Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

I've adjusted the references accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy 04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

does it stay now 1 Pallas, 2 Juno, 3 Vesta ... ??--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's still 1 Ceres in the Minor Planets catalog. Ryūlóng 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, a new categorization scheme is currently being made due to Dwarf planets. --Pedro 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but they're not going to make all 100k+ objects on their list jump up three spaces due to Ceres, Pluto, and Eris, are they? Ryūlóng 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The record will continue to be 1 Ceres, 2 Vesta, etc. This is why Pluto was assigned a number. If Ceres should be called an asteroid, Pluto a plutino, and Eris a scattered disc object instead of dwarf planets is a matter of predecence: do physical properties dominate over crossing a threshold of approximation to hydrostatic equilibrium. Michaelbusch 23:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What I find irritating (and this is as a layperson) is the IAU's apparent lack of preparation for the ramifications of such a major change. Now, I'll state (just to be clear) that I have no problem with recategorizing Pluto et al. Our understanding of science is, and should be, ever-changing; I'm not married to the notion of calling Pluto a "planet", nor do I consider it any less significant just because it has been recategorized. What bothers me is that there doesn't seem to be a coherent plan for what to call everything in the "new" solar system. Using "minor planet" is OK - but "SSSB" is preferred. "Asteroid" is interchangeable with "minor planet" - or is it? Do we even use the term "asteroid" any more for anything? Pluto and Eris are on the minor planet list - but explanations as to "why" are vague at best. The circular about Pluto and Eris' numbering makes it sound as if they received numbers because Ceres already had one; we're left to wonder what would have happened if Ceres wasn't in that catalogue. I can only imagine how frustrating this situation is for Michael and others who are actually in the field. --Ckatzchatspy 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Dwarf planets and SSSBs are both minor planets, hence their being entered into the minor planet catalog (or in the case of Ceres being retained in it). I will agree with those who feel that the IAU was not prepared for the consequences of this move, but what to you expect of a compromise forged in the days before the vote was taken? For now, we need to deal with this as best we can. --EMS | Talk 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • our discussions in wikipedia are because of their ineptitude. At least Ceres is now seen as a different thing when compared to Eros or Ida. And that's good. IMO, "plutino" or "Cubewano" are just useless slang. -Pedro 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • They describe certain orbital resonances after neptune -- Nbound 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know, but I would prefer to describe those resonances. "Pluto is a plutino" - seems silly and empty. "Pluto has 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune" - much better; there's content -> it is useful. If Ceres is removed from that catalogue all asteroid/transneptunian numbers will change, that would create a colossal confusion. O.O they have a good knot in their hands. --Pedro 02:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    whilst saying "Pluto is a plutino" seems silly, saying something like "Pluto is the prototype of a group of objects termed plutinos, which have 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune." is more useful. Richard B 08:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    I prefer richards method, it gets the info across and informs the reader of what a plutino is, if they see it elsewhere... -- Nbound 08:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    I thought they were still Pluto prototypes. Ryūlóng 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope that is yet another category... plutino has been used for objects in 2:3 resonance for a while now
    Yeah, although when Pluto still had planetary status it wasn't counted as a plutino. Plutino actually means "little Pluto". I don't know how its counted now. I'm also not sure whether the "class of objects" Pluto is a prototype for only counts future TNO dwarf planets, or counts all icy bodies beyond Neptune. I wonder perhaps if the IAU is trying to create a nicer name for TNOs, as "asteroid" is used for Martian-Jovian objects. The Enlightened 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceres is still the largest asteroid even though Ceres is also a 'dwarf planet'. Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) even though it is also a 'dwarf planet'. -- Kevin Heider 10/12/2006

Kevin Heider is right. Ceres is still considered an asteroid, as well as Pluto and Eris are considered TNOs. SSSBs include most asteroids and most TNOs. The word 'most' was inserted to the wording because not all asteroids and TNOs are SSSBs (because some of them are dwarf planets). The Q&A is simply wrong in this. Just scrub "(or now we can say it was)" and it is right again.--JyriL talk 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You should also note that the IAU gave definitions only to planets, dwarf planets, and Small Solar System Bodies. The terms 'asteroid' and 'minor planet' remain undefined (but unlike in the original definition draft, the terms will stay). Nothing precludes dwarf planets from being minor planets (i.e. asteroids or TNOs). There are several objects in the Solar system which belong to two different class of objects (see for example 2060 Chiron).--JyriL talk 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, we have nothing to positively confirm either position, other than speculation. You claim the Q&A is wrong, if we "scrub" some of the text - but it was published by the IAU, which makes these decisions. Who are we to speculate as to what they are thinking? For that matter, what empowers the editors at Wikipedia to pick and choose what we like in the IAU's published document, saying that "most" stays while "or now we can say it was" goes? Unfortunately, in this post-definition world, we've got a bit of a mess on our hands as editors. Can we find a citation from the IAU dated after August 24th that states clearly and categorically:
  • that Ceres is a dwarf planet? Yes.
  • that Ceres is not an asteroid? Definitive - no; vaguely, yes, in the Q&A. (Also in some news reports)
  • that Ceres is still an asteroid? Haven't seen anything definitive from the IAU.
If there is anything definitive that states Ceres is an asteroid, and that was created or modified after August 24th, please post it. I complained about this lack of information a few weeks ago, and it still annoys me how unprepared the IAU seems to have been for a decision of this magnitude. It's interesting to look at this version of the Q&A for what things would have been like if the original resolution had passed. It seems to make more of an case for the "IAU considers Ceres not an asteroid" perspective. --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JyriL, I've restored the text about Ceres' asteroid status that you removed, and reworded it to state that the status as an asteroid is unclear. I think this is a fair compromise, given the lack of information available for both positions. --Ckatzchatspy 09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a satisfactory compromise for now. But to make bold claims (i.e. Ceres not being an asteroid) based on a poorly worded Q&A (a text comparable to press releases) is not acceptable in my opinion. I don't know who has written the text but it is no way "official" but to make things clearer to the public (where it fails miserably). Is there any other IAU text that mentions dwarf planets cannot be asteroids? The editorial notice[1] from the MPC does not make it clear if dwarf planets could be considered minor planets, but it does mention that dual designations are possible. Finally, I'd like to know what asteroids and TNOs are not SSSBs if not the dwarf planets?--JyriL talk 10:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest as a compromise that instead of "nth largest asteroid" you write "nth largest asteroid belt member", "one of the largest asteroids" etc.--JyriL talk 10:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a wonderful compromise, until further clarity can be obtained from all vested parties. Abyssoft 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and there are all sorts of ways to be deliberatly vague about the "asteroidishness" (sic) of Ceres, such as describing Vesta as an asteroid, but using "the second largest object in the asteroid belt" when we describe size. Again, it's a problem with the lack of information in all aspects of this matter. There's uncertainty as to whether or not Pluto/Ceres/Eris are minor planets - yes, they're in the catalogue, but the MPC said they were added because Ceres was already in there. What would have happened if Ceres wasn't numbered? What about the older FAQ, which indicated a desire to eliminate the term "minor planet"? The current FAQ uses the vague term "most" - but doesn't specify whether they meant "most of what we used to call asteroids and TNOs, but now recategorize as SSSBs" or "most of the asteroids and TNOs, but not the asteroids and TNOs that are also dwarf planets." Even the term "asteroid" is unclear - some lists talk about asteroids as inner system objects, while others list outer system objects (including Pluto and Eris!) as asteroids. My apologies for perhaps being a bit hasty on this (I posted the FAQ information originally) - it does seem to indicate a direction for the IAU, but one that is not solidly verifiable as of yet. --Ckatzchatspy 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, by the way, I wanted to state that I don't really care either way (no Vesta-ed interests...) If the IAU defines Ceres as an asteroid, fine, if it doesn't, that's also fine. My only interest is in being as accurate as possible (based on facts, not speculation), so that when I use a term, I can be confident that I'm using it correctly. --Ckatzchatspy 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW. After this, does Ceres qualify as a G-type asteroid? Today everyone knows that Ceres is not an undifferentiated body as we use to think. Stating that it is a G-type seems rather missleading to a celestial body as complex as this. What do you think? --Pedro 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note

"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)

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)
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)

Hmm. I wonder if it's worth making a box at the top of this page listing parts of this article that could change rapidly ove rthe next few months? Adam Cuerden talk 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ceres is the smallest dwarf planet, we dont need the "designed" word. 1st) Dwarf planet is a category created by man 2nd) it is unlikely that smaller celestial bodies may be declared as such. Vesta has roundness issues 3rd) don't speculate in the lead section. Ceres the smallest; Eris the largest (the end).--Pedro 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    It says "recognized" at the moment, not "designed". That seems good enough for me. Not sure about Vesta, but apparently 2005 FY9, 2003 EL61 and Sedna are strong contenders to become dwarf planets sometime soon... SteveRwanda 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbols

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)

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)
It looks good to me now, with the symbols readded to the body. Thanks Osgoodelawyer. --Aranae 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I just decided to be bold and reword the opening paragraph to make it less ambiguous and more factual. Adam decided to revert me. So as to not get into a revert war I thought I'd discuss the matter here, and hopefully someone else other than me can put my words, or something similar, back.

My new wording was:

Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs) is the smallest recognized dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt. Its name is derived from the Roman goddess Ceres — the goddess of growing plants and of motherly love. It was discovered on January 1, 1801, by Giuseppe Piazzi. With a diameter of about 950 km, Ceres is by far the largest and most massive body in the asteroid belt, as it contains approximately a third of the belt's total mass. Due to its early discovery Ceres was categorized as minor planet 1 by the Minor Planet Center and in scientific literature the body is usually referred to as (1) Ceres — a combination of category number and name. Ceres' astronomical symbol is a sickle, usually depicted like one of the following: Old symbol of Ceres   Image:1 Ceres (1).png Sickle variant symbol of Ceres Other sickle variant symbol of Ceres.

I believe this is better because:

  1. You cannot be confused between the category number and the name so easily
  2. 1 Ceres is removed for the more correct (1) Ceres (go read any scientific paper if you disagree with this point)

I don't see any good reason for the previous wording:

Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), officially designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest recognized dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt.

Adam has at least bettered that slightly:

Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), officially 1 Ceres or (1) Ceres (after its order of discovery - see minor planet number) is the smallest recognized dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt.

However the "officially" wording is still misleading and the difference between category number and name is not explained. Also 1 Ceres is still used erroniously, and he's added a dead link (Edit: created a new page), where my previous link to the Minor Planet Center was surely good enough. Remember this ought to be understandable by a member of the general public. aLii 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

it is officially called 1 or (1) Ceres though... theres no ifs or buts about it... removing that would be misleading -- Nbound 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to reference such a claim? The Enlightened 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few links to the Minor planet number page. Here's one that mentions (1) Ceres, admittedly from 2000, that I didn't add.

I had always assumed that not writing the parentheses was simply the lazy way. Have you a citation from the MPC or IAU to dispute this? They always use () don't they? I am willing to accept that I could be wrong however. aLii 09:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Why not use:

Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), (MPC catalogue entry 1 Ceres or (1) Ceres) is the smallest recognized dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt.

This avoids the misleading "official name" and calls the number+name what it is: an MPC catalogue entry. -- Jordi·✆ 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement. aLii 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends. Might I suggest we quibble over this at Talk:Minor planet number? In any case, cracking open a few astronomy textbooks should quickly prove the point. Adam Cuerden talk 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The MPC Catalog Number is part of the official name, dont like that? get it changed elsewhere (ie. with the IAU/MPC). DO NOT make wikipedia your soapbox -- Nbound 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not though. "1" is the official numeric designation. "Ceres" is the official name. The only time they are generally used together is the first time the object is referred to in a scientific paper, where the number is listed so astronomers can look up the object in question. Everywhere else just the name ("Ceres") will be used. The Enlightened 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that it's an official name? I haven't seen one citation which explicitly says that. Rather, sources like this one: [2] indicate that the number (with a circle around it) is intended as a substitute for the sumbols used for other planets, so if 1 Ceres is the official name then so are Astronomical symbol of Jupiter Jupiter, Astronomical symbol for Saturn Saturn etc. SteveRwanda 11:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a long article, and it is easy to miss parts. It actually covers both objections: "Finally, the use of the numbers as part of a symbolic shorthand for the asteroid names appears to have lost its symbolism shortly after it was introduced." and "Cunningham (1988) asserts that the symbol of a number enclosed by a circle was the official designation for asteroids until 1931 when the current nomenclature of the number, sometimes enclosed in parentheses in paper titles and indices, followed by the name without a separating comma was adopted." (He then goes on to discuss whether this dating is accurate, but doesn't seem to disagree with the lack of parentheses, as he uses names without parentheses freely. Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the parentheses/no parentheses discussion aside for a moment (let's discuss at Talk:Minor planet number like Adam Cuerden suggested), is anyone opposed to my proposed intro text given above? I feel it is much better than the current text and still scientifically accurate. -- Jordi·✆ 13:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be quibbling slightly, but not terribly much - just wonder if it's a little more confusing as you have to click a link to get an explanation, instead of the, admittedly slightly less informative, "officially designated". However, I'd prefer a stronger phrasing at least so long as it's at 1 Ceres - as long as it IS the title, we have to explain in clearest terms why it's a valid title. If it's moved to Ceres (dwarf planet), this seems an acceptable compromise. Adam Cuerden talk 14:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, one more thought: Doesn't MPC Catalogue expand to "Minor Planet Catalogue Catalogue"? Adam Cuerden talk 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No, to "Minor Planet Center Catalogue". It is the MPC's catalogue. -- Jordi·✆ 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Point! Hmm. How's my current edit look? Tried to combine the two a bit. The trouble is that damn pronunciation key - overloads the first sentence a little. Adam Cuerden talk 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the current intro. It can stand even if Ceres is moved to Ceres (dwarf planet). The only question remains wether or not the parentheses form a part of the official designation or not. -- Jordi·✆ 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I question the need for the word "official" - the document above claims to have found no formal adoption of such notation beyond 1931 so it's not really official, just an often used convention. SteveRwanda 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
...Um... No, it says that the CIRCLED number was not in official usage after 1931. That's hardly the same thing. Adam Cuerden talk 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"however, I have not been able to find an official notice of the adoption of the present scheme of numbering asteroids" and again, further down, "I have not found any agreement codifying this". So it's de facto official but not officially official (or something!) Cheers — SteveRwanda 16:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. Still, it's what used by the official body, which makes it official for a given value of official - which is where I back away slowly, as this could give a headache if analysed too much. I think it's kind of a Manual of Style thing - everyone agrees up to a point that it should be used something like that in official papers, but different magazines adopt slightly different conventions, like with -ize/ise in otherwise British spellings, Harvard referencing vs. footnotes, etc. All agree you should use proper spelling and grammar, all agree you should reference your papers, all agree that formal scientific articles should use MPC numbers with the name of the asteroid thingie (at least once), but the exact details on a few points are left to house style. Adam Cuerden talk 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, though, I like "official" as it indicates that it's the result of a lengthy process led by the MPC, but as part of, "official MPC designation", clearly indicates this is the official MPC designation - e.g. what you should use when using MPC designations. Any suggestions on other ways to indicate that same sort of concept? (I'm afraid "MPC: (1) Ceres or 1 Ceres" doesn't work, as MPC doesn't stand for anything that really makes sense in that statement). Still, we are moving closer, I think? Adam Cuerden talk 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Now, here's a thought: should we make a page for discussing how best to explain MPC numbers to apply to all the major asteroids and dwarf planets? It seems to affect, well, all of them, so we might as well reach general consensus. Adam Cuerden talk 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think use of the word "official" is superfluous and borderline incorrect. Simply saying that the MPC catalogue number is 1, or that the MPC designation is (1) Ceres (etc.) is enough. It's almost like saying "Bernard Lovell, officially titled Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell". It is his title, and the most formal way of writing it, so one could say that it is "official" perhaps, but there is really no need to say so, and it then becomes dubious as to under what circumstances it is official, and who decided it. Is it incorrect therefore to use only "Bernard Lovell"? etc. etc. The word "official" really doesn't help at all. For example think about what is an unofficial designation? aLii 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

...Your logic is unanswerable. I have changed it.Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh... you still say "MPC designation 1 Ceres or (1) Ceres," which is the same as "officially titled Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell", youve just changed the wording... Id like to see the original kept... theres no other reason for by removing it your saying that only the MPC designate it as that... when in fact everyone does. Im reverting it back -- Nbound 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the term "official" is that it implies the designation "(1) Ceres" is more "official" than the name "Ceres", when of course its not. Although "everyone" (other than the media) uses the MPC designation, it still only has importance for the MPC catalogue. The best words would be : "Ceres, designated as (1) Ceres in the MPC catalogue,..." The official designation is (1) Ceres, but if said that way it needs to be clear that the official name is Ceres. The Enlightened 02:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"1 Ceres, colloquially refered to as Ceres" or something to that effect -- Nbound 03:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
After reading the new naming conventions seems im in the wrong please re-revert... i wasnt aware of the policay change =) -- Nbound
Rereading... its still proposed... not official... bah... i dont care anymore -- Nbound

It doesn't matter much. Let's just keep the three dwarf planets consistant in how it's phrased.

I'm afraid I don't like the new opening paragraph at all: It's highly confusing, making it sound like only the MPC ever uses that designation. Adam Cuerden talk 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How's my current revision? Adam Cuerden talk 09:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that leaps out at me is that MPC should be Minor Planet Center. Otherwise I've been fine with the last few versions of the opening. aLii 10:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! British! Adam Cuerden talk 10:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. What I actually meant though was that it should be shown as words, not an acronym! Literally "designated 1 Ceres or (1) Ceres by the Minor Planet Center". MPC won't mean anything to a non-expert - it's not exactly NASA. aLii 10:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely if there's a link to it through the acronym its easy enough for people to look up? 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be readable prose first, and a Wikilink second. The former is certainly more important. Why should one have to go to another article to find out what you're reading about in the current one? aLii 10:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not designated 1 Ceres by the MPC. The MPC, per the IAU, gave Ceres the designation 1. --Cuddlyopedia 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the MPC is involved in all aspects of minor planet naming, from numbers to approving proposed names. I'm afraid you are mistaken. Adam Cuerden talk 19:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither is true - Ceres was named in 1801/2, the numbering system seems to have developed from the mid-1860s (as a symbol), then evolving into the modern format with (number) towards the latter part of the 19th century. The International Astronomical Union was founded in 1919 - the Minor Planet Center in 1947. What is true is that the MPC does designate it (1) Ceres in their literature and catalogue. Richard B 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am right. Names of minor planets are approved by the Committee on Small-Body Nomenclature, not the MPC (see [3], [4] (at 4) and [5]). --Cuddlyopedia 06:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a spin-off of the MPC, though. Adam Cuerden talk 06:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but in the present tense, the Minor Planet Center is responsible for all such things. So... What IS a good way of describing it? Adam Cuerden talk 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally think "designated" is better than "listed". "Listed" sounds so weak its like its just the number it happens to be alongside in the catalogue. It needs to be more clear it is an important designation, if not the name, and obviously the word "designated" does that. The Enlightened 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Listed" is weak, I admit that. The problem is that designation has a particular meaning to the IAU (the number in brackets), and using the word 'designated' in its normal English meaning contradicts this technical usage, thus introducing ambiguity and error. If it comes to a choice between style and accuracy, Wikipedia should choose the latter. If I could think of a better synonym, I would use it. --Cuddlyopedia 06:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"formally designated"? Adam Cuerden talk 12:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to give my two cents: The link already given earlier seems to state: The number is a "permanent designation" assigned by the MPC, and the name is given separately. As also already pointed out, for Ceres this happened to be in the order of: First name and then designation. My suggestion is not to confuse the "designation" with (1) Ceres, it's just 1 if I read correctly. Awolf002 01:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at the talk page [Talk:Minor planet names|here]: In short, "permanent designation" does not appear to be used that way on any other page I can find. A search for '"permanent designation" minor planet' gives <1,600 hits, of which it seems most of them are either discussing completely different things, or using it to refer to the number name: With minor planets, the planet letter code is replaced by the minor planet number in parentheses. Thus, the moon of 87 Sylvia, discovered in 1998, was at first designated S/2001 (87) 1, later receiving its permanent designation of (87) Sylvia I Romulus. In short: it may be from them, but it's... terribly, awfullym oh-god-how-can-an-official-body-put-out-this-crap-ly written Adam Cuerden talk 12:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline

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)

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)
  • Strongly Support Just to make it clear...I strongly support coming into compliance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical_objects) and the decision we agreed to on talk:dwarf planet/Naming. Two people seem to be filibustering this whole process and preventing the will of the community from going forward. Do we concede to the naming convention article, and the 2:1 majority, or shall we drag our feet even longer? This is silly. Hopquick 17:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

GA status

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)

News from science

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

  • thx a lot for that. --Pedro 20:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New infared map of Ceres.

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)

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

Re: "Sometimes" in the lead

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)

We could put the MPC number in the infobox. --Yath 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
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)

Neither a paper encylcopedia nor NASA is the authority... we should be aiming for accuracy... - Nbound 09:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that all astronomers call it "1 Ceres".--Nixer 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

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

Herschel and the term "asteroid"

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)

Smallest dwarf planet

Shouldn't we say it is the smallest "known" dwarf planet or smallest "recognized" dwarf planet? It seems there are likely to be quite a few more dwarf planets in the solar system than the 3 currently recognized officially. And it seems likely that some of those may be smaller than Ceres. Kaldari 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is actually very unlikely. The only reason Ceres is called a dwarf planet despite its small size compared to Pluto and Eris is its high density. Almost all of the objects in the Kuiper Belt are ice rich, so they need to be larger to have sufficient gravity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbusch (talk • contribs)
I think it's the opposite. Rocky bodies require a lot more mass in order to pull themselves into a spheroid shape. Less dense snowballs have an easier time and gravity will pull them into a spheroid shape at a much smaller size. An icy KBO the size of Vesta would have fixed that irregular shape a long time ago. --Aranae 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Under the conditions in the Kuiper Belt, ice acts like rock does in the inner solar system (even at Titan, the 'bedrock' is water ice). The differences in strength are very small in comparision to the difference in density. Mike Brown estimates you need diameters in excess of 400 km to make KBOs that approximate hydrostatic equilibrium to any degree. This happens to be roughly the size of Vesta. Vesta is reasonably close to hydrostatisticy, but is not close enough be called a dwarf planet. To get as close to hydrostatic equilibrium as Ceres on an object with half the density would take something about 50% larger in radius. Michaelbusch 23:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting it from here. In particular, paragraph three. --Aranae 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Mike is indulging in order-of-magnitude physics in that article, by assuming Mimas' history matches that of KBOs. See the below in any case. Michaelbusch 03:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This point has been discussed several times, in the process of rewriting the lead sentences at Pluto, Eris, and here. The conclusion was that such language is speculative in that we are presuming to know the future actions of the IAU. The notion that there will probably be other dwarf planets designated in the future is covered in the bodies of all three article (if I remember correctly). The lead, however, should only deal with the current reality: there are three dwarf planets, and Ceres is the smallest of the three. (If you wish to read up on the discussions, check out the talk archives for each page. Sorry, but I don't know exactly which arcives they are in.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please give some links? May be we chould create Having round shape in addition to Clearing the Neighbourhood?--Nixer 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a section in Hydrostatic equilibrium which covers it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of term asteroid

I thought that Ceres was now a Dwarf Planet, and not an asteroid. --Deenoe 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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)