Talk:1 Ceres/Archive 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was page moved (by Shimgray - poll closed early as original move from 1 Ceres to Ceres should not have taken place without debate)

Ceres → 1 Ceres – 1) To keep consistency with other asteroid pages; 2) to avoid needless confusion between this article and the one about the mythological Ceres; 3) to avoid needless changes for the sake of change to links and redirects which are now fouled. RandomCritic 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

• Strong support (which I gather now means keeping this page in place). 1 Ceres is the official designation, and serves to disambiguate this page. I also fail to see that the change of status (to a dwarf planet) has done a thing to increase people's awareness of Ceres. --EMS | Talk 02:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  May be we should also move Titan (moon) to Saturn VI for disambiguation?--Nixer 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  Despite the fact that nomenclature is outdated and not used? =) (see my reply to this already at the Eris talk page) -- Nbound 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  I am fairly disgusted with these red herrings that we should rename all asteroids (if Ceres is renamed) or all moons (if MPC numbers are to be used for the dwarf planets). The issue in this discussion is the title of this article, and of this article alone. If a standard for the dwarf planets is agreed to, the name of this article may yet change, but in its absense this article should remain as 1 Ceres. --EMS | Talk 13:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Im sure your all aware of my feelings over this already =P -- Nbound 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - There was no reason for this page to have been moved in the first place. 1 Ceres does better work disambiguating than Ceres (dwarf planet). Ryūlóng 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The goddess Ceres is far more notable, and 1 Ceres is a shorter, more useful disambiguation than Ceres (dwarf planet) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose We do not need numbers for dwarf planets. Other dwarf planet articles named without numbers (Eris (dwarf planet) and Pluto). Consistency with other dwarf planets is more important than consistency with asteroids.--Nixer 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? What importance does the category "dwarf planet" have that it should supersede all previous categories and designations? The IAU has not stated that it has any such overwhelming significance; the IAU's own Minor Planet Center has not thought that the category requires a unique form of nomenclature. Ceres is still at the top of the minor planet list, and there's no reason for it to have a different nomenclature from Pallas or Juno. RandomCritic 19:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact, IAU in the recent resolution said that all bodies in solar-centered orbits divide into three major groups:planets, dwarf planets and small bodies. The term "minor planet" was abolished and the term "asteroid" never was an official category.--Nixer 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe you are wrong on both counts. Cite sources if you wish to defend your claim. The IAU's resolution does not mention, much less abolish, the term "minor planet"; and it explicitly uses the word "asteroid" in its resolution.[1] RandomCritic 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Dwarf planets still retain previous designations at this point. 1 Ceres is still the largest asteroid, 134340 Pluto is still the largest Kuiper Belt Object, and 136199 Eris is still the largest Scattered Disk Object. All a dwarf planet is, is an object thats big enough to be rounded by its own gravity. -- Nbound 23:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For most users the "1" will only add to any confusion, not lessen it. Perhaps a move to Ceres (dwarf planet) would work though. aLii 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not needed. FairHair 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• oppose. Agree with nixer and that's a fact. Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet).--Pedro 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - I am personally disgusted that the 1 Ceres → Ceres move was done without any poll or notice. IMO this move should be reversed for that reason alone. OTOH, I would like these pages to stop moving around until the issue of how to describe the dwarf planets is settled. Please see talk:dwarf planet/Naming. This business is especially disturbing as I have no indication that Ceres is suddenly more well known since the IAU decision. People are much more aware of Pluto not being a planet now than of Eris and Ceres as fellow dwarf planets. (Indeed, most people have no idea that "Xena" is now Eris.) --EMS | Talk 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this back and I'm now fixing redirects. The original move was excessive and shouldn't have happened without discussion. Shimgray | talk | 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 archived discussion 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 proposal was Seeing that we are supposed to go by how objects are most commonly known, I googled (in the news section) first for "Ceres" and "asteroid", and secondly for "Ceres" and "dwarf planet". For the first 100 results for the first search, it was called "Ceres" 99 times and "1 Ceres" once. For the second search it was "Ceres" 98 times and "1 Ceres" twice. In light of this we should move to either just "Ceres" or "Ceres (dwarf planet)". Additionally the goddes Ceres is no longer situated at "Ceres", so that should not be a problem.70.225.171.73 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's still a whole discussion on where this page should be situated at, as several of the moves that took place were never discussed, and the goddess Ceres may return to the page "Ceres" and no one knows where this object will go in the mean time. Ryūlóng 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Preferably I think it should go to just Ceres. There is virtually no activity on that page, compared to how much there is here now (or even before the 2006 IAU resolution). I would be happy with Ceres (dwarf planet).The Enlightened 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This has not been officially done yet, nor should it yet. Someone moved the goddess' page to Ceres (mythology) then they did a copy-paste move of 1 Ceres over to that. Before anyone caught it, there was an RM put in place to move it back, that was speedily closed by an administrator because the original move was done out of process. Right now, we should wait until we reach a consensus anywhere before we start playing musical articles, again. Ryūlóng 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place?The Enlightened 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming is where the discussion on whether or not thsi should be moved is taking place. We should wait some time before starting up another RM discussion here. Ryūlóng 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you believed we should sort out debate on individual user pages and yet you're stifling the discussion here? We can always take steps to resolve the situation on individual pages until a universal policy is reached.The Enlightened

I do, but this isn't a discussion. It's just an anon's random passing by. Ryūlóng 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: The mythological Ceres is still more notable, and it's not unlikely 1 Ceres' current fame will soon pass. Also, 1 Ceres is a much shorter and efficient disambiguation than possible for any other page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Close? I think we should consider this vote to be closed (or at least on hold) for now, but to be reopened in a few weeks or months when the dust has settled. Then, I think it should concern not just 1 Ceres, but also a number of other similarly named astronomical articles.--Niels Ø 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close There is not good reason to change the name at this time. Let the status quo stand until it is obvious how the dwarf planets should be treated. --EMS | Talk 18:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support using the most common name. FairHair 19:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• That would probably be 1 Ceres: 376,000 hits for "1 Ceres" as a phrase. - 104,000 for Ceres and the phrase "dwarf planet" - 38800 for Ceres and asteroid Since the last two searches do not exclude the 1 Ceres name, it would appear 1 Ceres is preferred. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the other page. That's clearly wrong. If we look at news articles (which means we won't count old pages made before the new change of status) the overwhelming term used is just "Ceres". You have had seriously selective searching habits to advance your side.The Enlightened

What, by putting terms into google and using quotes? I would argue that using news sources alone would strongly bias them the other way, given that news style is to keep things simple - Explaining a number would mean a few sentences explaining what it means, more than a newspaper might be willing to fit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, Point of Fact I just notice: 38800 for Ceres + Asteroid should read 388000. Still... 88.111.116.91 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Ceres should be the disambiguation page given the notability of the goddess and 1 Ceres is shorter and more official the Ceres (dwarf planet). Both the MPC number and the IAU designation as a dwarf planet will be mentioned in the first sentence anyway so there is no information lost either way. Eluchil404 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose and Speedy Close, as suggested at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming, let's let the issue stew for a few months when it isn't so new. Ryūlóng 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain Let's see how things go at the ongoing vote at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming#A New Proposal, and then consider what to do after that is closed. Nfitz 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 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 move to Ceres (dwarf planet). There is clearly a large majority who would like the article title without the number. Of these "votes", several of the oppose votes are just based on the claim that there is no reason to move the article. This further weakens the oppose standpoint, as there is really no issue with moving a page as long it is the general will of the community. —Mets501 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

1 Ceres → Ceres (dwarf planet) – Rationale: The popular name for this body is just "Ceres" without the number, just as Pluto and Eris (dwarf planet) (similar bodies) are known with just name and disambiguator not "134340 Pluto" or "136199 Eris". Extensive discussion over this issue has taken place at Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming/Archive 1#A New Proposal and a two-thirds majority (22:11) favour the Name or Name (dwarf planet) as disambiguator over all other options. Since this is not a primary topic (Ceres (mythology) is equally important) this page should be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet). SteveRwanda 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - per nomination. SteveRwanda 09:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per nomination. FairHair 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per nomination. A tenable decision has been made. Let's work with it. --EMS | Talk 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose and request to Speedy Close in favour of discussion. part of a series of four, and 1 is such a short, convenient disambiguation. Let's face it, 1 Ceres is easy and highly usable, and keeps it aligned with the three other former planets of that period (2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta (And possibly 5 Astraea - when did they stop considering asteroids planets exactly?)). I think that consistancy with them is more important than consistancy with Trans-Neptunians. Also, I really think we should discuss this for a bit before opening a vote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  This has been adequately discussed at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. The other three bodies may yet be designated as "dwarf planets", but that is for the future. In any case, Ceres is almost twice as big and more massive than any of the other objects. Also, this is not about the past or the future but about the current status of Ceres, and how this article should be entitled given that. --EMS | Talk 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  I fail to see how the gaining of an additional cetegory atop of asteroid, minor planet, small solar system body, former planet, and all the others rules out the significance of said others. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- "Ceres" is the common and original name. The "1" designation was added much later. I would actually support moving the other asteroids discovered around the time that Ceres was to the plain name as well. Since disambiguation is needed for Ceres, the "dwarf planet" dismabiguator is a good one given that it is Ceres' new classification. Also reminding people that the term in parentheses is not meant to be part of the name but a disambiguator. Using a title of "Ceres (dwarf planet)" implies that the name is just "Ceres". Plus the parentheses convention allows one to use the pipe trick in writing. --Polaron | Talk 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can just use the template {{dp|Ceres}}, to produce Ceres.Richard B 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support As per consensus established in Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming--Nixer 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support as consensus from the wider circle of people concerned with all dwarf planets was established at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming The Enlightened 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per 22:10 vote at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. aLii 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per consensus mentioned above.Child of Albion 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as there is no extreme necessity to move this page, other than for a "need" on behalf of those at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming to give the dwarf planets uniformity in disambiguation. The 1 in "1 Ceres" provides a simple and short disambiguation, and it has 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, and 4 Vesta along with it in this naming scheme. Those three objects are not disambiguated with "(asteroid)" which is what they are, but instead have their catalog number. In addition, the "consensus" at the talk page had turned into a majority vote. I still feel that the article titles need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and whether or not this page is moved to be disambiguated with "(dwarf planet)" instead of "1" for the sake of conformity is a strange request. Ryūlóng 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Including the MPC numbers in article titles was a mistake in the first place, so this move is an obvious win. --Yath 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting re-naming all of the minor planet articles? This would be a big job, and could also lead to many ambiguities. Michaelbusch 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  They should be renamed, because an article title like "4 Vesta" is inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia and leads to confusion. A layperson (Wikipedia's primary audience) sees that our articles are generally disambiguated "Name (class of object)". Then, they will look at Vesta's article wonder if "4 Vesta" is actually the name of the asteriod. Reading the article itself only deepens that misconception, as it begins with "4 Vesta ...is the second most massive object in the asteroid belt...". Of course, the name of the asteriod is "Vesta", and the number 4 is just a catalog number, an organizational mark for the use of a computer database. It doesn't belong in the title at all. --Yath 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per nomination. TestPilot 23:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per nomination. See comments on other discussions for reasoning Abyssoft 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now at least - as Ryulong said, no immediate need to rename. 1 is a simple diambiguator - and 1 Ceres is well used in lots of astronomical articles - and it's not certain that there will be much about Ceres in "popular" media in the months to come. Google results will be skewed by news reporting of a single event - i.e. reclassification as a dwarf planet. "1 Ceres" still gets nearly 300,000 google hits. Searching for "Ceres" will bring up many non-asteroidal references - and will obviously also bring up all hits for "1 Ceres" as well. So summing up - 1 Ceres is a commonly used name. People are IMO more likely to search for "1 Ceres" than "Ceres (dwarf planet)". No obvious advantage in renaming to (dwarf planet) - it's obvious from the opening line to the 1 Ceres article what the 1 signifies - it's explained in the opening sentence. And, for those who want consistency - note that we *did* have consistent nomenclature for Eris & Ceres articles before the Eris one was renamed. Richard B 23:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support 132.205.45.206 00:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --Algorithm 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryulong, I see nothing wrong with the current location, and moving the other pages is a whole lot of unneccesary work. Michael Billington (talk • contribs)

  Other pages should not be moved. We have only this page to move. Please read the discussion in Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming first.--Nixer 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - let's keep the name as it is, how many astronomical bodies are there? make it a redirect to here if it isn't already ST47Talk 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  For the record, here's how many. ST47Talk 02:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per multiple previous votes which all showed a vast majority in favour of dwarf planet. Hopefully this is the last time the same vote is called. -- Jordi·✆ 09:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Ceres is its name, and dwarf planet is what it is. --Cuddlyopedia 09:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per nomination Surfermoon 10:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although the dwarf planet article naming style is as messed us as possible (we have Pluto, Eris (dwarf planet) and 1 Ceres), "1 Ceres" is the most used designation. I don't see Pluto's or Eris' designation will become widely used, but that is not the case with Ceres.--JyriL ^talk 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Nbound 13:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Support and concede to the JOINT consensus. Wikipedia is not 300k+ communities revolving around articles coming to 300k+ descisions, but 1 community that should be able to act as one across multiple articles. Hopquick 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is renaming for the sake of renaming. The primary argument against Number-name designations was an aesthetic one - that numbers like 136199 and 134340 were too long for people to remember or type. This is not a problem with 1 Ceres. The sole remaining basis for the change is a false consistency. The fact is that the titles are not going to be consistent no matter whether 1 Ceres is changed or not. And the fact that Piazzi's asteroid was the first asteroid discovered deserves some note; this isn't (random telephone number) Name, this is Number One. RandomCritic 14:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, there will be a consistency with the titles of the article. It is clear when someone reads "Ceres (dwarf planet)" that the object's name is "Ceres" and the dwarf planet bit is a description. This is not clear with "1 Ceres". Just because Mercury has (planet) after its article title doesn't mean the planet articles lack consistency. The titles are all the same, just that some (in this case one) has an extra description to disambiguate it.

  Your 'number one asteroid' argument is silly too. Ceres wasn't the first asteroid hailed with a fanfare when it was discovered. It was the eight planet, which retroactively became an asteroid later. As that retroactive classification has now been changed again to a dwarf planet its pretty meaningless. The first asteroid to be discovered is now (2) Pallas. Finally, to the great majority of people, Ceres' status as a dwarf planet is far more important than the fact it was considered the first discovered asteroid for a while (but not when it was discovered and not presently). The Enlightened 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Come on... The primary point against the numbers is that they are not part of the object's name. They are not used by other encyclopedia. They are rarely used by the general media. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal no matter how much some people commenting here wish it to be that way. Wikipedia should use the common-name (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) over the systematic-name except in special circumstances, for example carbon-12 and carbon-14. The astronomy articles could learn a lot from the chemistry articles in general. They don't call iron "Fe Iron" to try and distinguish it from other uses of the word. Ceres is admittedly not as well known as iron, but the same principles really ought to apply. aLii 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  ...Noone calls Iron Fe Iron. Astronomers DO call ceres 1 Ceres. The analogy fails to hold. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  But "1 Ceres" gets 440,000 google hits, so it's clearly pretty well used... Richard B 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, but most of those pages were made when its primary classification was as an asteroid, and as there are thousands of them it made sense to contain the designation number. Now it is more prominent as a dwarf planet, the MPC number isn't needed. The Enlightened 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Astronomers call Ceres "Ceres". If one writes a paper, then one will use (1) Ceres once, but henceforth simply use Ceres. If the object has no "name", a random example being (17009) 1999 CM₇₀, then it would be refered to as 1999 CM₇₀, again not using the MPC designation number. To answer the second point "Ceres" gets more google hits. Your point is? aLii 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, and in verbal conversation its called simple "Ceres," even by astronomers. When reported by the media its also, near unanimously called "Ceres."

  And "Ceres (dwarf planet)" gets 32 hits. We cannot move this to Ceres, hence your arguements are, frankly, somewhat bizarre. Why are you so against the very concept of minor planet numbers? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  If you really want to persist with this frankly irrelevent discussion of google numbers, a more relevent search would be for "1 Ceres" asteroid and Ceres asteroid, which returns numbers of 96,000 vs. 376,000. If one then minuses the former number from the latter, then "Ceres" is still well ahead. It should also be noted that a vast number of the "1 Ceres" hits are actually derived from this Wikipedia article. "Ceres (dwarf planet)" is obviously not going to have many google hits because it also isn't the name of the object. "Ceres" is the name. The main reason behind using common-names above systematic-names is that the general public will have no understanding of the systematic-names. Is there a 3 Ceres? Why is the "1" there? And other such confusing questions spring to mind. Ceres (dwarf planet) is instantly understandable — a dwarf planet named Ceres. aLii 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  This is 1 Ceres because there is Ceres, New York, Ceres (mythology), and several others. For this, the 1 is the disambiguation, and because it is the first minor planet in the minor planet catalog. As RandomCritic said, this is a renaming for the sake of renaming. 134340 Pluto is long and ugly, as was 136199 Eris. For this page the 1 disambiguates it from the other Ceres' on Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  But it isnt clear that the designation "1" isn't part of the name. Unlike "(dwarf planet)", where it is clear. Also, it makes sense that the same disambiguator, when one is needed, is used for the same class of objects. The Enlightened 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Technically, it is part of a name - this is more akin to using Aradopsis thaliana to disambiguate it from other species, instead of Arabidopsis (model organism) to emphasise that it's a model organism in botany. This is, of course, a somewhat unfair example, but it's hard to think of direct comparisons.

  Actually it's not, its just a convention of listing the numerical designation next to asteroids, centaurs and TNOs in the first mention of a paper. This helps scientists look up random objects when theyre referred to as the minor planet catalogues are usually by number. However, these objects are now classed as dwarf planets, and are a heck of a lot more significant than minor planets in general. If we check media usage (even in astronomical media) since the 2006 resolutions, its clear this convention is, on the whole, no longer being used for dwarf planets. The Enlightened 02:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Let me ask, yes I know this falls a bit into the realm of the wierd a bit, would you prefer to go by you ID# or your name? Since a user "name" is used, I must assume a name is preferred. But on the off chance some prefer being called by a catalogue number I will endevor to find an appropriate number to affix to those persons names whenever I have future need to refer to them. Abyssoft 00:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  You failed to address my points. I know that there is an argument for using 1 Ceres for disambiguation purposes, but I feel that it is a poor choice. I know why the "1" is there, but most wouldn't, and then confusion is generated over "so what is the name?" and "what is that number?" etc.. This confusion is also seen in a lot of the opposing arguments here. Also if one is to be picky about how the MPC designation should be used, then it should be in parentheses, i.e. (1) Ceres and not 1 Ceres, rendering the current title incorrect in any case. aLii 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Come on - the "1" is explained in the first sentence of the article. "Ceres, officially designated 1 Ceres, ..." I think you're insulting the average reader's intelligence if you think that they wouldn't understand that... Richard B 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  That doesn't actually explain anything, it just states something. After having read it I'd still have no idea what that number was for or what it meant, but I might well be confused into thinking that 1 Ceres is the official name of the body, which it is not. aLii 07:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  The real issue is which is more important: Ceres as an object with an MPC# of 1, or Ceres as a dwarf planet. The community consensus is that the dwarf planet status is more important and notable than the MPC#. --EMS | Talk 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  But it's a dwarf planet with the MPC# of 1 which is a hell of a lot better than Pluto which is a dwarf planet with MPC# 134340 or Eris with MPC# 136199. As I've been saying, 1 disambiguates here. Also, if we go by google, "Ceres+asteroid" gets 380k hits, "1 Ceres+asteroid" gets 310k hits (only slightly smaller on a google scale), and "Ceres+'dwarf planet'" gets none, nor does "1 Ceres+'dwarf planet'". Ryūlóng 01:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  As a point of note, the "+" function is not used by google. This can be shown by the fact that there are plenty of pages which contain "dwarf planet" and "ceres". The Enlightened 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Google all you want. This is about how the Wikipedia community will disambiguate this object given its new status as a dwarf planet. BTW - I found 98,000 hits in a google search of 'Ceres + "dwarf planet" '. --EMS | Talk 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support add a MPC field on the template for the dwarf planets, ban these numbers from the text. --Pedro 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  ...I'm not even sure that's practical. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Making a new field in a template for three pages is definitely practical. I don't see why you're trying these bizarre scare-mongering tactics. aLii 07:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Woah woah woah woah woah... Woah. WP:CIVIL please. Ryūlóng 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

...Yes, it COULD be added to the template only, but to remove the number, used at least once in all or nearly all scientific papers on the subject to a sidebox alone? This is an encyclopedia. We can't remove information just because of a random dislike for it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the designation isn't important enough for such a prominent class of objects to be listed in the title, but it should be mentioned once in the introduction, although isn't needed in the rest of the text. The Enlightened 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Having numbers only makes sense to me for asteroids, not for dwarf planets. —Nightstallion (?) 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, this object has only been a dwarf planet for a month. Why would its sudden departure from being considered an asteroid affect whether or not this article should omit the number 1 from the page title in favor of "(dwarf planet)"? Ryūlóng 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  I don't want to speak for Nightstallion, but probably because there are ten of thousands of asteroids, and thus needs number to sort them, but only three dwarf planets (and at most likely to rise to twenty in the medium term).The Enlightened 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Leave it as it is. Stormscape 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Is there a reason for that?00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Ceres has been 1 Ceres for a while, whereas Pluto has only recently become 134340 Pluto. Quendus 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ceres has been Ceres all the way. My paper encyclopedia article about Ceres even does not mention "(1) Ceres" designation.--Nixer 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose parenthetical disambiguation is unnecessary when the official name works just as well. Eluchil404 03:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean "Ceres"? The article isn't going there. --Yath 05:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Im fairly certain he means "1 Ceres" -- Nbound 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • He probably does. This is the problem - people think 1 Ceres is the official name, when it isn't. The article also starts "officially designated 1 Ceres", when it isn't. It's time these errors were corrected. --Cuddlyopedia 06:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • ...You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? If you're correct, show us a cite. A Minor Planet Centre or IAU ruling is fine. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually I do. As well as the reference Enlightened gives below, I'll refer you to the [2], in particular: "the Minor Planet receives a permanent designation - number issued sequentially by the Minor Planet Center, for example (433), (4179) or (50000)." --Cuddlyopedia 07:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
          • See [3]: "Enter either a minor-planet number, name or combination of number and name in one of the following forms:

(433)

Eros

(433) Eros"

This is clear that 433 is the number, and Eros is the name. The combination is the number and name. The Enlightened 13:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's semantics, though. The simple fact is that 1 Ceres is used as a name in scientific papers, but when dividing it into parts saying one half is a number, the other a name is instantly clear as to what is being referred to, and is a lot easier to say than "The part of the name which is a name of another thing". It doesn't change its usage. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not semantics though. The name is "Ceres". The IAU said this about Pluto when the number was assigned "There is no intention of changing the name. The number assigned is just for tables." The object will always be referred to as "Ceres" by astronomers in speech, media usage and in scientific papers. There simply is a convention of using the number once by the name in papers so the reader can look up the object in minor planet tables and catalogues. The Enlightened 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have a cite for that? It's not I don't believe they said it, but it'd be useful to know if they meant the statement to apply just to Pluto, or in general, and how official the utterance is. That said, I still prefer a term that is used - in whatever form - to one we make up. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's here: [4]. No indication on whether it applies to all dwarf planets, but the IAU wouldn't want to be inconsistent would they? SteveRwanda 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the journalist is making the same mistake as some wikipedia editors. I mean, look at the title of the article. "Pluto Gets New Name" - sigh. --Yath 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh - I didn't even notice that :) Its title says one thing and the quote inside says another. D'oh!

Oh, and "Pluto is now just a number" too - can I suggest we move Pluto to 134340? SteveRwanda 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not "making up" a term any more than we are for having "Mercury (planet)". We're simply following the pre-existing wikipedia practice of listing articles which share names with the type of thing it is in brackets after the name. Plus, while remembering the crystal ball policy, Ceres could well get listed in another catalogue for dwarf planets or "inner" dwarf planets with another number. It seems silly to set in concrete its minor planet number when it is commonly accepted that its dwarf planet status is more significant.

Oh, and today's science headline on the BBC site: Fresh look at dwarf planet Ceres - The MPC designation isn't even mentioned once in the article. The Enlightened 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Any mention of Ceres I've seen in the media (scientific and popular)in the last month has consistently been Ceres, and the digit "1" has not been mentioned in most article, and only once in others. Nfitz 20:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support There was a talk page notice directing people from this page to the poll. Bluap 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose! The real name is Ceres! Since we need to disambiguate, the rule stated in all naming conventions "most common used name should be article name" (in a nutshell) must apply. That clearly is 1 Ceres and nothing else. Awolf002 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Just to make things clear; you clearly say that the real name is Ceres, and quote the naming convention saying that such a name should be used as the article title. You then say that clearly 1 Ceres should be used, which is contradicting yourself isn't it? I think I understand what you meant, but you didn't articulate it very well :) aLii 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well. Please read the 'since' text, too. Ceres is a DA article for very good reason, so we need to disambiguate the article's name. The most used replacement name for Ceres then is 1 Ceres. All the discussions here seem to show this as true, and so I concluded how to vote. Awolf002 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ceres (dwarf planet) disambiguate plenty enough. The most common name is Ceres. Not 1 Ceres. Have you ever had a conversation with someone who said "Yes you know this astronomical object, 1 Ceres?". No. Never. The average American or Canadian (w00t) doesn't speak like this AT ALL! The most common name is the name used by most people in a conversation, or on the news for exemple. On the news, they're not going to say 1 Ceres. They will say Ceres, that dwarf planet. --Deenoe 10:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support and make it a naming convention and lets not hear again about this debate ANYMORE! :) --Deenoe 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, since, after all, a vote has been taken at the Dwarf Planet page, and the proposal was in the majority. While 1 Ceres may be asy to remember, consistency is important. JamesFox 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Consensus is by discussion, not voting or a majority - and if consistency is an issue, then why did we move Eris away from "number name"? Pluto will not likely ever be consistent.Richard B 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, but when there are a large number of editors participating, a consensus hasn't been reached after lengthy discussion, and the minority refuses to relent, a supermajority of between 60% to 80% is acceptable. Otherwise one editor could single-handedly prevent any progress on an article. The Enlightened 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  While votes may not be binding, if you feel that these polls are to be ignored, then there is no reason to hold them. As for consistency, I feel that "name (dwarf planet)" is better than "number name" for all of the dwarf planets: it is easier to remember, while being just as consistent. At the same time, it groups objects that have been classified as dwarf planets, which I think is better than treating them as just a few scattered members of a grouping with hundreds of thousands of members. JamesFox 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support For reasons already mentioned; it is not merely a matter of the page heading, but of how the name appears in listings like: List_of_solar_system_objects_by_radius. The numbers are clutter. Montalto 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Er, you realise it wouldn't affect any of the other numbered objects on the table, though, right? And might not even affect Ceres. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• About the other numbered objects, I realize that. I can only hope that Ixion, Sedna, Quaoar et cetera will be admitted as dwarf planets someday, thereby cleaning up the list. Anyway I can't imagine why the disambiguating numerals are required in such rankings, as very few readers would suppose that mythological deities are mingled with celestial orbs on the same list. Montalto 05:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, definition that makes the most sense. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Current Tally

25 for, 12 against as of 11/10/2006

Um, I'm not sure you're supposed to do tallies. Seem to recall it's considered rude for some reason - don't ask me why, and I could be wrong. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. can't find where I got that from. Still, I wouldn't take a tally yet: Gets out of date so very quickly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me: When should we actually close the vote? In a week? In a few days? When no new votes have been added for a day or two? The instant it supports my side? I vote for Monday, to give everyone a chance to vote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is up to us editors to close. An admin should get around to looking at this requested move given enough time, and then either move the article or not. At this time the move talk would be effectively closed. aLii 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, its up to an admin, but next Monday sounds like a sensible date to me. Ten days sounds like a sensible length of time. Unless, of course, votes are still coming in. In which case it makes sense to give it longer. The Enlightened 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ten days sounds reasonable to me ... generally a week or so is normal. Polls been running for 4 days already, but with the holiday weekend here, this is the first glance I've had at Wikipedia in 5 days! Nfitz 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I find next Monday as a closing date most agreeable; might I also interject a further time constraint of at least 12 hrs of lapse between close and last posting of position. Abyssoft 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Note

I do wish that people hadn't gone around asking for others to come in to vote, but phrasing it in a very pro-motion format. It's somewhat biasing of the results, even if - as I do fully believe - it was done in good faith. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The notes on the Pluto and Eris talk pages seem fairly neutral to me. --144.32.196.4 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments SteveRwanda 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This poll is controversial: the option being voted on was changed after proposal Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be voting at all without a discussion first. To kick things off:

Right. Here's how I see the rationale for each possibility:

• Ceres: Presumes goddess less notable than dwarf planet. She appears to be slightly so: ghits for Ceres goddess (943,000) and Ceres planet (1,450,000) are near enough (Ceres asteroid is relatively tiny, adding a mere 100,000 unique additions (397,000 for it, of which 297,000 show up in Ceres asteroid planet)) that I'd suggest that a disambiguation page is more appropriate: It's just not overwhelmingly unique. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ceres (dwarf planet): Gives prominence to its new status. It's hard to see any further reason for it than this: It's certainly not easier to find.

• 1 Ceres: Traditional, in use name useful for disambiguation. Keeps it in line with other former planets discovered in that period (2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta) Since it has to be disambiguated if my arguement for not-Ceres is accepted, it seems more useful to me to use a name that might actually be searched for than a Wiki-creation, and that, well, is an actual name for it.

Surely it makes sense to class it with objects which share a present status, rather than those that share a former status? The Enlightened 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In short, in my opinion, if it can't be moved to Ceres, it is better in 1 Ceres. Certainly, wikilinks ALLOW us to shift people around, but the decision seems to me to come down to which is more in use, and "1 Ceres"'s 340,000 ghits is a lot more than "Ceres (dwarf planet)"'s 47. Can anyone make a better case for the other two options? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I hate myself, but: Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming One last poll. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Consistent Nomenclature. Dwarf Planet is the new standard for defining objects such as 1 Ceres. There should be a consistant naming for Pluto, Eris, & Ceres. Saying that it has less in common with X is original research. "We don't make the news, we report it." By refusing to associate Ceres with its Dwarf Planet kin, we are saying that our opinion overrides the IAU's, which is incorrect, IMO. Hopquick 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, it was discussed on here (in the archive) and we conceded that we needed one place to discuss it, which was in the dwarf_planet/naming discussion. Read please!!!! Hopquick 13:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the major problem with the dwarf planet naming discussion was bringing in the very high-tension topic of Pluto, and note the polls were hardly exclusive: keeping Pluto where it was with Ceres and Eris to their numbers was not one of the options, I believe. This means that the results were skewed away from the possibility of numbering Ceres and Eris simply because Pluto is such a hot topic at present.

In short, Pluto was skewing the debate horribly, and whilst we should try to get consistancy between Eris and Ceres, the results of the Dwarf Planet naming page, a series of badly-done polls without significant discussion between them or even as to what should be on the polls, is largely irrelevant, in my opinion. May I suggest a liasement with Eris, with no polls allowed? I suspect that once we get away from the emotional Pluto, something satisfactory to all can be arranged.

And, if there is consensus for (dwarf planet) after discussion, I will, of course, give way. But please no more making a poll every two-three days. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify briefly: The reason I feel that poll is irrelevant is that it only gave the possibility of Pluto staying at pluto if the other dwarf planets were disambiguated by (dwarf planet). What I consider the more sensible disambiguation by notability, number, was not included as an option, and, as such, all it really shows is that Pluto should be left alone. The other option was not given. As such, given the intense feeling about Pluto, it can hardly be considered an unbiased poll. Should we have one more poll? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

This is not just about Pluto. The community voted exclusively on the Eris issue at Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 3#Requsted Move and voted 56:21 in favour of Eris (dwarf planet). Likewise a majority of 22:11 voted in favour of a consistent naming scheme involving either Name or Name (dwarf planet) at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. The community is clearly in favour of this move, but it seems like the Option 5 people are trying to steam roller their way into no action being taken by wearing people out with discussion after discussion. SteveRwanda 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am clearly not going for no action. I accept hthe poll shows that a consistant naming scheme was desired, and that it should leave Pluto where it is for now. However, since only one of the two options that fulfiled those possibilities were offered, we can't consider which one decided upon. One final, two-option straw poll should settle it once and for all, and I just ask that we wait long enough to make sure everything WAS considered. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not cry "stop, stop, I was not asked!". If there were people who considered other options more suitable, they would have added these options (just like the two additional options were added by those who were dissapointed by the existing ones).--Nixer 15:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

...I'd appreciate not being belittled for having a differing opinion to yours, and asking that we discuss why we hold our opinions before we take action. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times.--Nixer 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me one example of where it was that did not frame it in terms that if 1 Ceres and 136199 Eris were used, Pluto must be 134340 Pluto? Because that artificial connection really was skewing the discussion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Everytime that I've argued the points I've used Ceres and Eris, not Pluto. Anyway it's quite irrelevent as they are all dwarf planets now, and should be considered together. To say otherwise is to be disingenuous. The above "survey" is not needed either, as all the interested parties have already had their say on Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. aLii 15:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case an administrator needs to go ahead and make the move (preferably one not involved in the debate so it's seen to be transparent). I listed it in WP:RM because there's no other way for me to speedy this process along. Cheers — SteveRwanda 16:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that attempting to engage in good-faith discussion is meeting only with refusals to talk, and saying it's over, in the middle of a DISCUSSION TO SEE IF THERE'S CONSENSUS. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion lasted for more than a month and all parties had opportunity to express their views. It this point we already know that there IS consensus.--Nixer 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you had ample opportunity to bring up such points and to add your own options when the poll was open. If we have a perpetual debate with every new user that comes along nothing would ever move forward on wikipedia. Personally, I wanted to go with (astronomy) rather than (dwarf planet) but I moved my vote as I just wanted a co-ordinated policy. The Enlightened 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Every single section after the poll closed is an arguement over whether there's consensus. That's hardly proof there is consensus, is it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Two of those were started by you. The other was merely pointing out that a majority vote doesn't necesarily equal concensus, but as your entrenched position shows no 100% concensus will ever be found on this issue, and so sadly it's as good as we're going to get. aLii 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arr, as I said, I relent. Got stubborn, I did. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been decided? Can't someone just be WP:Bold and do it?Hopquick 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, general users can move articles to an unused name, but not over an existing page. The move war of a while ago means that Ceres (dwarf planet) exists, so an aministrator has to dso it or bad things happen involving loss of page history, talk page detachment, etc. 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It has not been decided. This RM has only been open for less than 24 hours and there are still others in the community who have not had their say in the matter. Ryūlóng 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I realize that this move is being requested for means of uniformity, but that is only uniformity with two other pages, Pluto and Eris (dwarf planet). Just like those two objects are still a plutino and a Kuiper belt object, respectively, 1 Ceres is still an asteroid like every single object listed here: List of asteroids/1–1000, List of asteroids/1001–2000, etc. To move 1 Ceres just because it is also a dwarf planet when it is still an asteroid is why I am opposing this now. Ryūlóng 02:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceres is no longer an asteroid, as has been stated by the IAU. [1] --Algorithm 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I watched part of that, but is he really someone to believe about this? It's someone with a video podcast, and that's about it. Ryūlóng 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Crap, sorry; my clipboard's been acting strangely. Here's the IAU link: [5] --Algorithm 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And even if it isn't an asteroid anymore, it's still the first object listed in the catalog for asteroids, minor planets, etc. Ryūlóng 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceres remains a minor planet and its MPC designation remains 1 Ceres. Even so, I read the result at talk:Dwarf planet/Naming as meaning that the community feels that being a dwarf planet is more important than its being a minor planet. So even though I personally prefer the MPC designation, I figure that we should go with it here. IMO, a decision has been made, and at this time it is best to support it. --EMS | Talk 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just prefer that 1 Ceres be left; the 1 serves as a disambiguator here, not "(dwarf planet)" or "(asteroid)" or anything else. If you do not support the decision at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming, then by no means are you obligated to support it here because that last poll ended and the option you disagree with was determined by a majority vote. EMS, if you don't want this page moved, either change your argument to state that you oppose the move and say why. You don't have to agree with that consensus (I certainly don't). Ryūlóng 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is better for Wikipedia to work off of established decisions. This is a new decision, and I declared the "consensus" after all. Even though I personally disagree, I see no good reason to keep carrying on the same fight over and over and over again. Let this supermajority rule for now. If this turns out to be a bad decision, that will become obvious soon enough and the community will back off at that time. In the meantime, it is much better for the Wikipedia community to take this decision as see where it leads. So I counsel you to stop campaigning for a lost cause, join the consensus, put your energies into more productive activities, and be prepared to revisit this issue in a few months. --EMS | Talk 04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's still a decision that has to pass here. Should others disagree with the decision, then so be it. This "uniformity in disambiguation" stuff is really unnecessary. Just so long as someone gets to the right article and gets the information they're looking for. Ryūlóng 11:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 1 Ceres is not the MPC designation, only the number is the designation. The format 'designation name' (actually formally '(designation) name'), is how such objects are recommended to be cited in the scientific literature etc. --Cuddlyopedia 09:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is not scientific literature? Ryūlóng 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No encyclopedia is. 'The scientific literature' is peer-reviewed papers, theses etc., wherein science is actually being carried out. I would stress that I have no objection to people using 1 Ceres, so long as they don't describe that form as either the name or the designation, which it isn't. --Cuddlyopedia 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone get the point that the discussion at talk:Dwarf_planet/naming was to meet the need of this page? It had nothing to do with the "Dwarf planet" article and everything to do with THIS article, plus Pluto and Eris. I strongly support the consensus, even though I was originally a fan of adding a number to Pluto and Eris' name instead. Can't we all just get along? Hopquick 17:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Currently we're at 17/24 for the move or 71% support 29% against. Hopquick 17:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  Some people insist on fighting things every step of the way. The Enlightened 23:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  You do not have to agree with what went on there. I certainly don't. Ryūlóng 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  *Shrug*. As much as anything else that poll was a guage of how the community would react to suggestions such as this one. The Eris move was approved by a 5:2 margin. The convention that calls for this move was approved by 9:4 margin (but have reason to believe that a simple for-against vote would be approved by a 5:2 margin), and this poll is running 5:2 in favor. The "(dwarf planet)" suffix is what the community wants for the purpose of disambiguating dwarf planets, and that is that. --EMS | Talk 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  But you are also a part of the community; and if you don't feel that the disambiguation of "(dwarf planet)" isn't necessary, oppose the move. This is why I wanted everything to be on a case-by-case basis. Here, "1 Ceres" provides the disambiguation better than "Ceres (dwarf planet)". Ryūlóng 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  It is totally appropriate to defer to an indicated consensus in a case like this. That is often how things get done here. Now when the naming issue itself is next reconsidered, I will proabably support the use of MPC#s at that time, but we are talking at least a few months into the future. [Any reconsideration at this time will be met by chorus of people (including myself) saying that it is too soon to reconsider the overall decision.] In the meantime, I am choosing to work with people here instead of continuing to fight this battle. --EMS | Talk 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, and that's how all good wikipedians should act. Clearly if everyone always stuck to their original position consensus would hardly ever be met and there would be a huge bias towards maintaining the status quo. The idea of consensus really assumes that people who know their views are clearly going against the grain will relent for the sake of the wikipedia. The Enlightened 13:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we then agree to reconsider the renaming later, while conceding to move in the short term? Hopquick 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried at a few of the reasons being given: Some are a bit strange, but if the voting is strongly enough in favour, it may as well move for now. I'd feel better about a 2/3rds vote, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to make this debate the very last one, and then integrate this in the naming convention, even if it is already there. (IE: Use common names). Does anyone in real life will refer to Ceres as 1 Ceres or to Eris as 137284 Eris (YES, I know it's not the real number). NO. 90% don't even know what the number is for, even I don't. --Deenoe 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, a consensus was achieved at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. Can we get over this now? --Deenoe 22:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A majority vote is not a consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ryūlóng 22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't only a majority. There was a consensus for Eris, one for Dwarf Planet naming... --Deenoe 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus at Talk:Eris (dwarf planet) but a majority vote at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. Ryūlóng 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cause more people participated in the debate on Eris than on Dwarf planet. Dwarf planet's debate was pretty hard to find. Eris should of been our guideline for all dwarf planets, including this one. If we go to name a dwarf planet a certain way, we should the same with all of them. --Deenoe 10:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please remember, 1 Ceres is not the official name. Ceres is the official name, 1 Ceres is joining the MPC Number with the official name. I've seen a lot of the argument "hits". That's because on website (like in the article), they mention (1) Ceres, or 1 Ceres as what scientific magazines refer to. It's normal to have 1 Ceres in the article, but not in the title that's for sure. --Deenoe 10:32, 13 October 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.