is at Eris (dwarf planet) instead of 136199 Eris is accord with the consensus of its editors.
* 1 Ceres is retaining its title due to the lack of a consensus to change it to anything else.
* This discussion has failed to reasch a consensus to do anything due to what I perceive as a combination of 
** lack of interest,
** differing opinions on what the standard should be, and 
** the vehement refusal of the Plutophiles to accept any change to the article name for Pluto at this time.
We need to allow some time for feelings to relax, and for a de-facto standard to appear as more dwarf planets are named.  (I assume that  and  will be named as dwarf planets at some point, and possibly 90377 Sedna too.) --EMS | Talk 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just exactly how much consensus is needed to be "consensus"? We have a 10 to 4 vote in favour of using "dwarf planet" as the disambiguator at the moment. That goes up to 11 to 4 if we include the guy who wanted "astronomy". We can still leave "significant" ones (like Pluto) without a disambiguator - all I wish for is that we use the same disambiguator for one to be used, and presently a 2/3 majority wish that to be (dwarf planet). The Enlightened 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking that "lack of interest" isn't really a problem here. Editor burnout - now that is another story. Look at all the energy and time that has been expended in this debate, and think about what could have been accomplished if it had been directed towards the actual articles instead. Also, continually blaming "Plutophiles" for the name not changing IMO is problematic as well. I think the discussion has shown that there are several camps here. There are the above-named "Plutophiles", of course, who want nothing less than to see Pluto redesignated as a planet. Conversely, there are a number of people who (it seems) would be quite happy if (136340) Pluto were to fly off into space and never be seen again. Then, there's a third group, caught in the middle, that wants to try to strike a balance between maintaining scientific accuracy while acknowledging the long-standing cultural significance of Pluto. Physically, it might just be "another ball of ice", but culturally, it's a very different story, and that will be the case for quite some time. Given all of the above, I can't help but think that a speedy adoption of Option 5 (wait for a while) is the only reasonable choice. --Ckatzchatspy 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want the endless strawpolling to end x_X. I feel that where each article is now is fine; it's just that some of the mythological counterparts that were displaced need some moving back. Ryūlóng 08:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Emphatic no. Nothing needs to move, nothing is "displaced", no more changes. PLEASE. This has gone on for far too long, and wasted far too much energy. Just, everyone, please, please let it go for now. There's nothing that needs to be "fixed" - the redirects are redirecting, the disambiguation pages are disambiguating. Let's get back to working on the articles, as opposed to the talk pages. --Ckatzchatspy 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the move of Ceres to Ceres (mythology) and of Eris to Eris (mythology) weren't done out of process in anyway? Ryūlóng 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked those pages (again). There's no complaint about the moves. Heck, the folks at Ceres (mythology) even think it was a good idea. --Ckatzchatspy 09:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, no they aren't. Read the talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it would have been better if it had not been done through copy-paste moving, as it was then (for Ceres). Ryūlóng 09:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree entirely with Ckatz and Ryulong.  There is nothing wrong with leaving the articles where they are - inconsistency in naming is utterly trivial when compared to inconsistency in quality of articles.  --ajn (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is wrong is that the titles are inconsistent.  There should be a pattern here.  However, it may be too soon to form an consensus on this.  Let's see what happens here, but I want there to be no more polls after this one for a while, especially if the result is a lack of consensus. --EMS | Talk 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't see how waiting for more dwarfs discovered and/or named will modify the outcome, either now or in six months or six years.  Suppose we had 100 dwarf planets at hand, with names and MPC numbers.  What effect will that have?  Are there people who have cutoffs, a la, "beyond N dwarfs, we move to MPC numbers!"?  If there are people in this position (or similar positions), it would be better they parameterize themselves now, as it can be built into The Rules and a decision made.  Otherwise, waiting is just kind of "precedent setting" tactic.  More than likely the next bout will "wait" again, especially for those who want the status quo to perpetuate itself.  It's so easy.  I suggest instead that if a decision can't be made, this issue be moved up to the next level of the formal dispute resolution mechanism at Wikipedia.  "Shit or get off the pot", as it were.  mdf 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Leave it until we find out what scientific consensus is reached on name-of-Pluto in Scientific papers. All others... Eh, anything but no disambiguation, please. That 1 Ceres -> Ceres move was the daftest thing ever.  Adam Cuerden talk 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, but you forget the MPC naming convention is decades old, and in active, daily, use in the scientific literature.  Pluto, Eris and others are getting assigned numbers like the rest of them.  Yawn and move on to the next one:  many more to come.  mdf 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not forget. A body of this notability hasn't been demoted to a minor planet since Ceres et al, and so I'd like to see how this ends up being treated in the literature. The MPC gave Pluto a number, as they said, for sake of CONSISTANCY. Anyway, everyone is sick of the debate. Let things settle down a couple months, so there's new evidence. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Waiting will give emotions time to cool even if there are no furhter dwarf planets.  If there are, then we can see how those articles are titled.  I admit that there will always be people who support the status-quo or some part of it, but in general I have seen people bind together to achieve a goal.  As I read the current situation, people need time to consider this isuue.  So more polls don't help the situation, but instead just keep people entrenched in their current positions. --EMS | Talk 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion status 

message: Any reflections on how Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority applies to our situation?Hopquick 01:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the closing admin in those situations would either go off of the arguments that the users put forth or use numbers in places where supports and opposes go into the hundreds, such as at some RFAs, AFDs, and RMs. This doesn't really have any effect on us, since there's too little to go over, and we really cannot reach a consensus at this small an exposure to the whole of the community. Ryūlóng 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire community has been invited.  There is a principle that those that are here are the right ones to be here.  And we do seem to be reaching consensus; of the 20 people voting so far for options on choosing a naming system, 75% (15 people) have voted for Option 3.  4 other people have voted in favour of delaying this until the dust settles, primarily from the look of the comments, because they feel that consensus was not reachable; though if we actually do achieve 75% of people in favour of one option, then perhaps their views can be disregarded. Nfitz 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There were 29 votes in the first poll on this page; and there have been 24 people weighing in on this vote so far; not exactly a major difference.  You can always go contact the 5 other (or more?) missing people, and get them to give their thougts.   15:10? (3:2) Not sure where you get that ... I count 15:5 (3:1) on the basis I used above ... if you lump in the final option (which I didn't include as I noted above), you'd get 15:9 (5:3) Nfitz 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What about compared to the votes on individual pages -- Nbound 02:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as I'd like Option 3 to win, I think a few people should read the abstention article. Most of the time such votes do count toward the complete tally. aLii 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. However, casting a vote whilst expressing a mild fatigue with continual voting is not the same as abstention, as someone above seems to be claiming. We currently have 17 for option three and 10 against it (5 for other options and 5 "abstentions"). I'm tempted to think that's a clear consensus already, but if the poll runs a few more days it should exceed the magic 2:1 anyway, and a move from 1 Ceres to Ceres (dwarf planet) should follow. SteveRwanda 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to keep in mind - if it is decided that there is consensus, that does not mean that 1 Ceres automatically moves to Ceres (dwarf planet) at the same time. By the terms of Option 3, it will then be up to the editors at 1 Ceres (admittedly, many of the same folks who are here!) to start a discussion about a page move, and decide which way they want to go.--Ckatzchatspy 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to the text of Option 3, 1 Ceres should move to either Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet), with the editors there (and presumably those at Ceres (mythology) as well) having the say as to which of those it is. According to this page at least, 1 Ceres would no longer be valid.  SteveRwanda 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it would be with the dwarf planet disambiguation; there are way too many persons, places, and things named after the goddess (or some form of it) that 1 Ceres just loses its number. Ryūlóng 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, I think we're saying the same thing - my point was that the decision as to which way to go would depend on consensus at the 1 Ceres page. A successful vote for option 3 here would not mean that the Ceres article could then be moved right away. There would have to be another poll that also reaches consensus. --Ckatzchatspy 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Help! We're drowning in polls!  In fact, as Ryūlóng says (and per WP:DAB#Generic topic), there's no way that the dwarf planet can take prime position at Ceres, so Ceres (dwarf planet) would be the only option remaining according to Option 3 and no poll would be necessary. SteveRwanda 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, why is it that the "let's wait for a while" is "Hey, they're not voting, it's a consensus" conclusion coming up so often? Voting not to decide on anything just yet is the same as deciding on something. Given time, I think that we can gather a much larger consensus of the entire community, instead of this group of 30 or so who keep squabbling amongst themselves (sounds familiar, doesn't it). I do like option 3, just not for Ceres right now, and I would not oppose a vote to move 50000 Quaoar to Quaoar (the latter redirects to the former regardless) in the future. It's just that everything is still too new and emotions are still running high over this. Ryūlóng 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it humouous that while this isn't supposed to be a democracy, vote-counting is done anyways.  Whatever tickles WP's toes.  I'll just note that, in general, science is not run in this manner.  Physical reality is not subject to Wikipedia "concensus" (majority, supermajority, first-past-the-post, 60% of, or whatever cutoff one uses).  Wikipedia can play its little concensus games, invent its own, unqiue, naming scheme that is at odds with published research.  Who can stop it?  (I've tried.)  Research will carry on though, and WP will just have to actively keep up -- cf. my earlier remarks about demands for pointless human labour -- as opposed to cuddling up as close as possible and free-riding on the coat-tails of science.  Which makes WP's seemingly inevitable decision -- count those votes! -- all the more perverse:  science actively encourages such freeloading.  More and more this whole episode sounds like a case of "not invented here".  mdf 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus Policy 

message: I have just closed the most recent poll, and am declaring that option 3,
"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"to be the consensus selection.  By counts, it has a 22:10 support:oppose margin.  Furthermore there is little in people's comments that would lead me to believe that the support for this option is weaker than it appears or that the opposition is stronger than it appears.  Finally, based on my prior experiences I believe that future dwarf planet articles would be named in this way even without this result.
As I see it, what has been achieved is a standard that we all can use in deciding the name for the dwarf planet articles.  In the process, we will avoid having a set of rolling debates on the title for each one.  For those who opposed this:  I am on your side, but that just was not the decision here.  If this term starts to look silly in the future, this issue can be revisited.  In the meantime, the best thing to do is to follow through with this and support this consensus until there is good reason to decide on something else.  
With respect to the articles on the so-far designated dwarf planets: At this time, 
* Eris (dwarf planet) already conforms to this standard (as is in fact the prototype for it), 
* Pluto conforms due to the presumption that "Pluto" is used most often in reference to the former planet, and
* 1 Ceres needs to have its name changed to either Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet).
I will leave it to others to request the name change for Ceres, but do encourage everyone to voice there opinion in the resultant poll.  As for Pluto:  If someone wants to request that its name also be changed, then be my guest.  I will support that, but doubt that it will succeed at this time.  However, I do see Pluto eventually becoming Pluto (dwarf planet). --EMS | Talk 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree that this needs to be done now, I am glad that this is finally done (and Pluto is not going to move, based on at least two Requested Moves on it already). Ryūlóng 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One problem, now fixed: the actual text of the decision was not listed here. What was originally posted above dropped the second sentence, "Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages". I have corrected the mistake in the above reference, and changed "its name changed to Ceres (dwarf planet)" to "its name changed to either Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet)". (This is the second page that has left out part of the text - it was also misstated on 1 Ceres.) --Ckatzchatspy 04:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll closed, Option 3 chosen 

message: I'm afraid the previous poll is irrelevant as it failed to list all possibilities: Option 3 (Name or Name (dwarf planet)) was not balanced with (Name or number Name). Since the Pluto hotbutton issue is so looming over the discussion, this was BOUND to bias the results.  As such, this poll cannot show consensus. Adam Cuerden talk 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add any option you want. In fact the option which gathered the most votes was not also initially proposed. I've added it later.--Nixer 14:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the advice on polls is to try and get options from the start. One more vote. Adam Cuerden talk 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll is irrelevant

message: Not that this is a democracy, but I move that we close and archive the whole /Naming page being that the necessity for a discussion that spans the 3 impacted pages has now run its course.  This multi-page consensus reaching tool now needs to trickle back down to the individually impacted pages, where the discussions probably need to continue and reach their quick conclusion. Hopquick 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was discussing this on Talk:1 Ceres. I was told that it was decided that issues should be discussed here, os I brought it here. I am not bringing up issues that, to my knowledge, have come up before. To my knowledge, the numbering as disambiguation has not ever been considered without bringing in Pluto. I'm trying in good faith to check there IS a consensus. Adam Cuerden talk 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam, unfortunately it seems that you came to this discussion a day too late. It has been going on for a month or so, and the latest poll was open for the last week. Anyway you should feel better in the knowledge that if you had voted it wouldn't have made much of difference. aLii 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If every section since that poll closed didn't have people talking about how there was no consensus proven, I might agree with you. As it is, I'm being bullied due to attempts to get provable consensus, and begining to think that the only thing to do is put a formal objection to the request for move. I don't want to do that, but if any attempts at discussion are being suppressed.... Adam Cuerden talk 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to call this whole discussion closed