Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thoughts on current situation 2 Bringing hypothetical planets into the discussion 3 Evidence 4 Applicability 5 Ceres renaming 6 Archive

[edit] Thoughts on current situation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Theres no consensus for any of the options that give us a single naming scheme, so it seems the best is to do each equally, id dare say we may see some pages move in the next few months as some people begin to adjust to the "new" solar system. -- Nbound 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that something will give. The real issue is going to be what will happen when the next dwarf planets are designated. (136472) 2005 FY₉, (136108) 2003 EL₆₁, 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)

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)

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)

Well thats pretty much my view, just better articulated =P -- Nbound 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That assumes that the dwarf planet defintion sticks around that long... Tuvas 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Bringing hypothetical planets into the discussion

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)

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)

Perhaps there should be a larger discussion in which a system of nomenclature is established for all articles on astronomical bodies. Certainly the decision made here on dwarf planets will have considerable bearing on how other planets are marked.Mrwuggs 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• And this is the same for Pluto, which is why it should be left alone.

[edit] Evidence

I put forward that 1 Ceres is correctly placed. Consider these google searches:

376,000 hits for "1 Ceres" as a phrase. - 104,000 for Ceres and the phrase "dwarf planet" - 382000 for Ceres and asteroid

Since the last two searches do not exclude the 1 Ceres name or each other, whilst the 1 Ceres search can only accept the exact phrase 1 Ceres, it would appear 1 Ceres is preferred. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Obviously searching for a name with a description is going to return less results. Googling for "1 Ceres" and "asteroid" returns only 16,000. And anyway, many of those pages will have been made long before the recent change of status. Since then Ceres has overwhelmingly referred to in the media as just "Ceres". The Enlightened 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that both positions are a bit ridiculous. First of all, this is Wikipedia, not Google. Secondly, Ceres has always been refered to as just Ceres in the media. Most science writers find it much easier not to use the MPC numbers, and the articles more readable. Even in Wikipedia, the MPC number is noted in the first sentense of the minor planet articles, and just the name is used afterwards. The full designation is used in the article name

1. to indicate the the subject is a minor planet, and
2. to disambiguate the object from the entity that it is named after (which usually is also notable).

We don't need a ton of external evidence here. Instead we need to decide what is best given the needs of Wikipedia and its readers. --EMS | Talk 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. But it's evidence against demoting the Greek goddess as has been repeatedly proposed. As far as I can tell, she and the dwarf planet are about equally notable. 88.111.116.91 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On that we are in agreement. Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. I want to see solid evidence over the long term that people looking for Ceres are much more likely to be looking for the asteroid/dwarf planet than for the goddess before even considering the possibility of letting the astronomical object have the unqualifed name. --EMS | Talk 02:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unqualified name meaning 1 Ceres? It's been 1 Ceres for more than 150 years. Ryūlóng 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and before that, when it was a planet it was called just "Ceres". Now it has a new status, and just because it retains its catalog number doesn't mean its name remains the same. Especially when common usage says just "Ceres" The Enlightened 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And the "1" part doesn't count as a description why? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Minor planet number for more info. The only notes I can find on the IAU site which discuss designations at all seem to indicate that the official catalogue entry is (#) NAME, as in (1) Ceres, not # NAME as in 1 Ceres. And just FYI, even as one who voted in favour of NAME (dwarf planet) I am quite willing to accept (1) Ceres as an article name: unlike 1 Ceres the proper format contains parentheses, making it clear that the name is Ceres, and the (1) is part of its disambiguation (in this case, the MPC catalogue entry). -- Jordi·✆ 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicability

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)

Probably. There needs to be a discussion here, and then a discussion there based on results here. Ryūlóng 04:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Ceres renaming

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)

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)

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)

Does it mean that the very existence of this page is purposeless?--Nixer 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

EMS, you're not supposed to try and pull people in with biased advertisements. I know you mean no harm by it, but it could throw the poll off. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think if you're gonna rename one of them and give it an extremely bulky name, you better rename them all, or it just looks like you were being a dick. It's been 1 Ceres for 202 years. Stormscape 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The page has now been moved. Nfitz 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

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