Talk:Pluto/Archive5

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 for move. Joelito (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. That's the proper name and all objects of this type should be titled as so. Zazaban 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Please see THREE other discussions on this page. Ryūlóng 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia rules say "the most common name", which certainly is plain Pluto. Also see the previous debate. --Stephan Schulz 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Also, it remains to be seen whether or not, when it comes to dwarf planets, the proper names will necessarily include the minor planet number. JamesFox 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Exactly, and we don't even have any information from the IAU itself (ignoring the MPC) concerning the number in formal literature. Ryūlóng 23:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   The MPC is the IAU's official body for assigning numbers, so in that sense we do have information from the IAU. (Let's not revive the debate as to whether or not the MPC is an official source!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Support as long as the page titled "Pluto" redirects to "134340 Pluto". For disambiguious uses, a "Pluto (disambiguious)" page should be created, and referenced at the top of "134340 Pluto".--Nintenfreak 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - if it isnt moved now it should be moved eventually as all the other MPC listed objects are named as such, there should be some consistency -- Nbound 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Consistency with other minor planet articles. -- Fonzarelli 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support - The status of Pluto has changed. It is no longer a considered to be a planet, and the IAU has changed its proper name to 134340 Pluto. Pluto should now redirect to Pluto (disambiguation), and this article should be listed under its new name there. My only caveat to this is that a coherent policy is needed for the treatment of the dwarf planets in general. Pluto should not be treated any differently than the others. --EMS | Talk 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Like it or not, that's now its designation. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support Just face it. Pluto is a dwarf planet, and the article title should be the actual name of the object, just like the other dwarf planets, and include the number. Stop being emotional about Pluto not being a planet anymore. This is rediculous. Faz90 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose the move, as previously stated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Why asteroid Xena don´t? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.112.39 (talk • contribs) .

   Because 2003 UB₃₁₃ doesn't have an official name yet. It's just nicknamed Xena. Ryūlóng 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose the move. Nearly everyone in the future will simply search on "Pluto" as precious few will remember the 134340 part. Accordingly, it makes zero sense to re-title the page as this will virtually always simply result in a redirected alert. Just now I searched in Wikipedia for "Eros" and was directed to a disambiguation page. This is completely unnessary for Pluto. Pluto will be a unique case among the asteroids for generations to come. I might support it if doing so doesn't result in a disambiguation page. Greg L 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

   Pluto isn't an asteroid, it's a Kuiper Belt Object ... big difference ... asteroids are rocky, KBOs are icy. --Cyde Weys 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose for the fourth time on this page. Also I'd like to point out that the number is a "minor planet number" while Pluto's primary designation now is that of a dwarf planet, not a minor planet. Pluto's official name under the new dwarf planet category has yet to be determined, for that matter neither has 1 Ceres new designation nor Xena's. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless use of the number with the name become common, which won't be known for months or years. It's certainly not common usage now. --DavidK93 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose--Nixer 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - silly move. FairHair 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - most commonly called Pluto - see WP:NC. It's the same reason that NASA hasn't been moved to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose--Honeymane 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose--Anguirus111 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose--per JohnnyBGood's reasoning with Dysnomia (moon)'s name (see section below: "Several thousand precedents for Wikipedia using the CORRECT name over "popular" name"). In addition, the article on the United States is simply called United States, despite the official name being United States of America (and even the leading sentence titling it "United States of America"). That article had a several separate debates regarding moving to the full name, yet the "United States" article title was kept.--theSpectator _talk 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Very Strongly Oppose The IAU is a Joke. They wait till there are only 424 people left to vote. I strongly oppose moving the Ninth Planet Pluto to some Politically Correct site. MagnumSerpentine 9-16-06
12. Oppose Everybody knows it as Pluto, so it should remain Pluto. Just make sure the actual name with numbers appears as the first thing in the article. E946 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Strongly Oppose A move would be needless pedantry. -- Beardo 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Everyone knows the world as Pluto. Only a select bunch of astronomers give it a full designation, and even then they will colloquially use the current name. aLii 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose In the absence of another naming convention, WP:NC(CN) should be used. Please see the article name for Selachimorpha for example. --Bobblehead 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose The name Pluto has a more than 70 years old historical precedence and it is so much easier to remember than 134...(what was the number again?)...Pluto. Besides, the new and scientifically correct designation is given in the article so why bother? What if the IAU comes up with a new definition of planet 20 years from now? ArthurWeasley 21:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose The name should be Pluto or if not acceptable then Pluto (dwarf_planet). WilliamKF 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Pluto is by far the most commmonly used designation. --Nebular110 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an attempt to make a second strawpoll before the first one. 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.

This discussion was following /Archive4#Move to 134340 Pluto? and #Move to 134340 Pluto. and was made after the fact. Ignore any comments below. I am sorry, but this must be done. Ryūlóng 08:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - Eris (formerly known as 2003 UB313) has page 136199_Eris not "Eris", Ceres is on page 1_Ceres, not "Ceres", and many asteroids and planets moons like Titan has page Titan (moon), or asteroid Vesta on page 4_Vesta. Pluto too should be moved to the page 134340_Pluto. Homo Cosmosicus 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - We need uniformity. Either all dwarf panets should have their numbers listed in the article name or none should do. Seeing that they are being numbered with other minor planets (rather than their own dwarf planet numbering system) it seems sensible the article names should be the same as the other minor planets.The Enlightened 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree: I don't see the problem, just move it to 134340 Pluto, have a redirect from typing "Pluto" in, and hardly anyone will even notice. First and foremost Wikipedia needs to be impartial and correct. Put the disambiguation link at the top of the article, simple. This shouldn't be something people are getting hot-under-the-collar about. Kris 09:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree: For all the reasons above, and otehrs as mentioned elsewhere -- Nbound 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't quite understand why those that failed to win the below straw-poll have attempted to open this as almost a second straw poll. This talk section should really be removed or closed as it is a prior discussion to the below closed poll. Anyone who is interested enough to make a further comment should go to Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming instead of writing here. aLii 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This debate should be closed and moved to the dwarf talk before we devolve into an endless series of polls that get nowhere. (I think this particular thread started prior to the main debate below, and it has now been resumed post-debate.) The energy should be put into resolving the overall issue, so that we avoid the mess that occured over at Eris. There was a long debate, then the page was moved, a lot of effort went into adjusting links, only to then have to undo it when it turned out someone had moved the page prior to consensus being reached. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: This move would serve no purpose to the article's usability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: Pluto is the common name of this dwarf planet. Numbers are ridiculous, and this discussion has been made way too much; several of these "Agrees" and what not were added ten full days after this was brought up, and then brought up again, and again. Ryūlóng 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As shown at the central naming page common name does not get precedence over scientific names -- Nbound

In fact, this is made after the Requested move, below. Ignore all of this, and move along. Ryūlóng 08:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.