Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Minor planet number

2003 UB₃₁₃'s minor planet number is 136199.[1]--JyriL ^talk 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris

This dwarf planet has just received the name: Eris. [2] The moon was named Dysnomia. I suggest that the page is moved to Eris and Eris the goddess is moved to Eris (mythology).--JyriL ^talk 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice, i second the move, noone will keep refering to it by 2003UB313 :P - Nbound 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why anyone would be opposed to this. --Ctachme 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Eris to Eris (mythology), it wont let me move 2003UB313 for some reason... so if theres any admins around, can you please move the page :) -- Nbound 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The page is move protected...--JyriL ^talk 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The IAU Circular describing the naming is available to public: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf --JyriL ^talk 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection has been requested -- Nbound 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I just moved it. Here's a list of redirects to change [3] The Singing Badger 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll redirect Eris to here as well (thats where i thought we'd be moving to :P ) -- Nbound 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to remove the super/sub script thing about 2003 UB313, but it doesnt seem to have any code to remove :S -- Nbound 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that was fast :P -- Nbound 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really suspicious about this move. There is nothing in any major news site about the naming. Nor is there anything on the IAU's site. The website cited is a private astrophysics center. Not the IAU. I think this is a big hoax to be honest. 70.225.183.120 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From the Minor Planet Center: (134340) PLUTO, (136199) ERIS, AND (136199) ERIS I (DYSNOMIA)

"Following the Aug. 24 resolution by the IAU to the effect that the solar system contains eight \planets" (Mercury{Neptune), with (1) Ceres, Pluto (cf. IAUC 255), and 2003 UB313 (cf. IAUC 8577) to be considered representative \dwarf planets", the Minor Planet Center included Pluto and 2003 UB313 (along with two other new potential dwarf-planet candidates) in the standard catalogue of numbered objects with well-determined orbits as (134340) and (136199), respectively (see MPC 57525). Following near-unanimous acceptance by both the Committee on Small-Body Nomenclature and the Working Group on Planetary-System Nomenclature (in consultation with the discovery team), the IAU Executive Committee has now approved the names Eris for (136199) and Dysnomia for its satellite (136199) Eris I [formerly S/2005 (2003 UB313) 1; cf. IAUC 8610]."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now the question is, did they name it after the goddess, or did the discovery team have a lot of time on their hands to play games... (grin) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Now starting to appear in news: AP story at Fox News. DenisMoskowitz 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I find quite funny that the moon has the exact same name as this medical condition -- Nbound 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike has a good sense of humor. I suspect he named the things after strife and lawlessness because of all the controversy.Michaelbusch 00:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, for the body once named Xena to have a moon named "Lawless"-ness is a wonderful pun. DenisMoskowitz 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• At least it got a fine name, which has value (the Latin equivalent was not used like Uranus, as the Latin "Discordia" is a daily word, at least, in Portuguese/Spanish meaning "discord"), I disagree w/ Brown I think it will stick to people's heads promptly, and people will know why it was named like that. I dont believe Eris was named by him. Quaoar and Sedna are empty names and came from his mind, I think he knows nothing about mythology; he would not be capable to get this name from his head. --Pedro 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to acknowledge that once the "pun" Dysnomia=Lawlessness was made, a simple lookup of Dysnomia would have given Eris. As for Quaoar and Sedna being empty names, I suspect the Inuit and Tongva people would feel differently. -- Jordi·✆ 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• All mythologies are respectful and deserve our admiration. But let's not compare water with wine.--Pedro 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars

With today's announcement of the naming of Eris (the dwarf planet), there are two major public references to Eris. Given that Eris-related pages are getting jostled around, I'm suggesting that Eris be left as a disambiguation page. There are certainly strong arguments to be made for both mythology and astronomy fans with regards to claiming Eris, but a dab page seems to be the fairest approach to head off what would otherwise be an ongoing edit war. (This message appears on Eris, Eris (mythology), and 136199 Eris) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Above suggestion for avoiding discord now appears moot, as the folks at Eris (mythology) have promptly undone everything I just did. Again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case people typing Eris should easily get to this page, otherwise searching for 136199 Eris may be too difficult.--Nixer 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while I appreciate the effort, I wish you hadn't moved everything around again. The folks at Eris (mythology) are just going to move it back. This constant shuffling is precisely what I was hoping to avoid. Sigh... thanks though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, typing in 136199 Eris would be a pain. Plust many people would be wondering how to get to the Eris page because they don't know it's also called 136199. So ya I believe it should be somthing like Eris (astronomy) or just Eris. Caleb09 18:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

article name

See Pluto. It doesn't have the number in the name, and see here. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/special/08747.pdf

Now: or both have the number or they don't--TheFEARgod (listening) 08:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

At Pluto, the decision was to stay with the exisiting name ("Pluto"), as it reflected common usage. I don't think there's been sufficient time to have that discussion here. Based on what I've seen in the press, I highly suspect that the common usage for "136199 Eris" will simply be "Eris". However, given that there is Eris (dwarf planet) and Eris (goddess), the article is likely to stay here. The lead, however, can easily use both the common and proper names. (That's what I meant when I said "in line with Pluto"). Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

At Ceres the link goes to the god, with a disambihuation to the goddess. Considering that this is a larger and far closer dwarf planet, I think that Eris should follow this model. The Goddess Eris is far more refered to, especially in an allegorical manner, than Ceres.Moheroy 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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 moved. Discussion continues on other pages about overall naming conventions, but consensus of this poll is clear. Jonathunder 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Tuvas 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Object Absolutly not kocher. Tuvas can't close this, as he is biased, opposing the move. Furthermore, as the page had been from 2003 UB313 where it had been for sometime to 136199 Eris, which spawned this vote. So a no consensus decision, shouldn't default to staying at 136199 Eris, it should default to where the vast majority are supporting, which is Eris (dwarf planet); or should be moved back to 2003 UB313 until consensus is reached. Nfitz 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. but that makes no sense whatsoever. No consensus would mean stay with the existing page. There is no logical way you can argue that a lack of consensus means that we should go ahead and move the page anyways - or even worse, move it back to its provisional name. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If the page had been at 136199 Eris for more than a few hours before the move discussion was started, and a large majority of the votes are in favour of moving it to Eris (dwarf planet), but an impartial moderator declares there is no consensus - then leaving it at 136199 Eris would make sense. But in this case, the move to 136199 Eris occurred, and within hours, a discussion was started on what the page should be called, rather than starting an edit war of pages moves. Consensus was apparently reached, and the page was moved, and then moved back, because of the new discussions at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. Suddenly declaring now, that there is no consenus, and leaving at 136199 Eris, despite support about 2.5:1 in favour of Eris (dwarf planet) doesn't make sense to me (did that make any sense, or am I confusing even myself! :-) Nfitz 00:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have tried to close the debate, but I would much rather see it moved to the page on dwarf planets. A good number of the people who support the name change would also like to see it for all 3 dwarf planets. If you take also into account the differing opinions in this survey, even those who "support" the change of the name really want something different than Eris (dwarf planet). I just would have liked to have seen the discussion moved to the dwarf planet naming talk page, because it seems like it would have more affect there. Tuvas 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll just bring up Wikipedia is not a democracy here. Simple majority is not the primary concern here. Chaos syndrome 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

136199 Eris → Eris (dwarf planet)

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

Add any additional comments

Survey

Support

1. Support What's wrong with Eris (dwarf planet)? It seems less messy to me, and more consistent. BovineBeast 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Eris (dwarf planet) sounds good to me, too. Berek 09:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support then also to me--TheFEARgod (listening) 09:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   plus move Pluto and Ceres to name (dwarf planet)--TheFEARgod (listening) 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Support I dont thin k eris should be numbered, i dont think "dwarf planets" should be numbered, the press calls it sedna, varuna, qoaraor, ixion, etc they dont throw in the numbers they have been calling it the 10th planet or xena in the media until now and im pretty sure they call it eris following this pattern for the sake of simplicity drop the numberes. i say Eris (dwarf planet) Qrc2006 10:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support drop the number for all dwarf planets. keep it in the template though. --Pedro 10:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. The scientific papers on TNO typically use the number for the first time and drop it in the text after the first usage. MPC catalogue numbers are just that; catalogue numbers. When there’s no possibility of confusion, the numbers do nothing to improve readability. The very reason for names is to replace difficult to read difficult to read and error prone designations. There’s no reason for Wikipedia to be more pedantic that the scientific papers. Consistence with otherwise unnecessary rule is a weak argument in my opinion and could be dropped. I cannot see anything wrong with Eris (dwarf planet). Readability should take precedence over unnecessary pedantic rule in this case IMHO. Eurocommuter 11:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support We do not need numbers for dwarf planets.--Nixer 11:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. As an example of the point abuot dropping the number, the BBC reports that the planet is called "Eris" [4] . The number 136199 is not mentioned anywhere in the article. People will come to know Eris as Eris, and the number is effectively irrelevant. Mention it in the article by all means - it just doesn't need to be in the title. I would drop it for all dwarf planets, now that there's official recognition of that status by the IAU. Also, I agree with Eurocommuter - readability is more important than pedantry. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Who calls it by its numbers? Hardly anyone knows what 136199 means, so it's not a common name. --TinMan 11:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   But think about this, does anyone really call 4 Vesta by that name? Most people just say Vesta, but yet the Wikipedia article for Vesta is titled 4 Vesta. I think that is where we should look for consistency. Or should 4 Vesta be moved to Vesta (asteroid), or Vesta (Small Solar System Body)? --Volcanopele 03:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

10. Support. I also vote for moving Pluto and Ceres to [[Name (dwarf planet)]] by the way. Consistency! (And the numbers are ugly.) -- Jordi·✆ 12:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support This body will be referred to as Eris, not as 136199 Eris. No one will type "136199 Eris" into the search box or their wikipedia dashboard widget. I also agree that 1 Ceres should move to Ceres (dwarf planet). DenisMoskowitz 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    Noone is going to type "Eris (dwarf planet)" into their browser either. Eris will always redirect to Eris (disambiguation) after this. The question is what they will once they get to that page! In the meantime, I find it most appropriate that there is such discord over this issue :-).

12. Support as per all the points above. And drop the number in the article name for all the Dwarf Planets. Deuar 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - normally this article should be simply Eris but since there are other meanings, Eris (dwarf planet) is correct. SteveRwanda 15:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    "Eris (dwarf planet)" is a Wikipedianism. "136199 Eris" is an official designation and therefore presumably correct. Chaos syndrome 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

14. Support, although I would rather see the article moved to Eris. There is a danger that the term "dwarf planet" will not be widely used which may lead to neglecting of these fascinating objects. Therefore we should help the situation by making a clear difference between dwarf planets and typical minor planets. Technically, 136199 Eris and Eris (dwarf planet) are as "right", so we're not bending any rules there. From a purely consistent point of view, all dwarf planets should include numbers; since that is not sensible in the case of Pluto, consistency is lost in any case.--JyriL ^talk 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think we lose consistency by keeping the numbers on Ceres and Eris. Pluto is the odd ball, and the number should be in the title, but I support not having it simply because there is a 75 year precident for not having it. In time, we may want to revisit the issue. I understand that we have this problem now with only 3 examples of dwarf planets, but other object that might be given this status, like Sedna for example, also have numbers in their titles. So I think for consistencies sake, these numbers should be retained in the title. --Volcanopele 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

15. Support. Nom's rationale makes sense to me. jgp ^T_C 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support this or just Eris. FairHair 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The argument against does not consider the "pipe trick": [[Eris (dwarf planet)|]] will show up as Eris. This article should not displace Eris, the goddess, until we see how much it will actually be used. Septentrionalis 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. If Eris, Pluto and Ceres are usually displayed without the number, use parenthetical disambiguation to allow use of the pipe trick. --Usgnus 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. It would be useful to distiguish the Dwarf Planets from other Minor Planets. Moreover, I searched "Eris" and got the disamiguation page, I thought at first that this article was never created or was still 2003 UB313, and that's because the six-digit number almost concealed the name! Had it been someone else (who is not an amateur astronomer) it may have been overlooked! I also vote for doing the same with Pluto and Ceres. Orionist 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Pluto is remaining at Pluto We should do the smae for Eris Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I'd also prefer to see all the asteroids' article names without numbers, but that's another issue. Dwarf planets will be few enough that the numbers aren't needed for most purposes. It's not like you're going to be writing "136199 Eris" constantly in the article Nik42 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support if the opinion of a passerby counts. The number makes it too technical for lay people like me. If I look the thing up, it will be by its official name, "Eris" or its nickname, "Xena".  :) Dlohcierekim 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    But if you look it up by "Eris" or "Xena", you are not looking it up by either "Eris (dwarf planet)" or "136199 Eris". Instead, you get presented with a list of articles from which you can select the one you're looking from, and in terms of the amount of navigation you're doing, it doesn't matter which of the two it's at! Chaos syndrome 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    Too true. The point I tried to make was the article name should follow common usage for readers. What I didn't think of till this morning is that dwarf planets should have names. Cheers, 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

23. Slight Support Yes, but only if the same is done to Ceres and Pluto. Otherwise, Ceres and Eris should have numbers (with redirects from Ceres (Dwarf Planet) and Eris (Dwarf Plantet), while Pluto should not (until having numbers before "pluto" becomes more accepted). zachol 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support for reasons listed above. Also support moving Ceres. --Algorithm 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Since "Dwarf planet" is now a true classification, I am in favor of this for all bodies declared dwarf planets. Redirection from # body should also occur. In addition, please see my comment in the followig poll section. Abyssoft 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC) [updated 04:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ]
26. Support per Abyssoft. It's an official classification and takes precedence over the minor planet numbering system, which crosses classifications. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support: use common name if an object has one. Jonathunder 03:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support: for reasons listed above. Same for Ceres. 64.203.237.248 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support: Its a nice name, and also a very good article; and we should do the same for the other dwarfs. We are an encyclopedia for general readers, not a catalog for professional astronomers; no one in the real world will be calling this object anything other than "Eris" (likewise for the other dwarfs, and Pluto should stay where it is!). Also, after the post-front-page-mention editing frenzy calms down, it may be ready for a final cleanup (including fixing the grapics placement) in preparation for another FA nomination. The proposed new name is a better name for an FA. The zillions of asteroids are not analogous to dwarf planets. Finell (Talk) 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - for reasons listed numerous times. THe popular usage for dwarf planets is strong enough to warrant dropping the number, imho. Noone is going to search for 136199 unless they are astronomy buffs - the encyclopedia should be accessible to all. Dwarf planets should all be renamed with the name and (dwarf planet). Redirects will take care of the people looking for the catalog number. --Exodio 05:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support for reasons listed above: use common name, dwarf planet is a proper classification, there's a reason it has a name. Same for Ceres. --skew-t 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, rather obviously the common name. —Nightstallion (?) 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support New title conforms with other dwarf planets'. Disambiguation page will still lead here unequivocally.--Húsönd 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Although I will echo zachol's suggestion that the same thing should be done for 1_Ceres => Ceres (dwarf planet) GreyWyvern 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Ozzykhan 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Just plain better, and I'm 100% sure will reflect common usage, seriously who's going to remember 136199? I like the 36 but the rest is simply forgettable ;)Number36 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Dwarf planets are more than simple asteroids or other objects. There's a reason that the IAU has created the class of dwarf planets, and in classifying Ceres, Pluto, and Eris as dwarf planets the IAU is in effect saying that they're more than asteroids. Therefore, Ceres, Eris, and Pluto should be categorized as dwarf planets rather than asteroids. The intro to the article can mention the numerical designation, but the title of the article should not, as dwarf planets should be differentiated from minor planets/asteroids. Valadius 22:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. The number makes it look like an asteroid, which it isn't. It shouldn't say "dwarf planet" unless the articles on Pluto and probably Ceres do also. Simply "Eris" seems best to me. Gene Ward Smith 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support I prefer a name to a number so just Eris or if not acceptable then Eris (dwarf planet) as 2nd choice. WilliamKF 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. I also support moving Ceres and/or Pluto to their "(dwarf planet)" equivalents— as mentioned above, the number should merely be taken as a catalogue reference number when there's a perfectly good name to be used. – Quoth 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Keep in mind that numbers for asteroids (and other celestial bodies) were intended to give order and easy recognizability. To maintain the number designation (over a new category with 3 members) is against that principle: confusing and "noisy".
42. Support No way I'm remembering 136199. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, but do the same for Ceres. -- Dandelions 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, it doesn't need a number any more Mhocker 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support anything is bester than 136199! Nfitz 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - is more descriptive, and easier to remember. Bubba73 (talk), 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support--Vircabutar 08:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Eris (dwarf planet)... The number of the planet or what ever that is, is not really relevant to the average guy in front of his computer. --Deenoe 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support As for Pluto and Ceres, I support the idea of having these dwarf planets listed under their more easy to remember popular name. Consider the parallel with animals and plants: the article about dogs is under 'Dog' although 'Canis lupus familiaris' is the correct scientific name for the animal. ArthurWeasley 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support The MPC number is important, but people would remember only the name SwPawel2 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per above, and remove the number from Ceres as well. Chuck 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Support And do the same for other minor planets. Asteroids are reasonably known by their numbers; dwarf planets are more known by their names, and the number only clutters the title. Pmbarros 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - call the article Eris and be done with it. We don't need a 6 digit identifier for 9th largest planet. If we discover more larger than Pluto we get change the article name later. We should just be thankful its nice short "Eris" instead of his other choice of "Persephone" and be happy. --06:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Conditional Support - I would rather see Eris (Planet) as the Dwarf definition is still under debate, and there is not likely to be any confusion between this Eris and any other object orbiting the sun. Also, do you want to risk snubbing the Goddess by calling her a Dwarf? --Razmear 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. I would accept this move. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. FairHair 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Ceres has a number and so do the other TNO's this should have one too, the only reason pluto is it hasnt been moved from its original article yet (and is currently locked there). for consistency Ers should remain numbered -- Nbound 09:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose And as long as you have the number, you need to explain what it means - see List of asteroids which someone keeps deleting!!! Why??? Paul venter 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Eris is not an asteroid and does not belong on the list. The numbering scheme is not only used for asteroids, but for all objects. Another reason why we should never use it in page titles IMNSHO. -- Jordi·✆ 12:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Using the term list of asteroids would be misleading in the article but the list's intention is to cover all bodies (?). I’m not an editor for this list, but scores of Centaurs and (less) TNO should be there. The name of the list is thus misleading and could be fixed. Eurocommuter 12:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   The Minor Planet Center, which is a body of professional astronomers, regards any small heavenly object as an asteroid (=like a star) which is why Eris appears on their list as number 136199 - look it up in the List of asteroids. So go argue with them and tell them they've got it wrong.....Paul venter 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Consistency, dwarf planets have numbers, i.e. 134340 Pluto, 1 Ceres Choronzon 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Planets also have them: I Mercury, II Venus, III Earth, IV Mars, V Jupiter, VI Saturn, VII Uranus and VIII Neptune. Asteroids/ SBSS are often used with numbers for easier identification, has there are thousands, we only have three dwarf planets, currently, if they number hundreds then I would agree.--Pedro 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose IMO a decision on the article name has been made with the first renaming, and we should stick with it until the dust has settled a ways. What will the official designation of this object be? Will it be "136199 Eris", or "Eris", or something else? As best I can tell from IAU circular 8747, the official name will be "136199 Eris" [or rather "(136199) Eris"]. Pluto now having a minor planet designation does muddy the water, and I would oppose its renaming for now, but also for the same reason: We need to let the dust settle. --EMS | Talk 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose No need to use parenthetical disambiguation when 136199 Eris is availible to disambiguate from Eris (mythology). Arguments about popular usage miss the fact that the popular media doesn't refer to asteroids by number either, but no one is suggesting moving 3 Juno to Juno (asteroid). Eluchil404 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
   • Wanna bet? I am in favour of removing these silly numbers from all articles. -- Jordi·✆ 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Tentative support If we go ahead with this, we should also move ALL the other asteroid articles, e.g 2 Pallas --> Pallas (asteroid), not just the dwarf planets. Since the number is useful for disambiguation (see Eluchil404 below), oppose Chaos syndrome 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC) modified by Chaos syndrome 16:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   To summarise my position on this:

   1. Wherever this article ends up, the other option will end up as a redirect.
   2. The beauty of redirects is that you wouldn't have to be able to remember the 136199 to reach or link to this article.
   3. Having Eris (dwarf planet) as a redirect would still enable use of the pipe trick.
   4. In any case "Eris" (which presumably will be the most common search term) will be a disambiguation page.
   5. Thus whatever we do, we will have some form of disambiguation in the title. This means that this page will not ever be at a most commonly searched location.
   6. According to the Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." The parentheses option is only the second option in the list. This would suggest that we should use the actual name of the object (which is 136199 Eris) before resorting to parentheses.
   7. It is not up to us to predict whether a new dwarf planet numbering system will come into force. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
   8. Dwarf planets are being treated as minor planets by the Minor Planet Center, which is the official body dealing with such matters. Therefore, apart from having the emotionally-charged term "planet" in the name, a dwarf planet is really a minor planet that happens to be in hydrostatic equilibrium.
   9. Thus 136199 is currently a valid minor planet number, and 136199 Eris is a valid designation, as opposed to Eris (dwarf planet) which is a Wikipedianism.
   10. It is irrelevant as to whether we "like" the number 136199. Officially, this is how the object is designated.

   Chaos syndrome 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose The name of the object is 136199 Eris, not Eris. Yes, most people will just refer to it as Eris, since in common discussion, no one will really want to say a 6 digit number like that. So I support the Eris disambiguation page, I support a redirect from Eris (dwarf planet), but I think it is best if the actual article title stay 136199 Eris. Pluto, as much as it pains me to say it, should probably changed too, but I think for the time being it is okay. Volcanopele 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   According to WP:NC "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." which means, basically, we avoid official names where those are unnecessarily cumbersome. So it's United States not United States of America and Pennsylvania not Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The same applies here. SteveRwanda 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Actually the case is more complex than that. Most people (presumably) call it "Eris" not "Eris (dwarf planet)" or "136199 Eris". Since we can't name this article Eris, our use of either the number or the parentheses is going to be for disambiguation purposes. In which case, surely "136199 Eris" has the advantage of being an actual name of the object. Chaos syndrome 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   While that argument would work for Pluto, which is why it wasn't moved, I don't think the argument works for Ceres and Eris. While Pluto has 75 years of precident for calling it Pluto with any other qualifiers, 1 Ceres and 136199 Eris do not. While most people will refer to the objects in conversation as Ceres and Eris for simplicities sake (just as 4 Vesta is normally refered to as Vesta in conversation), unless there is a strong argument that the Eris the most abundant usage of the name in conversation and in print, I think that the current title should remain. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a redirect from Eris (dwarf planet). So peronsally, I think the best way to disambiguously name this page is to use its official designation. As the heated discussion earlier today about whether to refer to the Discordian aspect of Eris illustates, that use of the name makes it clear that just using Eris isn't best either. So again, I think that this article should not be moved. --Volcanopele 03:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose at this time. 136199 Eris is as good a way of disambiguating the name from Eris the goddess as any; Eris (dwarf planet) is already a redirect (yw) and is even longer than 136199 Eris. Plus, a lot of work has gone into changing over all the 2003 UB313s to 136199 Erises -- hopefully that work has not been wasted! RandomCritic 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I'd agree with the previous poster. If we go for Eris (dwarf planet) over 136199 Eris, then the page Eris (which people say will become its common name) will still be a redirect page regardless of which one we choose - so there's little point arguing that people will be searching for "Eris" - as it can redirect to either the current name the proposed name without any problems. The current page name is consistent with one of our other dwarf planets, 1 Ceres - as well as virtually all other minor planets which have permanent designations - including several large KBOs. As another poster said, the number acts as a disambiguation without needing to use the "(dwarf planet)" bit. The only dwarf planet currently not with the minor planet number, Pluto, is probably staying there for the time being because it is a former major planet and as such very well known. Eris is probably never going to be as well known. Richard B 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   FYI - Pluto has already been given the minor planet number 134340, and the article already reflects that. As for the name of the article: It remains "Pluto" for the reasons you gave, and hopefully will stay that way until a thought-out and coherent Wikipedia policy on this issue has been agreed to. --EMS | Talk 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose for now - let's take a breather and come up with a coherent strategy for all three dwarf planets. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose for now. Before I read these comments I thought support on the basis that Eris is a more commonly used name than 123465 Eris (or whatever it is). However now I think we need a consensus on a naming policy for astronomical objects in general, followed by a group move to the new names. I suggest we hold off the move until then and continue the discussion at WP:NAME. AndrewRT - Talk 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC). the new proposed policy page I've started at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) as referred above. AndrewRT - Talk 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
12. STRONGLY Oppose . It has a real name. Let's use it. The "people will search for the common name" argument is silly - no one will search for "Eris (dwarf planet)," they will search for Eris, and that's what disambiguation pages and redirects are for. Let's not add to the inaccuracies out there when we could be, you know, an encyclopedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose as per John Kenneth Fisher. --Merovingian - Talk 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Very Strongly Opposed Per BBC Article which states that the IAU waited till there were only 424 members present before voting on Pluto, I say the IAU has NO AUTHORITY to tell me what a planet is named therefore its still Xena.[MagnumSerpentine] 9-15-06

    Thats how many only turned up, out of the 8000 or so astonomers that could have voted, i watched the live feed from the IAU Prague Meeting website and im pretty sure its still available if you want to watch it. The IAU didnt pull any tricks, and the IAU is the authoratative body on naming astronomical objects. also Eris was never named Xena, it was named 2003 UB313, which was its provisional designation -- Nbound 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    You mean that IAU don't have the authority to name celestial objects!? --JyriL ^talk 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Not sure where your getting that from please re-read... or point to where ive made my error, thanks :) -- Nbound 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Pay attention to indention—I replied to previous poster. You're of course right. I somehow managed to ignore your reply. :)--JyriL ^talk 10:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    No problem :) -- Nbound

    The IAU is the authority to name celestial bodies in order to avoid problems that the IAU proper has created lately (a paradox), maybe not the definitive authority to define a planet but they are the de jure authority to name celestial bodies, including regions of planets. Although they have lately messed up things a lot, like naming the moonlets of Saturn. Fortunately those are just unimportant chunks of ice part of the rings system and are no real problem, if those were big bodies, we would have a major dilemma while teaching astronomy in school, and obviously one would have rethink its naming power, as it was not endorsing its foundation causes, we are returning to the era when we had no IAU and we have again deviant names, regardless if they are translatable or not. Not every language is an amalgamation like English.

    If you don't understand why it was named like this, please read the recent history concerning this body and read about Eris in a mythology encyclopedia.--Pedro 10:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose Regardless of one's feelings on the IAU or its naming policies, this is the current, accepted, official designation of this celestial body and the article should reflect it. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I don't love the numeric, but that's the standard, both IAU and on Wikipedia. Support moving Pluto. Redirects for all of course. –edgarde 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Chaossyndrome has it right. "Eris" would be ideal but since the most commonly used name is not available we should go with the official name instead of a parenthetical statement. --Aranae 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    The parentheses are NOT part of the name, so keeping them would maintain the "ideal" title. 200.55.126.124 01:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel

18. Oppose for now. This (well, 2003 UB₃₁₃ still does) is the name that this object is known as. It doesn't need to be disambiguated to be a dwarf planet when it has that massive numerical designation disambiguating it in the first place. Ryūlóng 07:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong oppose, Names like "136199 Eris" is the official form of a celestia object. Yao Ziyuan 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose It is the standard here on Wikipedia. I say Ceres and Eris should stay as they are. Pluto, on the other hand, was given status of a planet for a long time, I don't think the 134340 Pluto would be nessicary. Tuvas 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per MOSDAB. When there's a more complete name that can be used, parenthetical disambiguation isn't necessary. --Rory096 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Why not then to move Titan (moon) to Saturn VI ?--Nixer 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Because that nomenclature is redundant and never used? -- Nbound

    You're proponents of "official names". The official name of that moon is Saturn VI Titan. Why not to move the article there?--Nixer 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Because the official name is Titan perhaps? those designations were used to (at first) represent the orbital order outwards from a planet, but as more satelites were discovered they came to show an order of discovery. This method became redundant under the new names, an example of this is pick any of the new moons. New moons are given provisional names such as S/2000 J 11 (the 11th new satellite of Jupiter discovered in 2000) as this method has replaced the outdated method u refer to. These moons can then be given a proper name to replace the provisional designation an example of this is Carpo (moon) provisionally designated as S/2003 J 20 until it received its name in early 2005. -- Nbound 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    And Earth to Sol III. :P Saturn VI is not a provisional "name", while S/2000 J 11 is. --Pedro 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Sol III isn't an official designation, so Earth clearly wins out there. Saturn VI and Titan are both official designations, though Titan is far more commonly used, so Titan wins out. 136199 Eris is an official designation, Eris (dwarf planet) is a Wikipedianism. The situations are different in each case. Basically what we're deciding here is whether Wikipedia nomenclature trumps official nomenclature. Chaos syndrome 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Official name of Eris is Eris. Yes, it assigned number 136199, but it is not a part of its name.--Nixer 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Comment If we move Pluto and Eris to (dwarf planet) suffixed articles, then we should do the same to Ceres (ie. 1 Ceres --> Ceres (dwarf planet) ) -- Nbound 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   right.--TheFEARgod (listening) 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   agree. but not SSSBs and pending bodies, those surely should keep the number. --Pedro 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   I agree too, consistency is clearly preferable.Number36 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

   Also agree - though 1 Ceres is a lot easier to remember than 136199 Ceres! Nfitz 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

   Agree as well, it makes sense to use a (dwarf planet) suffix for those three. Consistency is good. /dev/zero 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Comment While the "pipe trick" is useful for editors, surely it is more important to make the encyclopaedia accurate for readers, rather than catering for lazy editors. Chaos syndrome 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   How exactly is the current situation any more accurate for readers? It's not like Eris (dwarf planet) has any ambiguity in it. So, since there's no real difference for readers, might as well decide it based on making it easy to use for editors. Also, if we're being consistent with regards to dwarf planets, having this name would require moving Pluto to its equivalent. BovineBeast 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   More accurate in the sense that "136199 Eris" is an official designation rather than a Wikipedianism. If we go by "most frequent use" we'll probably find that "136199 Eris" is more frequently used than "Eris (dwarf planet)" anyway. In any case, I still think that ability to use the pipe trick should not be involved in this debate since the reader does not see it. Chaos syndrome 19:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   One of the key facets of Wikipedia is its editability: its editors *are* its readers, and so it's every bit as relevantBovineBeast 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Does not being able to use the pipe trick actually hinder editability? Would a casual reader of the Wikipedia even know about the pipe trick? It surely doesn't prevent linking to a page if you can't pipe trick it, and surely accuracy is a more important concern than ability to pipe trick? Chaos syndrome 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Comment The problem with this discussion is that it is not about this article alone. 1 Ceres and Pluto (or should that be 134340 Pluto?) are also affected by the outcome. We somehow need to bring in the editors of theoe articles into this. I also think that people need to settle down for a week of two and given this change a chance to sink in. Too much has happenned too quickly. What is needed now is a chance for people to catch their breath let enough time pass to gain some perspective on this issue. Do remember that 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta, 90377 Sedna, 50000 Quaoar, (136108) 2003 EL61, and (136472) 2005 FY9 are all candidate 'dwarf-planets'. So this is not about one or even 3 articles. Instead it is about 10 articles and probably many more than that over time. --EMS | Talk 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Comment IF ERIS AND CERES HAVE NUMBERS Pluto should have too.--TheFEARgod (listening) 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Comment I think dwarf planets are major enough to merit the page titles "Eris", "Pluto" and "Ceres", particularly as very few people would recognise the other Eris's. None of the proper planets are known by numbers, and all take precedence over the god(dess), none are called "xxxx (planet)" except for Mercury (planet) because of the chemical element mercury. EamonnPKeane 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
   • It seems to me that you are treating the 'dwarf-planets' as full-fledged planets, and the IAU specifically rejected the idea of doing that. Ceres is nowhere near as well-known as the other planets, and Eris is going to be similar. (It already is going to be anuisance to get people to stop calling this body "Xena".) I also feel that the planet pages should be named such things as Earth (planet), but the current state of affairs whereby the planet's name redirects to the planet's article should be retained. --EMS | Talk 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Comment According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." This suggests to me that if we need to have something in the title to disambiguate, we should be using the minor planet number rather than a parenthetical expression i.e. placing (dwarf planet) at the end. If on the other hand we feel that this topic is hugely more important than any of the other uses of Eris, we should probably place this article at Eris. Chaos syndrome 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Comment At present, among the dwarf planet articles, two (1 Ceres and 136199 Eris) use numbers and one (Pluto) does not. No article uses the parenthesis (dwarf planet). Examining the discussions on the various pages, I see that while opinion is currently running two to one for changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet), there is strong opposition at Talk:Pluto to changing the name of the article to anything except "Pluto", and barely any discussion at all at Talk:1 Ceres. If the name of this article is changed, then we will have not greater uniformity but less: of the three dwarf planets, one will be listed under its name alone (Pluto); one under a number (1 Ceres); and one under a parenthetical designation (Eris (dwarf planet)). Is this a desirable outcome? RandomCritic 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Comment. Why doesn't the title include both? xxxxxx Name (Dwarf Planet). --myselfalso 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
9. WARNING: If this proposal passes, the dwarf planet articles will be 1 Ceres, Pluto, and Eris (dwarf planet). I call on those supporting the move to reconsider doing so until the larger issue of what article title method is to be used for ALL of these objects is sorted out. --EMS | Talk 05:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
10. I'll go beyond that and (once again) implore the contributors to please slow down and take the time to do this right. We will gain nothing by making hasty decisions on an article-by-article basis, rather than investing the time in developing a coherent overall strategy. Eris (dwarf planet) already redirects here, and the lead sentence clearly states that Eris is a dwarf planet. I'm sure many of us were surprised at how quickly the IAU came up with a name (given the time frame they've mentioned in the past) so there may well be additional changes in the near future - new catalogue, additional dwarf planets, who knows. We're not losing anything by keeping the article here for now! --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
11. I also suggest people consider that we are not proposing deleting either Eris (dwarf planet) or 136199 Eris - whichever one the article ends up as, the other will still exist as a redirect. Whatever the result of this, you will still be able to use either term to get to this article! Chaos syndrome 13:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The precedent for using numbers as unique identification is well-established in astronomy and the pages of Wikipedia. Think of all the NGC numbers or the Messier catalogue numbers. They function in the same way as binomial names for living organisms which cut through the confusion brought about by the use of common names. Paul venter 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but dwarf planets are an entirely new concept, so no precedent exists. As there are only two known at present and they're both sizable and important bodies it seems to me somewhat unnecessary to lumber their titles with six figure numbers just to avoid "confusion". Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Three. Ceres, Pluto, and Eris. -- Jordi·✆ 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I spotted that as soon as I saved it... Whoops! But the same point applies! Personally I would move 1 Ceres to Ceres (dwarf planet) as well. SteveRwanda 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We didn't have this problem with cubewanos, plutinos and other various outer categories of outer solar system objects, which are also numbered by the Minor Planet Center. The official body for handling such objects is numbering the objects with minor planet numbers, thus the precedent is set there. In addition, ALL of the three currently listed dwarf planets (Ceres, Pluto, Eris) have disambiguation issues with the names, so the minor planet number serves as disambiguation. I don't see why "Eris (dwarf planet)" is better than "136199 Eris" - they both serve disambiguation purposes fine, but the latter has the advantage of being an official designation. Chaos syndrome 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dwarf planet" is easier to remember than the number "136199".--JyriL ^talk 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is the official name, but that is just a redirect, while the much more common, unofficial name Rhode Island is the article title--as it should be. "Official designation" isn't always a deciding factor for article names. Chuck 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...and Tau Bootis is easier to type than Tau Boötis on US or UK keyboards. No problem with having the parentheses expression as a redirect. Chaos syndrome 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also precedent for using common names. Andromeda Galaxy is the official article name, while M31 is a dab page, and M31 (galaxy) doesn't even exist! Chuck 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dwarf planet is an official classification, Plutinos (better known as bodies in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune) and cubewanos (Classical KBOs) are not, and those are categories not widely used, nor endorsed by the IAU. Those are just attempts to create a widespread term like "asteroid", which some wikipedians are trying to compel to others.--Pedro 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, maybe bad example of terms chosen. Let me instead choose centaurs (e.g. 2060 Chiron), trans-Neptunian objects (e.g. 90377 Sedna), which ARE used by the MPC (and hence presumably official). We definitely have the precedent set of using numbers assigned by the MPC in the article titles. Chaos syndrome 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We have three levels: Planets, Dwarf Planets and SSSB. If a Centaur is big enough to be round... we should drop the number, it will be very famous... wow that one deserves a new category: "comet planet" :P The use of the number is very important for SSSB's, because they number thousands and thousands (<opinion>for these ones, we don't need names</opinion>); we only have 3 dwarf planets, maybe 10 or 20 sooner or later or 30, if they open the criteria for the group too much... but not hundreds or thousands.--Pedro 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've posted a similar note at Talk:Pluto. Basically, I think we shouldn't be in such a hurry to move this page that we fail to look at the bigger picture, which should really involve developing a coherent strategy for handling the current and future dwarf planets. There's a lot to consider: changing classifications, entries in multiple catalogues, conflicts with existing mythology articles. These are not issues we should pretend to be able to resolve with numerous "quickie polls" scattered across the various astronomy articles. It might take days, or weeks, and it shouldn't be rushed. Also, it would probably help if the discussions were coordinated in one place. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly second this. As I wrote above: "Let the dust settle". Consilidating this in a subpage (perhaps of talk:dwarf planet) is a very good and important idea. --EMS | Talk 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree as well. Right now, we can't be certain how objects such as Eris, Ceres, and Pluto will be refered to now they are termed dwarf planets. Will publications just go by the name, or will the number be included. Personally, I think Pluto will always be different from the other dwarf planets since it was considered a planet for so long, and I doubt the "minor" planet number will ever be in common usage. From the MPEC citation, it sounds like the driving force behind the assigning of a number was to add Pluto to the "minor" planet database, and thus prevent it from being "discovered" again by those mistaking it for a new TNO. For Ceres and Eris, I don't we can be sure at this point. Volcanopele 18:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Article name

Why is the name of the arcticle "136199 Eris" instead of just "Eris"?

I think that 136199 Eris should be shortened to Eris because there is no use having such a long tiltle for the page. People searching fo to the point information are likely to get confused. Ujjwal Krishna 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP convention planets have the highest priority of name in case of amgiguity. For example, "Venus" or "Mars" redirect automatically to planets, and only then a "other uses" link links to a disambig page where other meanings such as Roman gods or other articles are listed.

There's no reason to have this long name, instead, it should be called "Eris", a "other uses" link added to the top, which then leads to "Eris (disambiguation)", which then lists all users. 142.33.66.38 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there's no particularly good reason to favour a ball of ice at the edge of the solar system over a goddess of discord perhaps? Chaos syndrome 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm several people here want to have pluto with its original name and the two other dwarf planets with the numbers--TheFEARgod (listening) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

which is bad because we need consistency... -- Nbound 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be Eris (dwarf planet) and likewise Pluto (dwarf planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet). Consistency! --Exodio 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Help please

Would all the people who supported changing the title of this article pitch in and help deal with the consequences by doing the following:

• 1) Go to the main article page
• 2) Click on "What links here"
• 3) Click on "500" at the top or bottom of the page
• 4) Scroll down until you see items indented under the header "136199 Eris (redirect page)"
• 5) Go to the articles listed under that header and start changing instances of [[136199 Eris|Eris]] to [[Eris (Dwarf planet)|]], starting with the redirects and the templates. Remember that there may be multiple instances of a link in a single article. Don't bother with the userpages and talk pages.

Thank you. RandomCritic 02:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? That's what redirects are for, silly. Have an ice cream. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called cleaning up after yourself. If you don't understand what happens when you fail to implement redirection changes, try clicking on an old search term like Planet Xena. There are a lot of redirects associated with this article that currently fail because of the name change. That more do not fail was the result of a conscientious effort to make sure that the earlier change to 136199 Eris was carried through in all articles. One name change is generally not a problem, but repeated name changes often leave a trail of broken redirects in their wake. That's one of the consequences people need to think about when they advocate for mass changes that affect a lot of articles. RandomCritic 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Article moved?

Who moved this article back from Eris (dwarf planet) to 136199 Eris; the result was quite clear from the discussion above, and those who have moved it back to 136199 Eris do not appear to have discussed it here. Nfitz 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be User:Ryulong, who doesn't seem to understand WP:SNOW. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't speak for Ryulong, but to be fair, there wasn't any indication on the talk page that the debate was closed. I was surprised that the move to Eris (dwarf) went through without some sort of indication, actually. Dhartung quoted WP:SNOW, but I don't think that quite applies here. One part of that guideline states "For instances of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through a full process. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process." While the "move" side was certainly in the lead, it was by no means the unanimous (or near-unanimous) discussion that SNOW is intended for. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on now at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming to try to resolve the issue, since it relates not just to this article but also to the articles Pluto and 1 Ceres. Ideally a consensus on all three articles should be reached before any one of them is moved.RandomCritic 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the ideal, but as I watch the discussion on that page I am more and more getting a sense that there is way too much emotion involved with this business. I would like to see a consensus develop, but perhaps I should be following my own advice: Let the dust settle. So let's see what the result of this aticle's debate is, and then stand behind it until a more thoughtful consensus can be reached on the overall issue. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The general consensus on the naming talk page is that we're going to wait it out and let everything stay the way it is fot a while. We don't know enough about naming schemes, other possible dwarf planets, or anything else that may come about to choose between (dwarf planet) and numbers. So for now, this article can do whatever it wants.E946 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor rewrite of the lead

I have switched around the placement of "Eris" and "136199 Eris" but that seems to be contested. Is there anything wrong in giving the numerical designation, which is the article title, more prominence in the lead? Ryūlóng 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What was decided was to use the common name, followed immediately by the official name. This was agreed upon to reflect how Eris is typically referenced by the general public, as well as bringing it in line with the lead over at Pluto. (BTW, articles do not have to begin with the exact text used in the title. If the page was moved to Eris (dwarf planet), we certainly wouldn't write "Eris (dwarf planet) is the..." --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that. The numbers do not act as a disambiguation (necessarily), and no sort of disambiguations are included in the lead. I am saying that "136199 Eris" should be the first name referenced in the lead sentence. If/when this page is moved back to Eris (dwarf planet), then the lead can be changed back to the one that is up there now. Ryūlóng 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no need to state "136199 Eris" first just because it it the article title. The "136.." is the official catalogue designation of Eris, but it not the common term. There are many, many, many examples of good articles on Wikipedia where the lead and the article title differ in wording. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from on that, but perhaps more stronger opinions can be brought up when it isn't the crack of dawn (in one half [at least mine] of the English speaking world)? Ryūlóng 09:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Thanks for tweaking it to be exactly in line with Pluto - I didn't notice the slight difference. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as the catalogue number is mentioned in the text, there is an obligation to explain the meaning of the number, and that is what the link attempts to do. Please don't revert it without at least a discussion to explain why you think it's a bad idea.Paul venter 12:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Because so many of the answers to the survey above were conditional, I'd like to rephrase the question to sort out some of the ambiguity: RandomCritic 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Option 1

Do you support changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) only if 1 Ceres and Pluto are changed to Ceres (dwarf planet) and Pluto (dwarf planet), but not otherwise?

1. Support Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support for consistency in naming. Until that happens, however, it should stay as is. E946 02:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Consistancy will be key here. No sense crying over the loss of Pluto as a "planet"; rather we should embrace the three "dwarf planets" currently recognized and others as they become recognized. More then likely, the definitions put forth by IAU GA (2006) Resolution 5 will not change now, or in the forseeable future per the IAU president (credibility and support for said personage and organization is a matter of debate for another article [IAU history]). They may have "minor planet" numbers, however in IAU GA (2006) Resolution 5 section 3, the term minor planet is rejected in favor of "Small Solar System Bodies", in addition IAU GA (2006) Resolution 5 section 2, makes a clear distinction between "Small Solar System Bodies" (formerly "minor planets") and "dwarf planets". As such the CSBN will in all probability issue forth some alternative designation system for "dwarf planets" at some, as yet unforseeable, time in the future. Until this alternate system is put forth, the article title should be [ body name (dwarf planet) ] with mention of the CSBN # in the body of the article preferably in the first paragraph. Abyssoft 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Mostly Support Arguably, Pluto the planet is the most widely recognised bearer of the name, so I don't think it would be necessary to change its article name. Perhaps some time in the distant future when the furor dies down over its "demotion" such a name change could be made, but until then, people are going to be typing in "Pluto" and expecting information on the planet^H^H^H^H^H^H celestial body. However, full support for changing the article names of Ceres and Eris.GreyWyvern 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support I'll say that I question the authority of the MPC on this matter. As far as I can tell, the MPC decided on its own, without any external input, that dwarf planets were minor planets and thus fell under its authority. No IAU council or vote decided this. Given that the very term 'minor planet' was officially depreciated, the insistence that the numbered names are 'correct' seems to be biased, in my opinion. We'll see whether the MPC gets away with this. JamesFox 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support If and ONLY if Ceres and Pluto are named like wise. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Partial Support While I completely agree that Eris should match Ceres, I don't think it's necessary to move Pluto. --Algorithm 10:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Option 2

Do you support changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) even if 1 Ceres and Pluto remain as they are (or if Pluto is changed to 134340 Pluto) -- that is, under any circumstances?

1. Support Nfitz 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Dennypayne 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per RandomCritic's wonderful essay. His explanation of the various usages of numerical designations has clarified to me why this article should probably be moved, but the other articles should not end up disambiguated. As it was said, 1 Ceres has been 1 Ceres for 150 years, and Pluto has been Pluto for 76 years, and now is just on a list where it is number 134340 among the innumerable other objects. Should other planetoids such as Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus are reclassified as dwarf planets and then as whatever they decide to make Pluto, I am unsure as to whether or not the numerical designations should be dropped from them. When, and if, the whole situation calms down, a manual of style for the naming of astronomical bodies should be developed. Ryūlóng 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support but how much surveys are they on this!!! --Deenoe 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Do you oppose changing 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) under any circumstances, that is, do you want to leave it as it is?

1. Oppose Official names are better than parenthetical disambiguation. Eluchil404 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per MOSDAB. When there's a more complete name that can be used, parenthetical disambiguation isn't necessary. --Rory096 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per reasons outline at centralised talk page here. If anyone here would like to vote there it would be appreciated -- Nbound
4. Oppose Since both options will be available at least via redirects, the best title for the article should be the official name of the object, and not some wikipediaism. Pluto should also be moved to 134340 Pluto (Pluto's number was discussed on Letterman after all ;) ), too, but that isn't currently under discussion. --Volcanopele 05:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. It's the correct name, and it will be found from Eris via redirect/disambiguation anyway. Same goes for 134340 Pluto. --RMeier 08:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. In addition to others, other bodies which have a minor planet number don't have use of words to describe them, ei, Vesta is described by it's number, and not the term asteroid. If you are going to change the name of this article, you had better change the name of all of the articles to include the term comet, asteroid, Centaur, etc. But, the number is more correct in the scientific comunity. Tuvas 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   Comment You're using the logic that if you change one you have to change them all, which is very false. The idea here is that Ceres isn't just an asteroid, and Pluto and eris aren't just KBOs. E946 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   But they are dwarf planets and <alternate designation>... equally... -- Nbound

7. Oppose 1) With numbers is the proper name of this object. 2) We should not be changing the name until the overall issue is decided. See Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. --EMS | Talk 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose according to the principle of energy conservation Rursus 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

   In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! -- Homer Simpson --- Nbound 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose. A disambig is required and the full name is better than a parenthetical. I also think Madonna (entertainer) should be at Madonna Ciccone. See also my statements everywhere else. --Aranae 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Other

Do you have another idea about the names of these articles not represented above?

1. Further question - if you want to change all the dwarf planets to <name> (dwarf planet), would you support changing all the asteroid articles to <name> (asteroid)? Would you be willing to go through them fixing tonnes of redirects? Chaos syndrome 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
   1. There are other factors to take into account than mere consistencies. If we follow your logic, all animals should be listed either under their popular name or their scientific name. Under the pretext that 'Tyrannosaurus' or 'Nautilus' for instance are named as such in their respective articles, entry such as 'cat' or 'mammoth' should be moved to 'Felis silvestris catus' and 'Mammuthus' respectively. Same thing with historical figures, would you list 'Mark Antony' as such or under 'Marcus Antonius'? The fact that the three proposed dwarf planets, 'Pluto', 'Ceres' and 'Eris' (especially Pluto) have much more impact in the public than the thousands of asteroids would justify that they are listed under their popular name rather than under their scientifically correct name. ArthurWeasley 21:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      1. Actually, that's not the basis of my arguments at all. "Cat" and "mammoth" are vastly more popular than the other options to disambiguate. On the other hand Eris and Ceres are currently enjoying a media spotlight which has temporarily enhanced their popularity. I'm merely arguing for following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which would seem to suggest using the number would take precedence over the parentheses form. I'd be all for putting all the astronomical bodies without numbers or parentheses, but realistically that's not an option, even without the conflicting mythological topics (which in many cases are far better known than the astronomical topic!) especially once you consider that for some objects the name is taken by two astronomical objects (Europa is the first one that springs to mind here). And consistency has its advantages you know. Chaos syndrome 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • I see your point and I agree with you that it will be realistically impossible to change the names of all the small bodies orbiting in our vast solar system. However, on the popularity scale, 'Pluto', being an ex-9th planet deserves the right to be listed as 'Pluto' or eventually 'Pluto (dwarf planet)' instead of 134340 Pluto. To remain consistent (which is part of your agument), the two other dwarf planets should also be named 'Ceres' and 'Eris' (adding 'dwarf planet' for solve any disanbiguation problem). We used to learn at school that there were 9 planets in our solar system. In the future, kids will probably learn that they are 8 planets only and 3 (or more) dwarf planets. I would think that Ceres and Eris will have a more lasting popularity than today's burst in the media spotlight. ArthurWeasley 22:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• This poll seems unnecessary. The dwarf planet's name is Eris, and that's the name that we should use. If Eris the dwarf planet is more known and talked about than the goddess, and it seems to be, then it should be at Eris and the goddess should be at Eris (godess). Zocky | picture popups 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think now is really the time to make the call on which form of Eris is more popular, given that one of them is enjoying a massive popularity spike thanks to recent news articles. Chaos syndrome 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a sudden popularity spike. The dwarf planet has been talked about since it was discovered, and the goddess has been more or less forgotten for thousands of years. There's no reason to expect the discussion about the goddess to pick up any time soon, or ever. Zocky | picture popups 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the pages should all be named by their common names: "Ceres", "Pluto" and "Eris." Their mythological equivalents are far less popular.--Ctachme 13:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Protest There is no reason for the new poll before the prevous one is closed. This poll is an attempt to devide the votes of those who voted for moving. Why moving of other articles should be precondition for moving this one? We can start with this article and then move others, so the exact choice in this poll means nothing.--Nixer 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nixer. Have a look at the poll results on the talk page of Pluto. Those who oppose the move from 'Pluto' to '134... Pluto' outnumbered those who support it by almost a factor of 3. Similar thing happens here, those who would rather have 'Eris (dwarf planet)' than '136199 Eris' are presently more than twice as numerous. Should a similar poll be conducted for '1 Ceres' ???? ArthurWeasley 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's just remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy - according to official policy it seems the decision should be based on the discussion, i.e. the arguments for and against, rather than simple voting tallies! Chaos syndrome 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Show me a news article or other reference in the popular media that talks about Eris as 136199 Eris. Everything I've read has been ..Eris this... and ...Eris that... I have seen nothing referencing the number. --Exodio 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course, the media prefers small names, they call 1 Ceres, just plain Ceres... interestingly today's astronomy picture (though it is run by NASA) of the day mentions the full designation of Eris. - Nbound 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • To be fair, there are a few references but even reading those, Eris, and not 136199 Eris predominate; and certainly there are many more for Eris dwarf planet. But that's the point, isn't it ... that common usage is going to be Eris, and not 136199 Eris. Nfitz 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • But, then again, the common usage in scientific periodicals should be used in such a situation. If an astronomy journal cites the name as "Eris," then this page should probably be renamed as "Eris (dwarf planet)". If they use the number, then this page needn't be moved. Right now, this name has existed for a week, and no astronomy journals have mentioned them to my knowledge. Ryūlóng 00:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Many journals only mention full names in headings or during important pieces of text, keep that in mind... very few will be writing 134340 Pluto over and over and over. -- Nbound
            • There are some. Here's one National Geographic simply refers to it as Eris, without mentioning 136199 at all (though ironically, though sarcastically, mentioning 134340 for Pluto!). And The Planetary Society also fails to mention 134340. Meanwhile Astronomy Magazine manages to mention 11 times in this article, but only mentions 136199 once, half-way down. Seems pretty clear where this is going to me. Nfitz 00:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • As above... they arent going to refer to it by its full name in every instance. Put it this way, you may call your wife/husband "xxxxx", but if someone asks you what his/her name is (and they dont know her) or its for something official, you would call him/her "xxxxx yyyyyy". (unsigned comment by Nbound)
          • Though 2 out of 3 didn't mention it once, and the third only mentioned the new number, in passing, half-way through ... to use your example, it's like a newspaper article about John Wayne called him John everywhere ... Nfitz 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• This was my reply to Support Option 1, #5 above, but I moved it down here because it was too long. RandomCritic 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there was any indication from the IAU that the term "minor planet" was no longer allowable. But anyway, the MPC had very practical reasons to put Pluto on its Minor Planet list -- it is basically a database keeper for information about small and distant moving bodies, so that if someone sees something strange on a telescopic photograph, he or she can go to the MPC database and determine whether we expect something to be in that position, or if it's something new. On some occasions (or so I have heard) something that was expected to be new actually turned out to be a "rediscovery" of Pluto.

I think there is a misunderstanding about what 134340 Pluto is. It is not a "renaming" of the object. The object is still called Pluto. Pluto is its name. Its Minor Planet number is 134340. All minor planets whose orbits have been determined to a certain degree of accuracy are assigned a number. Not all are assigned a name. 134340 Pluto is a way of saying that minor planet 134340 and the object known as Pluto are the same thing; a sort of economy of nomenclature. That should not obscure the fact that the two systems of nomenclature are quite different in application and intent. It is quite as appropriate to say "Ceres" as it is to say "1 Ceres" (or for that matter, Asteroid #1, though the latter is TTBOMK rare to nonexistent in purely scientific literature). In fact, Ceres was just "Ceres" for 50 years before the "1" was attached.

In origin, the numbers were circles with numbers in them, like this: ➀ Ceres, ➁ Pallas, ➂ Juno, ➃ Vesta. These numbers stood in place of what had been specific symbols for the minor planets (see further Astronomical symbols). That is, writing ➀ Ceres was comparable to writing ☿ Mercury, ♀ Venus, ♁ Earth, ♂ Mars and so on. Like the symbols, the numbers were thus supposed to stand for the name of the planet in quickly-written notes and other materials where abbreviation was necessary; so in a way, ➀ stood for and could be read as "Ceres", just as ♃ stands for and is read as "Jupiter". Later on, since most typewriters were not equipped to produce a character ➀, ➀ Ceres became written out as (1) Ceres; and later, when some people felt the parentheses to be superfluous (many people still do not think so) it was written 1 Ceres.

By now, the numbers have become too long and complex to work as any kind of numerical sigil; they are often longer and harder to write than the name of the object itself. Certainly (134340) is no improvement over ♇. They now serve primarily as list references. But Pluto is still called Pluto, even after having acquired a list number; it's just on the list, that's all.

Very little of this bears on what Wikipedia uses. Despite claims of NOR and so on, Wikipedian usage is often idiosyncratic, and varies more or less from standard usages (which may be true of print encyclopedias as well). It is by now accepted Wikipedia practice to use numbers of minor planets as disambiguators, for the obvious reason that -- if you need to disambiguate the asteroid "Ceres" from other things called Ceres, it's easier to write 1 Ceres than (say) Ceres ((1) Ceres) or Ceres (minor planet) or Ceres (asteroid) or (now) Ceres (dwarf planet). That is a constraint imposed by Wikipedian usage rather than by precisely scientific concerns.

In the literature you will as often or more often see Orcus as 90482 Orcus or (90482) Orcus. In Wikipedia, you will more often see 90482 Orcus, because it is found under 90482 Orcus and it's the easiest thing just to reproduce the article title as a link. This again is a Wikipedia-specific constraint.

From an astronomical point of view, it would be ideal just to have articles under the main titles "Pluto", "Eris", "Orcus", etc. with rare disambiguators like "Europa (asteroid)" vs. "Europa (moon)". Since Wikipedia covers more than just astronomy, this is not quite fair and often impossible. That opens up the possibility of using more than one type of disambiguator (which is the dispute here); in the past, the accepted disambiguators have been (planet) for planets, (moon) for moons, and ##### NAME for asteroids and KBOs. Relatively recently a number of articles which had formerly been NAME (planet) were successfully transferred to simply NAME, Pluto being one of them. (dwarf planet), however, has never been used (and neither has (asteroid), except in redirects).

Short form: There's nothing wrong with just "Pluto" for Pluto, if no disambiguator is required. In general, nondisambiguated pages are preferable where possible. Probably a lot of asteroids could be moved to non-disambiguated pages, but this hasn't been done and would be a major task to change now. OTOH, it is probably not possible to make Ceres and Eris simply "Ceres" and "Eris". That leaves the use of numeric disambiguators one of the few options that has Wikipedian precedent. RandomCritic 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Every other use of the word Pluto is dismbiguated to Pluto (mythology), Pluto (Disney), Pluto (Astro_Boy), Pluto (manga), Pluto (NZ band), Pluto (band). I don't think it is out of bounds to disambiguate Pluto (dwarf planet) in any way. Further, it doesn't ultimately matter - it doesn't cost anything to put the disambiguation in, and if the main Pluto article redirects to Pluto (dwarf planet), anyone typing it in will find it regardless. --Exodio 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They are only disambiguated because Pluto is not. If anything, Pluto will redirect to Pluto (disambiguation) if Pluto is moved to Pluto (dwarf planet). Very rarely do disambiguated pages get a redirect from a non-disambiguated name, and because of the prolific usage of Pluto as a name for other things will cause the above to occur. The planet/KBO/dwarf planet Pluto is just more popular internationally to need disambiguation. Eris' number does that for us. Ryūlóng 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to close and disregard this poll

This subject is getting "polled out". I see only one person in the first vote who explicity made their support contingent on Ceres and Pluto being given the same treatment, but plenty of other who support doing that. IMO, this poll is muddying the waters unnecessarily. Let the first poll stand. Let's make a decision and stick by it until we have had enough time and perspective to deal with the issue of naming this article in a unified and coherent fashion. --EMS | Talk 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There was only one person who explicidly stated that they only wanted the change if they both were changed at the same time. However, some of the comments lead one to beleive that this was the intention. Still, I do agree that the subject is being polled out, there really isn't anything being accomplished.Tuvas 13:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with scrapping this poll. Hardly anyone voted and it got bogged down in comment and vitriol. Personally I think the first poll should stand - Wikipedia may not be a democracy but the discussion was going nowhere, both here and at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming so IMHO the 55:21 endorsement from WP:RM should stand for the moment, especially as "136199 Eris" is not an established name that we can fall back on, it having only been in place for one week. SteveRwanda 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

136199 Eris, being from the IAU is official enough for me. However, the important thing at this time is that a decision is made. If the consensus is Eris (dwarf planet) (and 55:21 is certainly evidence of strong support if not consensus for this move), then let's do it get this over with. According to WP:RM:

Page moves usually take place after five days, ...

It has been more than 5 days now. I strongly suggest that these polls be closed and the move be done. --EMS | Talk 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of polls, votes and the like too: I want action, not talk. However, the needs to be stressed that the IAU just didn't invent a random designator out of the blue last week: 136199 Eris is a direct result of decades-long standard practice. mdf 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is over. While we've been going in circles, 1 Ceres has now been moved to Ceres, so we should probably just get this done. Consensus seems clear on the earlier poll. Nfitz 16:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as much as I hate to say it, the Ceres page move would seem to fundamentally impact any movement to rename the article Eris (dwarf planet). If we move there, then Eris will be the only one with a disambiguated title. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why the discussion that mattered should have been at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming and not here. RandomCritic 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes this poll should definitely be disregarded I agree. aLii 20:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)