Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 3

message: Osgoodelawyer started this discussion on my talk page, but I thought it was more appropriate here.  The question is should all variants of the symbol for 1 Ceres be listed in this article or should only the most commonly used symbol be listed.  I reverted his removal of the alternate symbols because I felt they should all be listed in the interest of trying to be comprehensive.  --Aranae 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The variants add no real information to the article (they're all very similar), and they look bad all together like that. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't disagree with moving them from the infobox to being discussed in the text, but I do think they belong in the article.  Someone coming across an archaic reference to one of the variants should have some hope of tracking it down.  --Aranae 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols on [[1 Ceres]] 

message: Why does 1 Ceres, have it's minor planet number in its title and Pluto does not?  Shouldn't the titling be consistent? Aren't they now equally dwarf planets? Hopquick 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceres is in the numbered objects catalogue, Pluto isn't. Deuar 22:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Pluto's in it now; it just recieved number 134340. See Pluto. If people had gone along with it back when the Minor Planet people had first proposed it Pluto could have had the nice round number of 100000, but oh well. :) Bryan 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of moving the Pluto article has been discussed. Current consensus is to keep the simplest, most common name as per Wikipedia convention. Pluto's number, however, is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox. --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, how about that? Shame about the 1. What an indignity − not only to get a number, but for it to be a monster like 134340 ;-). So, anyway, in this case, I am uncertain regarding the better name for the Ceres article. Deuar 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers are assigned in sequence, so that there are no duplicates.  A few months ago, there was a proposal to demote Pluto immediately, to give it the number 100000.  Michaelbusch 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, this sort of thing was already done for e.g. 50000 Quaoar. Wonder why they didn't wait a bit until a more round number came up this time. Deuar 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It would have been cool for it to be 0 Pluto.  Lol70.177.71.206 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. However, I suspect it would have stuffed up all the database programs people have; and wouldn't have been in time order since Ceres and a whole pile were discovered earlier. :-) Deuar 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian G. Marsden, MPC offered a nice cool number for Pluto a long time ago; he was met with an outrage… Now Pluto is stuck with  134?, sorry, I forgot the entry for Pluto already... Eurocommuter 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think this should drop the 1.  It's generally called Ceres within the article. But let's wait and see what happens.  -- Beardo 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article at Ceres. The 1 at the front usefully disambiguates the article from the goddess. Richard B 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We should have all the dwarf planets consistent. Let's see what eventuates over at Talk:Eris (hopefully rename to ... (dwarf planet) in my opinion) and then whatever it is, be consistent. Deuar 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say we should simply state that Ceres and Pluto will follow the nomenclature of Eris.  —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent nomenclature 

message: Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming.  As Ceres is not now classified as a "dwarf planet", some policy is needed for naming the articles of this new class of solar system objects as a whole. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction - Ceres is classified as a dwarf planet. It is on the minor planets list because of it's prior designation as an asteroid (dating back to the 1850's). --Ckatzchatspy 03:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not all--Nixer 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think he's nitpicking at the fact that Pluto which was once a planet is no longer a planet. Ryūlóng 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: (from Talk:Dwarf planet)
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: This is a total mess.  The Ceres dab page tells you to go to "Ceres" to find the page about the goddess.  Where is the page about the goddess now?
Look at the "what links here" page.  All of the links that formerly connected to the goddess page are now going to the asteroid page.  Where's the sense in that?  RandomCritic 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New poll on naming dispute

message: I have amended the mass estimate and given an uncertainty. The value 9.46±0.04kg takes into account the two most recent mass determinations, which are based on different methods, and hence presumably an independent check. That of Pitjeva: 9.454±0.014, based on perturbations by Ceres on the detailed motion of Mars; and those of Standish and Drummond: 9.472±0.030, based on perturbations of smaller asteroids. Deuar 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass 

message: "Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), officially designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt."
This is accurate, but is likely to change - Watch this line carefully if further IPA consensus comes out. Adam Cuerden talk 18:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't be a problem, but well worth noting anyways. I've added "known" to bring the text in line with Pluto and Eris. --Ckatzchatspy 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not accurate, as Ceres is officially designated 1 - not 1 Ceres. Only the number is the designation, which is a technical term in the MPC scheme and should not be used in its normal English meaning in articles on this topic as it causes confusion. This is a common error in minor planet articles. I won't press the point at this moment as there's enough contention, but will return to it later. --Cuddlyopedia 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: We're back to the debate on how many symbols should be included in the infobox.  The page had included four alternate symbols that have been used for the object.  Osgoodelawyer has deleted three of these. I stil feel that in the interest of making this a good reference, we should include the different possibilities that readers have potential to come across.  In the past, it has only been the two of us disputing this so I was hoping other editors would weigh in.  Note that this also pertains to 2 Pallas.  --Aranae 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of clarity, there should only be one symbol - the primary astronomical one. This would be in sync with the other planets and dwarf planets. The other symbols can certainly be referenced in the "Name" (or similar) section where applicable. --Ckatzchatspy 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me now, with the symbols readded to the body.  Thanks Osgoodelawyer.  --Aranae 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbols

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical_objects).  Now, I'm not saying we necessarily SHOULD use this - it's a proposed guideline, after all. But we probably should discuss it, since we are going against it. It seems to make a clear case for Pluto staying where it is. What about Ceres (one of its examples, though before the reorginisation) and Eris? Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you have pointed it out, that proposal has been tweaked to incorporate the decision at talk:dwarf planet/Naming.  It's too bad that we were not aware of this proposal earlier.  That would have been a better place for the discussion to have occurred.  --EMS | Talk 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Um... YEah. The naming conventions page was just updated to fit the decision here, so it's kind of irrelevant to be voting on it, when this vote was what wrote the convention. I was just asking if the general proposed conventions (pre-dwarf-planet being added) were relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, you're arriving at this section about two days too late to be relevant. It was decided that the sensible reaction was to put in the dwarf planet vote into the "To be detewrmined" dwarf planet section. Like I told you on that page. Adam Cuerden talk 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Guideline

message: An other brilliantly written planetoid article. I am aware that the article was to be moved but it wont affect the outcome, this is a GA anyway. Lincher 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6037844.stm. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News from science 

message: Should use that to replace the one we have now. I can't see it because of LAG! :( Zazaban 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No we shouldn't.  Why would the infrared image be better than the (true-colour?) image we have now? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is also a Keck image which means we can't use it.--JyriL talk 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infared map of Ceres. 

message: I'm not sure that saying "sometimes called" in the lead is the best way to start the article. We may need to rework the MPC designation text, but not that way. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could put the MPC number in the infobox. --Yath 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The existing status is not appropriate. For example in my paper encyclopedia article (which is definitely written by an astronomer), it never called "1 Ceres" or "(1) Ceres". Its MPC number even was not mentioned in the article. NASA also rarely use the designation such way.--Nixer 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not accurate to say that all astronomers call it "1 Ceres".--Nixer 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Sometimes" in the lead 

message: Archived discussions from September 2006. RandomCritic 14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: The following statement:
: Ceres was small for a planet, showing no discernible disc, so Sir William Herschel coined the term "asteroid" ("star-like") to describe it.
I altered considerably, deleting the "showing no discernible disc" part.  Herschel did see Ceres as a disk, or believed he had, and even attempted to measure it, though he seriously underestimated its diameter - at 260 km, about 2/7 of the actual size.  Herschel's consideration in inventing the term "asteroid" was to highlight how easy it was (for him) to confuse asteroids with stars in doing a sky survey, whereas at the magnifications he was using, the planetary disks were very obvious. RandomCritic 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herschel and the term "asteroid" 

message: I thought that Ceres was now a Dwarf Planet, and not an asteroid. --Deenoe 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, it is unclear if being a dwarf planet excludes Ceres from being an asteroid.  There is a logic in classifying it as both: dwarf planet is primarily a size condition, while asteroid relates to physical properties and history. As a planetary scientist, I will continue to refer to Ceres as an asteroid, because no other classification means much.  Of course, I also stopped considering Pluto a planet long before the debate started. Michaelbusch 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term asteroid 

message: I've changed this section into a hopefully more accurate section: The Minor Planet Center has nothing to do with the 1 Ceres or (1) Ceres name, because it came into use before the Minor Planet Center existed. Adam Cuerden talk 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 Ceres 

message: Some scientists are at least speculating that this raises the possibility of a subsurface liquid water-ocean. 
Sean7phil 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That what raises the possibility?  —Tamfang 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possiblility of a sub-surface Water Ice Ocean 

message: The Discovery section reads, in part: 
By early February Ceres was lost as it receded behind the Sun.
 
I'm removing this wording on the grounds of error. (See older similar edit at Talk:Least Squares.) Modern astronomy software confirms that on 10 Feb 1801 Ceres was still more than 90 degrees away from the sun, therefore not behind the Sun, and not even lost in the Sun's glare. (Jean Meeus, in <I>Mathematical Astronomy Morsels</I>, p. 300, agrees.) Conjunction with the Sun did not occur until July 1801. A much more likely guess is that Ceres, which had dropped from magnitude 7.9 to 8.5 and was also lower in the western sky each evening by the end of twilight, became too dim to be seen, but the date at which this happened depends on the aperture of Piazzi's telescope. Perhaps also Ceres became lost in the star fields between the Pleiades and Hyades. My own experience is that Ceres is difficult to track with 80mm binoculars in the best of conditions, so I favor the dimness explanation. I suggest someone find Piazzi's notebook and see what he said. 
Note also the earlier assertion that Piazzi's observations were interrupted by illness. I'm not in a position to confirm this, but it would seem to contradict the deleted wording. 
JEBrown87544 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery: Fact checking 

message: I have archived material from October 2006. RandomCritic 12:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: So, I checked the Portuguese version of this article, and if I must say, this one is already better. Unfortunately, the Portuguese Wikipedia isn't known for its outstanding quality... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willie the Walrein (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese 

message: So, I checked the Portuguese version of this article, and if I must say, this one is already better. Unfortunately, the Portuguese Wikipedia isn't known for its outstanding quality... Willie the Walrein-talk to me 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese 

message: I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the discussion on this issue at Talk:Pluto Bluap 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: There seems to be an error in the table of oppositions. The closest opposition to Earth (on 31 January 2018) is shown as having magnitude 8.8 - which is the faintest of all the bodies.
Also, though their mean opposition magnitude is dimmer than Ceres, 2 Pallas and 7 Iris can reach higher maximum opposition magnitudes because of their orbital eccentricity.
* A suggestion is to draw the orbits of
** Ceres 
** 2 Pallas and 
** 7 Iris 
on the same map to show the difference in mean and maximum opposition magnitudes due to Ceres' low eccentricity
Luokehao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum magnitude 

message: Surely the overwhelmingly predominant referent of the word "Ceres" is the planet, not the mythological figure. I think Ceres (dwarf planet) should be moved to just Ceres, after moving what's currently at Ceres to Ceres (disambiguation). --Trovatore 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd support that. Deuar 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit more complicated than just discussing it here. We'd have to revisit the dwarf planet naming discussion, which was a long, drawn-out affair. Also, to be fair, the editors at the Ceres mythology page should have a say as well, given that the current setup (disambig page at Ceres) is a compromise between the mythology and astronomy camps. (Not to say it can't be done, but just that everyone should be aware of what is involved.) --Ckatzchatspy 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think so too. We'll almost certainly have to do it in 2015 when Dawn arrives, unless something unexpected comes up before then, but it wouldn't hurt to move it now IMO. Bryan Derksen 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If this discussion is still open (nothing seems to have changed anyway) then I'd disagree. My interest is astronomy, but I'm interested in mythology as well. The current set-up, "Ceres" leading to a disambiguation page, and both articles sub-titled, seems a good compromise. That way no-one need be put out by what would look like a take-over bid. And I wouldn't be too sure that " the overwhelmingly predominant referent of the word "Ceres" is the planet, not the mythological figure"; Ceres (mythology) may be a minor deity, but then Ceres (dwarf planet) is a minor planet. Moonraker12 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ckatz, Moonraker12, and Bluap.  I see no reason to move at this time.  Perhaps in 2015 we can do a temporary move, "if needed".  And I am one that truly thinks historically snowball Pluto got too much attention and that objects like Ceres and Vesta received too little attention.  Go Dawn!  :-) Kheider 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. I'm one of the few people that thinks we should colonize Ceres before Mars, assuming it has all the water we think it does and that there are no unwelcome surprises when Dawn arrives. We'll have some better observations of the planet before 2015 so maybe we'll find out a few more interesting things about it before Dawn arrives too. Then we can move the page. Mithridates 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some empirical notes on the proposed move: Google seems to indicate that the Internet has a lot more links to the Wikipedia page for the dwarf planet than to either the Ceres (mythology) or Ceres disambig pages. Google also shows a lot more popular results for discussion of the dwarf planet when you search for just "Ceres" (though a lot of random things with "Ceres" as an acronym also show up). I'd say the evidence definitely shows that most users would be looking for info on the dwarf planet, and so the proposed move of this article to the simple title "Ceres" would be well-justified. This justification is also bound to become ever stronger as Dawn and other closer investigations raise attention on the dwarf planet. (As noted for example in Entering Space by Robert Zubrin, a crewed mission to one of the asteroids would be a lot cheaper than one to Mars - though the latter is a better prospect for settlement.) I say we proceed with a formal discussion of the move. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were just about the dwarf planet, then perhaps a formal discussion might be in order. However, we're talking about reopening a long and complicated discussion about naming conventions for dwarf planets and revisiting an informal compromise established between the astronomy and mythology camps (both of whom would like Ceres). That certainly doesn't mean we'll never revisit the issue - but there's no convincing rationale for doing so at this time. --Ckatzchatspy 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Ceres"? 

message: Did anyone else notice that the temperature is negative kelvin? How does that work? Anooneemiss 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not negative (-). It's 'approximately' (~). In some fonts those symbols look similar. Derek Balsam(talk) 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature 

message: WP:DAB comes to mind. When someone says "Ceres" is one term meant much more than any other? I think it's hard to say, so we'll stick with the current setting of keeping Ceres as a dab page. So, there's three principles that should be applied (in order) according to WP:DAB:
#Another name, or more complete name that is equally clear.
#disambiguating Parenthetical phrase
#Adjective
Right now, we're going with 2, when we should probably go with 1. Shouldn't we move to "1 Ceres" (which is currently a redirect to here). Any objections? McKay 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was originally at 1 Ceres.  After a huge amount of discussion on how to name the various dwarf planet pages, it was decided to move this page to Ceres (dwarf planet).  What about the current name do you find bad?  Personally, I would much rather not re-open the whole can of worms. Bluap 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, the only complaint I have is that it doesn't meet the guidelines found at WP:DAB. I remember the discussion over at Pluto, and the guideline here is that topics should be labeled under what they're most frequently known by (Pluto, and Ceres respectively), unless there's a conflict (which both have, with Ceres (mythology), and Pluto (Disney) respectively, as well as numerous others). Which is where WP:DAB comes into play. When there's a conflict, first we determine if one term is meant much more than any other. Which probably isn't the case for anything with the name "Ceres" but probably does mean the dwarf planet in the case of Pluto. So pluto gets the primary page, and ceres becomes a dab page. Then Dab tells guides us to first, try another or more complete name that is equally clear (1 Ceres), and if that doesn't work (for whatever reason), then use something in parenthesis (like Ceres (dwarf planet)). So, in order to follow the guidelines, we should move to 1 Ceres, but WP:CONSENSUS overrides that guideline, so if I can get a link to the discussion that decided that it should be here, that should clear up most issues. McKay 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't recall where the page is (I'll try to dig it up) but it concerned naming dwarf planet articles in general. The consensus, after a series of long and bitter discussions, was to place dwarf planets at "X (dwarf planet)", with the exception of Pluto. (Hence Eris (dwarf planet), Ceres (dwarf planet), and the redirect at Pluto (dwarf planet).) --Ckatzchatspy 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: WP:EL:
*Accessable? Probably
*Relevant? Sure
*Funcitonal? yes, yes.
Should be linked list?
*Official Ceres site? No
*Copy of the work? No
*Cannot be integrated due to excessive detail? Well, it can't be integrated because it might be considered a how-to guide? It is excessive detail. Let's put this as a "maybe"?
*meaningful, relevant content that can't be included? Again "maybe"
To be considered?
*Review? No
*Very Large Page? Not a problem
*Long list of links? Also not a problem
*Unreliable citing reliable? Not really.
Should be avoided?
Some might have a problem with #5.
So, having perused all of this information, I think I'd go with keep.
Any other comments? McKay 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kepler discovery link 

message: Here's an interesting read on the possibility of life forming on Ceres:
* 
— RJH (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life on Ceres? 

message: It seems that the word "recover" is being used in a technical sense in this article. (To recover Ceres, Carl Friedrich Gauss ... developed a method of orbit determination ... unambiguously confirmed the recovery of Ceres.) Can someone familiar with the term clarify the exact meaning or connotation? Tesseran 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recovery in this context means to find once again in the sky. To keep track of which 'star' is actually Ceres, and to be able to find it again each night. --Patteroast 01:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "recovery" 

message: Is this true?
'At its brightest it is just barely too dim to be seen with the naked eye.'
Maybe I am just being fussy, but I thought with exceptional eyesight under extremely good conditions, it could barely be seen.  My eyes are not good enough anymore to test it, but it would be good to know for sure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.121.19 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visible 

message: Why is this Dwarf Planet out of all the Planets and Dwarf Planets in the Solar System the only one without the Feature Article tag? kandrey89 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: OK, getting there. Some stuff to do: 
*...proposed by Johann Daniel Titius several years earlier. - may as well get exact number of years earlier. Looks more polished and would be no more wordy.
*To recover Ceres, Carl Friedrich Gauss, then only 24 years old, developed a method of orbit determination from three observations - bit too many commas - also, defining 'recover' to non-astronomers would be good.
More later - back to powerpoint writing. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some to-do stuff to FA 

message: For instance: List of notable asteroids and Asteroid_belt#Largest_asteroids. Altough both mention the dwarf planets promotion they still refer to it as an asteroid. I was under the impression that both designations were mutually exclusive no?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIP-Acer (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - thanks for your post. --Ckatzchatspy 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it ever settled that they are mutually exclusive? Isn't Pluto considered a Kuiper Belt object, and Eris a Scattered Disk object? kwami (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree about the possibility of it existing in multiple categories, especially since the IAU hasn't made it clear as to the "dwarf planet" category is mutually exclusive of the "SSSB" category. However, there's also no official text stating that it is still an asteroid; hence the difficulty for Wikipedia. The workaround has been to word text related to Ceres and other asteroids in such a way that we don't overtly imply one or the other. (For example, we're using "Ceres is the largest object in the asteroid belt" rather than "Ceres is the largest asteroid...") --Ckatzchatspy 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to this... it certainly doesn't help that the official sites have no consistent terminology... NASA's APOD site says Ceres and Vesta are "two of the largest of over 100,000 minor bodies orbiting in the main asteroid belt", the Dawn Mission site states "Dawn will investigate two of the largest proto-planets in the main asteroid belt". Yet another NASA Dawn mission page further muddies the waters, describing Vesta as "the fourth asteroid discovered" and Ceres as "the very first minor planet discovered", right below a note listing Ceres as the "first asteroid/dwarf planet discovered". (By the way, it's interesting to note that the aforementioned NASA APOD site has a series of hyperlinks for various terms... and they've linked "dwarf planet" to the Wikipedia article.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: With regards to "the dwarf planet Ceres and the asteroids", I can see your point. I've rewritten it to make it a bit more neutral. --Ckatzchatspy 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some articles still mention Ceres as an asteroid 

message: The following section was restored to the main talk page on 04-February-2008.
Why /ˈsɪəriz/ rather than /ˈsɪriz/ ?  The schwa doesn't belong there in any dialect with which I'm familiar.  —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's RP (British), and the transcription used by dictionaries such as Random House. Doesn't matter for Americans, but evidently does for people who distinguish serious from Sirius. (The OED doesn't include this particular word, but does have the schwa in the related cereal, as well as in Cereus.) kwami (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh.  So is it three syllables in RP?  —Tamfang (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's more of a diphthong. Personally, I'd've gone with transcribing it /ˈsiːriːz/, but that might just be because I speak GA. kwami (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  /ˈsiːriːz/ doesn't sound right to me in GA.  —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither will, if we sound them out phonetically, because we don't make this distinction. I commonly see Americans writing the equivalent of /ˈsiriz/, though. kwami (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not be indicating one, of the several, English pronouncations. The whole subject belongs in Wiktionary, not here; and we should not choose one national variety of English over others.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of the transcription is that it does not choose one national variety of English over others. It works equally well for RP, GA, Aus, NZ, and probably SA. (Indian and Irish English may be left out (possibly), but the system can be modified if it needs to be when we get input from speakers of those dialects.) kwami (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the Latin, it's in the pronunciation section, so the macrons are required just as they are in any decent Latin dictionary. kwami (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's with the schwa? 

message: Why is there no Atmospheric information on Ceres?
--Jay Turner 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See fourth paragraph in 'Physical characteristics'. Ruslik 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atmosphere 

message: restored from archive on 04-February-2008
Why /ˈsɪəriz/ rather than /ˈsɪriz/ ?  The schwa doesn't belong there in any dialect with which I'm familiar.  —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's RP (British), and the transcription used by dictionaries such as Random House. Doesn't matter for Americans, but evidently does for people who distinguish serious from Sirius. (The OED doesn't include this particular word, but does have the schwa in the related cereal, as well as in Cereus.) kwami (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh.  So is it three syllables in RP?  —Tamfang (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's more of a diphthong. Personally, I'd've gone with transcribing it /ˈsiːriːz/, but that might just be because I speak GA. kwami (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  /ˈsiːriːz/ doesn't sound right to me in GA.  —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither will, if we sound them out phonetically, because we don't make this distinction. I commonly see Americans writing the equivalent of /ˈsiriz/, though. kwami (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not be indicating one, of the several, English pronouncations. The whole subject belongs in Wiktionary, not here; and we should not choose one national variety of English over others.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of the transcription is that it does not choose one national variety of English over others. It works equally well for RP, GA, Aus, NZ, and probably SA. (Indian and Irish English may be left out (possibly), but the system can be modified if it needs to be when we get input from speakers of those dialects.) kwami (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the Latin, it's in the pronunciation section, so the macrons are required just as they are in any decent Latin dictionary. kwami (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Only if you're willing to take milk and orange juice with your care-ale. Serendipodous 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To which I can only reply, "Huh?"  G. B. Shaw 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As well you might; Serendipodous omitted a syllable from Latin cereale.  —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up.  Howie Schwa 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's with the schwa? 

message: Can anyone be more specific about the atmospheric pressure on the surface? -- Nergaal (moved from article to talk page by kheider)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheider (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atmosphere 

message: If it is please write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.167.158 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is its min surface temp unknown? 

message: There is no radius, no diameter, no surface area estimate. Accidental visitor.89.77.129.141 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are polar radius and equatorial radius. Ruslik (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius? 

message: according to this article, dwarf planets are now called "plutoids". As Ceres isn't included in this, I would to put forth a proposal to rename this article 1 Ceres. Tavix (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceres, Pluto and Eris are still dwarf planets.  "Plutoids" is new subcategory that exists in addition to "dwarf planet" for those dwarf planets outside Neptune.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly - plutoids are a subset of the dwarf planet category, so Ceres is unaffected. With regards to the article title, the current scheme is based on a consensus derived from months of discussions, and is unlikely to change. --Ckatzchatspy 02:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this article to 1 Ceres 

message: Should we work in a table showing the different estimated sizes for Ceres in the 1800s (Ref 21: Asteroid Masses and Densities):
 Ceres in the 1800s
Year	Size
1802	260 km
1811	3380 km
1856	365 km
1895	780 km
-- Kheider (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no. Those estimates are only historic curiocities now. Ruslik (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not a table, but maybe a mention. I find myself thinking there's some interest in why the early estimates were so low, why they got higher, & how/why they were refined. Might also connect to asteroid, & improvements in re clarifying tot# asteroids (better/more dedicated searches), discovery of Apollo/Amor (Earth-crossser) types, & such. I'm not positive that's appropriate here, but it might be, & the tabled info is certainly useful somewhere.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Table?