Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposal

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

I propose to make a self-enforced official policy on the naming of Dwarf Planets, using:

<MPC Number> <Name>

As per the following official Wikipedia policies:

Wikipedia:Naming Conflict - Article Names
If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names -> Astronomy is obviously a scientific discipline and 134340 Pluto is a scientific name (opposed to Pluto [its common/colloquial form])

Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Specific topic
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 suggest the use of numbers rather than the next option (a parenthetical)

Wikipedia:Soapbox - Advocacy
Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. -> No keeping Pluto just because you have an attachment to it

Wikipedia:Crystal Ball - Expected future events
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. -> In other words, no holding off because there may be a new numbering system used in future.

add any other possible policies endorsing this proposed policy here...

Important things to consider:

• Redirects exist... Pluto will be able to redirect or disambiguate to 134340 Pluto

• There is precedent for this move... currently all minor planets except Pluto have MPC Numbers in their names (In other words, every asteroid, and dwarf planet except Pluto is currently named in the proposed manner)

---

Thoughts/Support/Opposition? - Please leave good reasons! -- Nbound 12:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

• Strongly Support - Obviously ;) - Reasons listed on about 5 different pages :| - also wikipedia policies as above seem to back up this view -- Nbound
• Strongly Support - It's consistent, It's official, it's distinict, it makes sense, it follows the wikipedia policies. Arrenlex
• Support - Although option 5 is a second choice. That is now how those objects are named, and Pluto can always redirect to the proper name. The Wikipedia policy concerns noted above do make a solid case for this. --EMS | Talk 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support that is so strong, words cannot adequately express - Why people are arguing to ignore policy, precedent, accuracy, and common sense is beyond me. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support - see my reply to aLii above (now below - Nbound). Chaos syndrome 20:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Why solve problems others have already solved? mdf 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My opinion is a bit more complicated than a straight vote for support since I feel the number should only be used when a disambiguation is actually needed, but I definitely support this over the (dwarf planet) option. --Aranae 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support numbers should be used for disambiguation purposes and dwarf planets are not necessarily more improtant than their namesakes. I don't care whether Pluto is moved or not but I abhor Ceres (dwarf planet) when 1 Ceres is availible. Eluchil404 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Numbering is unambiguous, and disambiguates the subject (as all current, and likely any future dwarf planets are going to have a conflicting article about a deity - and few are going to be any more important than the deity). 1 Ceres *is* used in scientific literature. Time will tell whether the other two will. Any arguments that people will be searching for Name (dwarf planet) are spurious; people will search for Name only, but in the majority of cases, that'll lead to a redirect, or disambiguation page anyway. Why add a bracketed phrase when the correct name is free to use - as per the naming policy above? Richard B 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  No-one is arguing that people will search for Name (dwarf planet). The point is that such a name will make more sense to a member of the general public than something like 134345 Name, which just confuses the matter. aLii 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  But some are arguing just that. And judging by the intro to two of the three current dwarf planets, it'll be explained in the first sentence what the number is (the official designation). As long as the reader ends up in the right place, which is easy with redirects and disambiguation pages to either article name, then a reader with average intelligence is not going to be confused as long as they read the first sentence. Really not difficult. Richard B 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  The confusing part is when people don't understand whether the name of the body is, for instance "Pluto" or whether you have to always include the huge big number, which you don't. It's also confusing on the level of "are there actually 134543 different Plutos?" Therefore for clarity it shouldn't be part of the article title. aLii 12:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  It is only the page title and lead that need to mention the MPC number, the rest can refer to Pluto as just "Pluto". In essence the page will be no different then what it is now, except for the title. That would clarify to any reader all of your points. -- Nbound 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Even in the formal literature, it is as Nbound says: once the subjects are clearly identified with FQN's, shorter forms are happily used without loss of ambiguity. As for "confusion" and the like: have you forgotten this is an encyclopedia? If you believe there is confusion or a lack of explanation or whatever, just clarify either in-article, or perhaps even as a side-article about the nomenclature. mdf 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  I understand that you can define something once, and then use a shorter version. That doesn't however address the fact that the number is going be confusing for most people that read the article. The number is not needed. Therefore it is best to leave it out of the title altogether. There are not multiple planets named Eris and Pluto, there is just one of each, and so there is absolutely zero need to include the numbers. Prior Wikipedia naming conventions agree with this viewpoint. aLii 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  If it's confusing then what is preventing an explanation from appearing? And no, there are not multiple instances of Eris or Pluto. However, they are 2 of about 250,000 objects which have official designations via a system of nomenclature that is in wide use by the people who are actively pointing telescopes, collecting images, analyzing the results and generally creating the content that is being cited in these articles. Why do we need to invent something new? mdf 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  The point is that it shouldn't be allowed to be confusing in the first place. Non-confusing with no need for an explanation is clearly better than the opposite, unless you are a masochist for technical details. There is no "inventing something new" involved in naming articles clearly for the general public. I actually am a PhD physicist, not that it should matter. Having some catalogue numbers doesn't confuse me in particular, but I can see that the potential is there, and I think it is a stupid way to name these particular minor planets. aLii 14:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  If you believe it is stupid to name them thus, I suggest you take your complaints to the IAU. I'm just saying we should follow along like everyone else is doing. I also suggest that you examine 136199 Eris for this supposed "confusion" you are claiming. Where is it, exactly? The very first line of the article answers it, with a single wikilink. Unless you are willing to argue that the catalog number will never appear in-article, that wikilink will exist. Do you want your supposed "confusion" now or later? mdf 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: While I don't personally like the fact that Pluto was downgraded, and that objects like Pluto were made dwarf planets, and given numbers, the fact remains that the official names for these objects are <MPC Number> <Name>, not just <Name>. Now I would have prefered these objects not to have been given catalog numbers, but that's not what happened. I understand that people have an attachment to the names and don't like the numbers, but as explained above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't know what the IAU will decide in this case in the end, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, just because one doesn't like the MPC numbers in the name doesn't change the fact that it is part of the name. --Volcanopele 22:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly Oppose. There is no naming conflict. The author of this proposal even admits as such:

  "<MPC Number> <Name>"

  Iron is another good example of a scientific article that could be given a more scientific name, and also has disambiguation issues. It is not called Fe Iron or Iron (element) or Iron (Fe). It was the first example article that I looked up, and so I'm sure that one could find many other examples if so inclined. Wikipedia precedent would appear to be on the side of using the common-name over the systematic-name in such circumstances (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). Adding in unnecessary scientific jargon helps no-one. It would seem logical therefore to stick with the rule of thumb "Use the most common name".

  Point by point therefore:

  • Wikipedia:Naming Conflict. What conflict?
  • Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Everyone knows that the most widely used term can inhabit the main article. There is no problem here either.
  • Wikipedia:Soapbox. Indeed it is strange that so many people seem to be going against reason and precedent in trying to add catalogue numbers to article names.
  • Wikipedia:Crystal Ball. Seems pretty non-applicable to me.

  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) with the precedent of element-naming using the common-name out-weighs these illogical calls for adding confusing codes into article titles to me. Again I'll mention the fact that the media, and therefore the general public is not aware of these codes for the most part, and so it baffles me that people want to include them.

  For example, lets take the case of Ceres:

  • google search for: "ceres" asteroid site:bbc.co.uk 239 hits.
  • google search for: "1 ceres" asteroid site:bbc.co.uk 2 hits.
  • CNN returns 36/0
  • yahoo.com returns 423/85
  • reuters returns 0/0 :p
  • anyway, you get the picture...

  aLii 16:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see that you have made a viable point at all. Planets and chemical elements have been given naming priority due to the fact the people looking up those names will most often be looking for the planet or the chemical element. However, the "dwarf planets" are not true planets, and it makes no sense to treat them as such. Ceres goes straight to the goddess, and Eris is disambiguated. Future "dwarf planets" are going to largely be shrugged off by the general public, amd so will exist at best at the same level as the deities (or whatever) that they are named for. That requires disambiguation of some sort.

  I also will point out that the "dwarf plnets" are also minor planets, and all minor planets (except Pluto and Eris) are today listed with their MPC numbers! Even with Pluto I would list it with its MPC number but have the name alone redirect to the former planet's page. --EMS | Talk 18:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  Are you seriously trying to tell me that most people will be looking up 134xxx Pluto (whatever the x's are)? The same common-name convention should of course apply to everything, bar a good reason for making an exception. Given the history, and media coverage, there certainly isn't a good reason for changing, for example, Pluto. Infact there seems to be better (Wikipedia) reasons for changing the other named minor planets to the common-name convention. aLii 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  Does it really matter what they look up? That's what redirects are for! Whatever they look up, they'll have something linking to here, either automatically (a redirect) or requiring manual navigation (a disambiguation page). The beauty of redirects is that we can use accurate titles while still allowing people to find the article when they use a common title. E.g. most people know the organisation as MI6, but the official title is the Secret Intelligence Service. Chaos syndrome 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  Alii your point is null - straight from WP:Naming conflict:

  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;

• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;

• • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. -- Nbound

  Also Alii there is precedent for using the MPC numbers in the names of minor planets... out of the many minor planets listed on wikipedia ALL but Pluto have MPC numbers in their names. -- Nbound

  Nbound, you keep on shouting "Naming conflict", but I don't see any other scientific article that is trying to inhabit the Pluto namespace. It's not like carbon-12 and carbon-14 — that is the kind of case that the naming conflict text applies to. It is completely irrelevent here, there is no Pluto-1 and Pluto-2, and so like I've said over and over, there is no naming conflict. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) obviously takes precedence. aLii 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia: Naming conflict refers to an argument over a name - Nbound 07:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  There is no argument over "Pluto", "Ceres and "Eris". There is only a pedantic argument as to whether catalogue numbers should be included by some intellectual snobs, who don't seem to understand that there are people in the world with less understanding of things than them. aLii 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  By naming conflict it means a conflict over what to call the article -- Nbound 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, you could say that, but it is misleading, and incorrect. I could go to one of the perfectly well named articles like Iron and cause a "naming conflict". Get 5 or 10 friends in on the act and then we'd have a conflict of this scale. That rule doesn't come into effect unless there is a real scientific naming conflict, as I described above. Just because there is a disagreement the most pedantic name doesn't automatically win. aLii 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Have you seen Pluto (disambiguation)? At the least, with Pluto no longer being a planet, the priority of the astronomical object over Pluto (mythology) has ceased to be a given. --EMS | Talk 03:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  You must be joking! Pretty much anyone who's ever had any education of any kind knows that Pluto was(is?) a planet. My guess is that far less than 50% of people know anything much about ancient mythologies. Perhaps the top 10% of the educated elite do, but the general public? An average 10 year old child? The people here arguing for pedantic scientific naming schemes seem unable to understand anything on a level below them. The information should be written in such a way as to be most easily understood by most people. Wikipedia (thankfully) is not a scientific journal. aLii 12:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not joking. However, the real issue here is the "dwarf planets" as a group, not Pluto alone. I assure you that Pluto will be renamed eventually once the feelings about it have a chance to cool. Even if we take Pluto off of the table (for now), what do we do about Eris, Ceres, and the future "dwarf planets"? That is what this discussion is about. So IMO, "I won't let Pluto be renamed" statements are irrelevant to the broader issue. --EMS | Talk 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not totally convinced that we need a naming convention for all dwarf planets. I do however think that the common-name as used by the media and general public should be used for all articles. If someone's reading on (for example) the BBC about the recent naming of dwarf planet Eris, then when they search Wikipedia for "Eris" is more useful to find a result for Eris (dwarf planet) than to find something called 134325 Eris. Anyone that cannot see the common-sense in this viewpoint really needs to sit down and try to come at the question from a position of zero knowledge of astronomy. Wikipedia is not an astronomy catalogue. aLii 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Pluto is just fine where it is, Ceres & Eris can have (dwarf planet) on the end since they are less known than Pluto. - Added by 67.126.201.182
• Strong oppose I know have preference to option number 6; Pluto is just more popular as a planet (and dog) than a deity, whereas Ceres and Eris have much more knowledge concerning their namesake deities than the chunks of rock and ice that they are. I say we should stick with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which would leave Pluto (which has been a planet for 76 years) and 1 Ceres (which was a planet for 50 years and then an asteroid) where they are, and maybe 136199 Eris can be disambiguated (but I still wish Eris would have been left as it was). Ryūlóng 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum Right now, I'm going by what is in all scientific literature. The most common name for 134340 Pluto is Pluto; the most common name for 1 Ceres is 1 Ceres; and there is no current common name for 136199 Eris other than Xena, 2003 UB₃₁₃, Lila, etc. Right now, I think the only problem we have is with the name of 136199 Eris/Eris (dwarf planet). Ryūlóng 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Deal with each page on a page-by-page basis. Or go with something like Pluto (Astonomy) ... Pluto (Dwarf Planet), or Pluto (Planet) for each page ... the number (or at least numbers with 6 digits) are too confusing, and will never be common usage. Nfitz 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the only one with common usage with the number are the earliest asteroids that 1 Ceres is a part of. The others will never be common. Ryūlóng 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia guidelines seem to state that the common name rule is not applicable for scientific names -- Nbound
      • Can you provide a link to that? I can't see anything on WP:NAME or elsewhere that points that way (doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I can't find it!) Not completely irrelevent is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) which seems to point to the use of common names over scientific names Nfitz 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Naming conflict as i listed in the original proposal - for a direct link to the section click here -- Nbound 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Not to butt in, but that doesn't appear to show such information (and I believe that the MPC's numerical designation of Pluto was a bit bad, seeing as they are just saying "Oh, Ceres was part of our list, and now it's part of that list, so let's give Pluto a number"). Ryūlóng 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia is fact, not opinion, nor a soapbox - If the IAU says theres 8 planets there is, if they they say theres 526.625 planets then there is, if the IAU catalogues dwarf planets with MPC numbers, then we do to. They are the authoratative body when it comes to this... -- Nbound 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Also... your dismissing Wikipedia guidelines because: it "doesn't appear to show such information"... is that any basis to dismiss it at all... -- Nbound
              • I'm not saying that my opinion matters, I'm just criticizing their choice to number Pluto. Also, I cannot see what you are talking about at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Could you copy and paste the information relevant to this discussion? Ryūlóng 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                • It's already there! Scroll up. It's the FIRST THING under the 'proposal' heading. Arrenlex 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Here it is (again :P):

                  Wikipedia:Naming conflict - Article Names

                  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
                  • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
                  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

                  -- Nbound 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Ah, I see it now. However, the conflicting scientific name is a problem here, because we have not seen any sort of literature that uses the massive six digit number for Pluto, whereas both Eris and Ceres have their scientific names in contemporary literature. Ryūlóng 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Be aware these have only just been given to them, so there hasnt been much chance for them to be used... BUT the last MPC circular did use them so theres a start anyway. -- Nbound 02:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Here is a checklist from Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns:

                  A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

                  • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
                  • Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
                  • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

                For question 1, Pluto is indeed common usage, but Ceres and Eris are not common usages for their objects. For question 2, the official names are the ones with the MPC numbers. Question 3 is irrelevant. --EMS | Talk 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose a name is a name is a name. The 313 got itself a name an it will live with it. We have zillions of stars. Aldebaran not Alpha Tauri Aldebaran, Deneb not Alpha Cygni Deneb, George W. Bush, not President George W. Bush. `'mikka (t) 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• They are bayer designations (for defining bright stars), following this style... Aldebaran is actually Alpha Tauri (first bright star of Taurus), Deneb is actually Alpha Cygni (first bright star of Cygnus), some stars with previous designations that are unused are named with bayer designation (eg. Alpha Centauri instead of Rigil Kentaurus) - but if it has a name its generally not refered to that way - as for President Bush he not a scientific topic! -- Nbound 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you realize that Alpha Tauri redirects to Aldeberan and likewise for Alpha Cygni and Deneb? You could use better examples ... Nik42 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes thats the point, bayer designation generally isnt the stars name, if i told u to look at Beta Cygni, rather than Albireo (which you may have no idea where it is), you could just look at Cygnus, and see the second bright star (reading left to right, top to bottom).

• According to the Bayer designations page, it is. I don't see what the difference between Alpha Tauri redirecting to Aldeberan and 134340 Pluto redirecting to Pluto is. Nik42 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please show me where it says that the bayer designation is the proper name... From what I can see it in fact it refers to the non-bayer designation as the proper name. Alpha Tauri redirects to aldeberan because as ive said above alpha tauri is only a bayer designation. -- Nbound 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Dwarf planets and planets should both be at just name, though, perhaps, Ceres and Eris could be disambiguation pages (with the dwarf planets being Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet)) just like Mercury is a disambiguation, with the innermost planet being at Mercury (planet). Nik42 03:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• But "Mercury" is the official astronomical name for the planet Mercury. The problem is Mercury is often used for other things. "134340 Pluto" is the official astronomical name for the dwarf planet Pluto. "134340 Pluto" is NOT used for other things. Therefore I don't see the problem with calling the article "134340 Pluto". It can easily be arranged that when a user enters 'pluto' they be taken to 134340 Pluto, with a link at the top for the deity and the disambiguation, and when a user enters 'eris' they be taken to 136199 Eris, with a link at the top for the deity and the disambiguation. I note that this would require exactly the same number of clicks from a user searching for the deity Eris as does the current disambig page arrangement. Ceres would be switched: "Ceres" redirects to "1 Ceres" with a link to the deity at the top. This would require one extra click, but with all the attention Eris has been getting lately, I think, at least at the moment, almost all the Eris searches will be for the D.P. Basically I am suggesting the D.P.s be moved to <number> <name> with disambig lines at the top exactly like Pluto's is now. Arrenlex 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why the Dwarf Planets should be treated teh same as the asteroids. Personally, I don't think it's such a good idea to have the asteroids' numbers as part of their article names, but there's far too many of them by now to change them around. But I just don't see the point in having the DP's at 1 Ceres 134340 Pluto and 136199 Eris as opposed to just Ceres, Pluto, and Eris, or perhaps Ceres (dwarf planet), Pluto (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet). The number is just an unnecessary bit of clutter. Nik42 06:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. After much thought, and considerable doubt on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that I support the status quo exactly as it is, that is, numbers for Ceres and for Eris, and nothing for Pluto. Ideally, in the interests of consistency, it might be desirable for Pluto to be 134340 Pluto, but this is not currently its accepted name. It does no great harm to have one exception, at least for a year or two, especially when the reason for the exception (that Pluto was, until lately, listed as a full-fledged planet) is so close at hand. As far as using the parenthetical disambiguator (dwarf planet), I must oppose that as well. The reason lies not in the past but in the future: the list of dwarf planets can be expected to grow, and the three named objects most likely to be added in the months and years to come are Sedna, Quaoar, and Orcus. How are these currently found in Wikipedia? Why, as 90377 Sedna, 50000 Quaoar, and 90482 Orcus. I see no reason for going to the trouble of renaming everything every time that one KBO or other gets classed as a dwarf planet. Furthermore, when some of the unnamed objects (like 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 receive their names, we can expect further unsightly wrangles, between those who want their favorite KBO to be listed as [[234567 Incognita]] and those who want it listed as [[Incognita (dwarf planet)]]. I say leave things as they are and we'll have the least amount of trouble in the future. RandomCritic 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Completely pointless, and the numbers are only generally used when talking about more obscure minor planets anyway. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta - the four most well known minor planets are all refered to by number on a consistent basis in scientific literature (just check each's references) - Nbound 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because they have always been minor planets, and have always been referred to as such. Ryūlóng 08:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true, but they have been minor planets for significantly longer. In any case, they have not been famous for about a hundred years, and so giving an easily-looked up number is useful. However, I do not believe at this time that any information on Pluto is actually listed under its number in currently published sources, seeing as it's only had it a week or so, and that Pluto has been a subject of interest for several decades. It will be some time before the number designation is useful for finding information on the subject, and until it's useful, skip it, I say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The latest IAU circular (the same one that recently named Eris) uses the MPC catalog number for Pluto -- Nbound 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, so the union that voted for the renaming uses it to reinforce its decision. But will it be taken up in general use is what matters. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• They were all classified as planets in the 1800's, and old classifications have no bearing on new ones -- Nbound 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• So? They have been minor planets much longer than Pluto has been considered a planet, too. Ryūlóng 09:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, I'd strongly prefer NAME (dwarf planet) for all of them. —Nightstallion (?) 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There no confusion can appear with dwarf planets to keep numbers.--Nixer 09:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, articles for dwarf planets (and notable other SSSBs) should be at [[NAME]] where NAME is free or where the SSSB is most important (as in Pluto), and at [[NAME (dwarf planet)]] in all other cases. Catalog numbers are not names! We do not have [[I Mercury]], [[II Venus]], [[[III Earth]] either. -- Jordi•✆ 09:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats because they dont have catalog numbers like that, the closest ive even see to that is in some science fiction wehere Earth would be Sol III (third planet of Sol) -- Nbound 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Moon has official name Earth I, but we still have not such article.--Nixer 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Humourously, "Earth I" was redirected to "Moon" back in 2006 March. I have never seen it in reference to the Moon re: the scientific literature, nor even popular culture (though I am no big follower of the latter). Tempted to file an AFD on that... mdf 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Catalog numbers are names, and perfectly good ones at that. That things like "NGC 231" or "PSR B0531+21" or "823746 Kallisti" look weird to some people is not our problem. Why worry about it? Just use the solutions others have proposed and are using themselves. mdf 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - a large number of people voted on this issue at 123456 Eris (or whatever it is) and the majority was in favour of moving to Eris (dwarf planet). That means numbers are essentially opposed for two of the three bodies in question. SteveRwanda 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy... thats why it was moved back -- Nbound

It was moved back because Ryūlóng is a member of wikimafia.--Nixer 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down mate... and besides if u havent noticed... so far in this debate he's been on the opposing side like you -- Nbound

Oppose - for name (dwarf planet) or only name. They are now dwarf planets, not asteroids any more. (the IAU should now put 1 Pallas, 2 Juno, 3 Vesta, but that's my opinion)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What a terrible idea. Can you imagine the confusion that would result? You don't want to tell NASA (or ESA or JAXA) to send a spacecraft to asteroid 90210, only to have them find out later that you really meant asteroid 90209. If 1 Ceres were to be "delisted" (the likelihood of which I think is close to nil) I imagine that they would just "retire" the number, like the number on a famous football player's jersey. RandomCritic 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true anyway... the dwarf planets retain previous designations, 1 Ceres is still an asteroid, 134340 Pluto is still a Kuiper Belt Object, and 136199 Eris is still a Scattered Disk Object. -- Nbound

Conditional Oppose - WP:NC states that articles should use the most common name. "Pluto" is far more common than 134340 Pluto (I actually had to look that number up to make this post). I would be happy to see other dwarf planets named using their number and name as opposed to their name and then "(dwarf planet)", however in the case of Pluto, there should be an exception. If this comprimise is implemented, I will support, however I will not support a policy that will result in the renaming of Pluto. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why we have redirects: so the many and varied "lay names" can be attached to the single "official" name. This is good, because not only do we do the Right Thing, but it also implicitly educates the reader about these matters, without having to explain whatever crazy nomenclature is ultimately invented by the denizens of Wikipedia. "Oh cool, "Fly Agaric" is actually Amanita muscaria!" and so on. mdf 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Naming conflict states we should use the scientific name over a common name when available -- Nbound

Oppose We should keep the numbers in the article, but for the titles keep XXXXXX (dwarf planet). Less clutter on the screen, easier to recognize for non-astronomers, and consistent. Pluto may redirect to Pluto_(dwarf_planet), and so should all the XXXXXXX_Name. Pmbarros 22:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the highly bizarre things about Wikipedia is that it has systemic demands for human attention and labour. I can go on about this in general -- slaves to the machine, etc -- but I'll be specific here. Suppose that it is someday shown that Pluto and the rest of them are shown to be chemically identical to comets. If we adopt a nomenclature unique to Wikipedia that sticks adjectives onto the end of names, not only do we have to go and update the content, but the names also have to change. From "(dwarf planet)" to "(monster huge unimaginably large solar system dynamicist suicide comets)". However, if we just use a unique catalog number to disambiguate, we need only tweak content, as the name is unaffected. Of course, Pluto isn't a comet, and the above scenario won't come to pass as described. But the probability that the catalog name will change is far less than the "dwarf planet" moniker will change. If you think about this matter from this perspective, we can come to see why the IAU (and other agencies that perform a similar function for other fields) are careful as they can to invent naming systems that probably will not change over time. As an example of the chaos this can engender, consider what happens when even a simple bird name is changed: not the "common name", but the scientific binomial. Many databases are instantly outdated, searches become more difficult, data can "disappear". It does happen, though thankfully not often (mycologists have it harder). In the end, these issues are far from "pedantic", nor can they be swept away with "well, it's good enough for now" and such. We should follow what the research says, not invent new stuff here. mdf 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as I generally oppose attempts to impose a pedantically correct article name over the most commonly used name (overwhelmingly the most commonly used name, in this case). Precise article naming is not important, precise article content is important. --ajn (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If precise naming is not important, why are you 'voting'? Anyways, I guess at the end of the day this boils down to who is using these names, the definition of "common". The situations are probably endless, but the following two cartoonish scenarios may capture most of them:

a) Aunt Edna is watching the TeeVee when it is revealed that Pluto has been ignominously stripped of planethood and exiled into the land of dwarves. Later that evening at the bingo parlour, she talks over the matter with her comrades, and much use of just a plain, unadorned, "Pluto" is made and disturbingly frank descriptions of these interloping scientists are offered.

b) Professor Hinkley has obtained a more accurate spectrum of Pluto and is preparing his paper for publication at Icarus. Just down the hall, a graduate student is finishing a presentation on Pluto's surface chemistry for an upcoming conference. In both of these, a fully qualified name will be used, even if neither of these people are members of the IAU. This is because these are the "common names" from their perspective; it's just part of the "grammar" of research.

I would argue that while the individuals making up class "a" are probably the bulk of the readers of Wikipedia, I would say that the people writing Wikipedia are members of class "b" -- or at least should act in a manner that is indistinguishable from such. Hence, the use of the "fully qualified name" as the article title, and, acknowledging the fact that most people aren't going to know a catalog number, we add some useful cribs to allow the non cognescenti effectively use the encyclopedia. mdf 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by "precise naming is not important", as I suspect you know very well, is that article names ought to be the most commonly used name, not the name which may well be pedantically correct but which is not in use by the general public who will make up the bulk of Wikipedia's users. I do not at all accept that articles ought to be named according to the usages of technical experts in particular fields - I'd expect to see blackbird as the primary article, and turdus merula as the redirect (as is currently the case). --ajn (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's what you mean, then WP:NAME disagrees with you, since it stresses a lack of ambiguity: that is to say, official Wikipedia policy effectively says that "precise naming is important". Furthermore, I can't fathom why anyone would think that "blackbird" should map immediately to a particular species of bird of non-global scope, when the word has a huge number of 'users', some not even related to "birds", let alone "black" (or perhaps "black" in a non-colour sense of the word). Even in the ornithology realm, in the Americas "blackbird" refers exclusively to the icterids. Thought experiment: if some kid in the USA enters "blackbird", is it more or less likely he is interested in the birds he sees in his nearby marsh (or perhaps a previously super-secret aircraft his government built), or to some bird on the far side of the planet (from his perspective)? So your example, far from proving your point, actually highlights why the common or ambiguous names are a very poor substitute for the real thing. (In this instance, "blackbird" should lead directly to a disambiguation page, and the current holder of "blackbird" should be renamed with its Linnaean binomial.) mdf 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose per above and media usage is often simply "Pluto". - Kookykman|(t)e 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Which newspaper or TeeVee or RayDeeOh station is a source of original research on Pluto? And if you can find one, I'd say that it will be using the FQN's like everyone else will be doing. mdf 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, there can always be exceptions where Common names policy trumps the actual name. Pluto is one such case in my opinion. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as I am opposed to disambiguating prefixes in general. The important information should always be displayed first, followed by clarifying text if necessary. --Algorithm 10:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

My thoughts (now with added straw vote :P )

The newly-discovered dwarf planets (Eris, say), as well as the asteroids now promoted (Ceres, etc), have most information about them classified using their number. However, Pluto has been a subject of research for many decades, but has only had a number for a week. This means the number is significantly less useful for Pluto.

I vote we suspend movement until we can see whether this number is actually being used in new scientific papers: say a month or two. If it is then being used in a majority of papers on the subject, by all means move it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fallback Proposal (if no consesus on above)- What if we revisit this issue in a few months? we arent getting anywhere here, and their certainly isnt any consensus. Until then we'll use the MPC number on all bar Pluto? and discuss Pluto at a later date (ie. when the dust settles) -- Nbound

Everyone's thoughts on this?

• Agree - it doesnt look like consensus will be formed here why not wait for the dust to settle -- Nbound

Comment, this page has only been open for one day! I think we may as well leave it open for a week before declaring no concensus (although I agree that is the likely outcome). aLii 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

True, i guess i just want this issue out of the way... changed title -- Nbound

• Disagree There was already a 3:1 conensus to move 136199 Eris to Eris (dwarf planet) in the vote there ... so surely the fallback position is to leave Pluto alone and move Eris as previously agreed. Nfitz 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: My proposal refers more to Pluto, the most controversial of the three. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, but the vote that has started here by Nbound is on all 3 articles; as the ongoing discussion here, is being used to block the name change to Eris (dwarf planet) which already finished discussion, then that has bearing now too. Unfortunately ... Nfitz 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: At a minimum I think the dust should have settled enough so that these discussions took place while the topic was no longer on the main page. At this point the entirety of the conversation has taken place while the Eris note was posted there. --Aranae 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a proposal here: instead of going by simple numbers of people "voting" one way or the other, surely any decision made should be based more on the arguments put forward by either side? Chaos syndrome 17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Consider what happens if we move all minor planets to the parenthetical form. We're going to have a hell of a lot of "should it be at (Kuiper belt object), (scattered disc object), (extended scattered disc object), (scattered disk object), (trans-Neptunian object)..." debates springing up! Chaos syndrome 18:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Nobody suggests doing so for all minor planets. We already have Mars (planet), Venus (planet), Titan (moon), nothing wrong would happen if we have Eris (dwarf planet). There are only three categories of bodies on Sun-centered orbit specified by IAU.--Nixer 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  At the least, let's stick to the issue at hand, which is creating a standard relating to the "dwarf planets". To imply that any decision made here will automatically impact other classes of bodies is a red herring. There apepars to be no debate about retaining the <MPC number> name format for the small Solar System bodies. Even for the dwarf planets, the use of the (dwarf planet) suffix will mean that there will be a redirect to it from the formal title. For example 1 Ceres → Ceres (dwarf planet). --EMS | Talk 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  True. Just somewhat amusing to redirect from an official designation to a Wikipedianism, but hey, what the people want, the people get. Chaos syndrome 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I checked my print encyclopedia and it calls 1 Ceres just "Ceres." Likewise Comet Halley isn't called 1P/Halley at Wikipedia. I think the official name in astronomical catalogues is not always the best for an encyclopedia. That said Ceres (dwarf planet), Pluto (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet), etc I think would be fine. Apologies if this was redundant.--T. Anthony 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  All periodic comets on wikipedia excluding Halley and Encke are named with the proper designation -- Nbound

  Indeed, there's that common-name precedent I keep talking about! Famous comets are given common names. Nice point about your print encyclopedia. After a quick check I see that the Britannica online also uses "Ceres" [1]. aLii 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  There are some common names which are unambiguous enough to be fine (though not for 1P/Halley et al), but there are many more that should not exist, except as redirects and/or disambiguation pages. If they nonetheless do, and you claim "precedent", then I assert "bad law". Instead of perpetuating the error, why not fix it? mdf 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why do we have all this discussion again? It looks to me that there are valid arguments on all sides and that we will reach no consensus on the naming convention. We should probably leave everything as is for now and talk again sometimes next year. Redirects are working nicely in the meantime. As I stated earlier, my guess is that, being sizeable objects of the solar system as planets and large moons, the designations of 'Ceres' and 'Eris' will become far more popular than their official counterparts so that they will eventually end up in the same exception category than 'Pluto'.ArthurWeasley 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, seriously, enough. Let's wait for any sort of massive numbers to appear in serious scientific journals, and then we can make our decision based off of what others use. Ryūlóng 00:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. I still strongly believe we need consistency in the naming scheme.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrenlex (talk • contribs)

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.

Alternate proposal

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

I think that the recent surveys on Pluto, 136199 Eris, and here are making it obvious that using MPC numbers for the dwarf planets is not being supported in this English Wikipedia. Indeed, it looks like Option 6 at this top of this discussion is the most likely avenue to consensus here at this time. Therefore, I am proposing that:

• Pluto be taken "off of the table", and permitted to remain as Pluto at this time. (I am certain that it will eventually be changed to conform to whatever standard is agreed upon for the "dwarf planets". However, at this time its explicit inclusion in any standard is preventing the creation of a standard.)
  • It is explicitly agreed that the article name for Pluto will not be changed before 2007.
• For Ceres and Eris, the (dwarf planet) suffix will be used.
  • 1 Ceres and 136199 Eris will continue to exist, but as redirects to Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet).
• All future "dwarf planets" will have their article entitled Name (dwarf planet), with MPC# name being a redirect to the (dwarf planet) title.

Let's give this a try, and see what the result is. It it fails to generate a consensus, then we can try another tack or defer this business to another time. --EMS | Talk 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As a friendly amendment, I'd like to suggest that *whatever* you eventually adopt, you use parentheses around the MPC number whenever it appears in text. As is explained elsewhere in these discussions, the (number) is a symbol as much as a catalog number. The parentheses are as close as we can get with keyboard symbols to a number enclosed in a circle, the substitute symbol introduced to take the place of the increasingly complex symbols that were being invented when the number of known asteroids was climbing above 20. It is jarring to me as an astronomer to see the number Name with no parentheses. Astronomy being what it is (disorganized and full of anachronism) I am sure there are plenty of examples of the number without the parentheses, but stricly speaking, these are incorrect. Precision in Wikipedia would be welcome. (Note that I support this alternate proposal.)71.245.167.152 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support All some planets and moons have (planet) and (moon) suffix, others have only their name. We do not move Titan (moon) to Saturn VI. The case of Pluto can be decided separately.--Nixer 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are in no way disambiguated. The only planet that has (planet) is Mercury (planet). Natural satellites are the only ones that have any sort of disambiguation, such as (off the top of my head/searching for them) Phobos (moon), Deimos (moon), Io (moon), Titan (moon), Miranda (moon), Ariel (moon), Umbriel (moon), Titania (moon), Oberon (moon), Triton (moon), etc., are all disambiguated to be moons because some need to be disambiguated (like Titan and Miranda), one of which is the mythological (or in Uranus' moons, Shakespearean) namesakes, and in other cases the namesake is more notable/popular than the moon. Ryūlóng 06:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. While it may seem distasteful to Wikipedia editors, this solution provides the greatest amount of clarity for Wikipedia readers, which really should be the deciding factor in format disputes. --Algorithm 10:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So, you're saying that if most people would refer to the organisation as MI6, it really shouldn't be at Secret Intelligence Service, despite what it is officially called? Heaven forbid that Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible! Chaos syndrome 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So, you'r saying that even though most people would refer to the organisation as MI5, it really should be at Security Service? Given the ongoing discussion at naming over there, I'm not sure this is the best example! Nfitz 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I fail to see why "clarity" arguments are even being presented: if something is unclear, why not simply explain it? We are editing an encyclopedia, are we not? mdf 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha ha ha. The joke's on me I guess, since the explanation already exists! I've added a wikilink to the article on Eris as an example (see the phrase "official designation", first line). Ooohhhh, not only does the reader learn about Eris, but also can obtain some meta-education too. Can someone explain why this is inadequate in a manner that can't be fixed by adjusting the referenced explanation? mdf 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, clearly. The name alone is as formal and as correct as the name with number. If the IAU decided to give the classical planets numbers, would you advocate moving Jupiter to -4 Jupiter? —Nightstallion (?) 12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Next crystal-balling type argument? Chaos syndrome 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Another Yes from me. 4 Jupiter?... Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars... i hope you mean 5 Jupiter :P ;) -- Nbound 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment An example you all could look to is the system you have adopted for satellites of planets. For these you use a Name (Moon) format with the official IAU endorsed roman numeral designation appearing in the first paragraph. This numbering system is as official as the MPC numbering system for small solar system bodies (currently including dwarf planets as well). My guess is that scientists will use just the names in conversation, presentations, etc., but will probably include the catalog numbers in scientific publications. That is how I am doing it. (Yes I am a scientist. Yes I was in Prague. Yes I did vote. No, I am not completely happy with the definition, but then again, it is good enough.) Importantly, the public will probably use the more casual name-only form almost exclusively. Therefore, the proposed solution is a good one.71.245.167.152 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think I really need to reiterate my position as explain numerous times above. However... aLii 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I think this multitude of various different polls is highly confusing to someone happening upon this talk page. There is no rush to decide upon the best naming scheme. I don't see any new naming convention coming out of all of this as the common-name has always had precendence over systematic-names in Wikipedia. I understand that some people have an emotional tie to 1 Ceres, and I can almost understand where they're coming from, but as evidenced numerous times above it isn't the common-name in the media or even other encyclopedia. aLii 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. How many times are we going to have to voice our opinion? This is the 6th straw poll in as many days. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, this seems like a simple and clear solution to all this, that also makes the dismbiguation pages a lot clearer. Nfitz 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but only if disambiguation is needed - Quoaor (spelling?) is unique enough not to need disambiguated, I suspect? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually... Seeing as how all astronomical objects must be named after something or someone: Quaoar (mythology) and 50000 Quaoar... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support at this time. I believe that this proposal presents the least chance of further difficulties for the time being. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - I prefer the MPC titles. --EMS | Talk 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - For all the reasons ive listed bloody everywhere :P -- Nbound 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest that we just stick with option 1 Ryūlóng 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - for many reasons, but primarily it goes against Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Chaos syndrome 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Only if you believe that prepending an article name with numeric gobbledygook is "equally clear". --Algorithm 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is. I know some people don't like numbers, but unfortunately the number is part of the designation in this case. The number also provides perfectly adequate disambiguation without resorting to making up a Wikipedia style title. Chaos syndrome 11:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't equally clear. aLii 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Further point: "Eris" is an abbreviated form of "136199 Eris", "Ceres" is an abbreviated form of "1 Ceres", "Pluto" is now an abbreviated form for "134040 Pluto". Isn't there something about abbreviations in article titles? Chaos syndrome 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that it's meant to be "(136199) Eris" [2]. Also the same paper states "The IAU Executive Committee has now approved the names Eris for (136199) and Dsynomia for its satellite (136199) Eris 1." This indicates two things to me:

• Dysnomia (moon) should, according to your rules, be moved to the (quite frankly ridiculous) article name of 136199 Eris 1 Dsynomia.
• Eris is actually the name for MPC object 136199.

Some food for thought there. aLii 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All that suggests to me is that: the MPC number can be used to refer to an object, much like its full designation, or name alone. In other words the following thre sentences are equally valid:

• A huge crater 500km across has been found on (134340) - MPC number alone (though you would probably put "object" or "minor planet" before the number)
• A huge crater 500km across has been found on Pluto - Colloquial name
• A huge crater 500km across has been found on (134340) Pluto - Full designation

and yeah dysnomia should probably be at 136199 Eris 1 Dysnomia with Dysnomia (moon) as a redirect. -- Nbound 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, excellent. Now everyone can fully see the idiocy of using the IAU/MPC systematic naming scheme for Wikipedia article titles. We shouldn't even need a vote. Wikipedia is not a Democracy afterall. aLii 10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Its already used on several articles about minor planet moons without any hassles at all -- Nbound 12:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the decision is painful now, it'll be as painful (if not more painful) in 2007, 2009 or 2034. Do the Right Thing now. Bite the bullet before it becomes an artillery shell. mdf 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - again for reasons I've given in multiple polls. Now that my template is in action - editors need not have to remember the MPC number when creating the correct links with no redirects. Richard B 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  Just to clarify for you: The main argument against the numbers has nothing to do with the problems of editors, but rather what is best for the average reader. aLii 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  And I've made my point about the fact that it's not going to be difficult for most readers in other polls. The average reader will be searching for Name, not Name (dwarf planet), not [[<mpc no.> Name]] - although 1 Ceres is pretty common. Apart from Pluto, Name will lead to either a disambiguation page (for Eris), or to an article about something completely different (for Ceres). In these cases, there is little advantage renaming to Name (dwarf planet). On the disambig page, it clearly states that both are dwarf planets - so there's little confusion - and readers will find the correct page. As I posted in reply to one of your posts on another poll, in the Eris and Pluto articles, if a reader makes it as far as the end of the 1st line in the article, they will understand what the number represents - it explicitly says that the number is part of the official designation. The number need not be mentioned very often in the article - but having the title involving the number uses the official designation and disambiguates the dwarf planet from other uses without needing the parenthetical expression at the end. Richard B 00:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  However, the first time I typed in Eris, and landed on the disambigiuation page, I never actually found the page for the dwarf planet, because all I saw was a bunch of meaningless numbers, and the word Eris - I confess I didn't closely read all the text ... but I bet many others won't either! Nfitz 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, and when other readers type in Eris they get a disambiguation page, and when other readers type in Ceres they are sent to the goddess' page which has information on the top about 1 Ceres and a disambiguation page. The number 136199 disambiguates Eris already as being something that is not a goddess, genus of spiders, or two fictional characters. Ryūlóng 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  But one of the problems with using names like 136199 Eris is that it results in a disambiguation page for Eris that people are not going to see any reference to "planet" "dwarf planet" "asteroid" "whatever you want to call it" in the link, are not going to have any idea what 136199 is, and not find their way to the page. Using a name like Eris (Dwarf Planet} fixes this problem! Nfitz 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • 136199 Eris a dwarf planet in the Solar System's Scattered disk -- Nbound 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia. Change the dwarf planet's entry on the disambiguation page. In fact, I will do it. Ryūlóng 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  I think that Nitz has a valid point here, in that using the (dwarf planet) suffix will assist in navigation via the disambiguation pages. After all, the first thing that people will do is scan the titles presented, and often will not be expecting to see the MPC prefix. However, the entry for 136199 Eris on Eris (disambiguation) started out by refering to the previous 2003 UB₃₁₃ designation instead of imediately stating that this is a dwarf planet. I have fixed that as best I can, and hopefully that mitigates this issue somewhat. --EMS | Talk 03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Er, I changed it to state 2003 UB₃₁₃ first because that was the name it was most known by earlier tonight. Ryūlóng 04:09, 21 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.

A New Proposal

From what I see further below in other sections the result of this still being disputed. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Use Option 3: "Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages." by EMS | Talk

After following the debate above I still believe that a harmonious naming scheme be given to all the dwarf planets as, like it or not, people will tend to be looking at them as a category, and an encyclopedia should be internally consistent. Part of the problem seems to be that people disagree on the significance of the "dwarf planet" term and do not want it set in stone in article titles. This problem can be circumvented by using the title "Name (astronomy)" in their names, should a body not be famous to just be "Name". Thus I suggest a simple two-way poll: The Enlightened 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The options:

The choices are listed here only for clarity - please add you response under the appropriate section further on down.

• Option 1 - The three dwarf planets should continue to have the minor planet number in front of their name to have Number_Name as article title.

• Option 2 - Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (astronomy) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (astronomy) should be decided on individual pages.

• Option 3 - Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages.

• Option 4: We take the naming of each newly categorized astronomical object on a case-by-case basis; with discussions on where and how to rename each article. Should the Wikipedia community decide to use a name that conflicts with a scientifically established name, so be it.

• Postpone the voting: We just let this be for 6 months or so, and see how things pan out.

Add your thoughts for each choice BELOW this line

Option 1

"The three dwarf planets should continue to have the minor planet number in front of their name to have Number_Name as article title."

1. Support - In order to be consistant with every other minor planet, I beleive that the minor planet number should be included, unless someone wants to change every minor planet to include their disambiguous name (Asteroid, dwarf planet, comet, TNO, etc). Tuvas 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - There is no good reason to be treating dwarf planets differently at than other minor planets at this time. We should stick with a convertion that has served us well until we are certain that a change is in order and what the change should be. --EMS | Talk 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - Redirects will take care of the rest. It's hard enough already deciding how to title the articles dealing with the handful of objects which are both minor planets and comets... Urhixidur 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Everyone knows my views on this =P -- Nbound 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - Note that I have voted for option 5 (leave it in peace for a while), but it looks as if some are really trying to tally option 1 vs. option 3 (including guessing how option 5 voters will end up voting) and I definitely want to weigh in in opposition to "Object (dwarf planet)" option. --Aranae 16:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Support - For consistency and disambiguation. Ceres, Eris, and Pluto are all minor planets, although they have some features that distinguish them from most of the others. But the MPC and the IAU will continue to refer to them by their numbers. To answer a comment made on the Ceres talk page, while in common conversation we may refer to Ceres, the full name should be given in the article title. This is the standard convention in papers, for example. Michaelbusch 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This vote was added since the poll was closed so I have thus struck it out. -The Enlightened 22:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Option 2

"Dwarf planets should have their title as Name_(astronomy) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (astronomy) should be decided on individual pages."

1. Support as this is the disambiguator that makes the fewest assumptions. RandomCritic 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Option 3

"Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages."

1. Support --Nixer 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I'll repeat something that I said before (on the Eris talk page, which has now dissapeared): I question the authority of the MPC in deciding that dwarf planets are minor planets, well before any commitee or meeting has taken place to decide on dwarf planet naming or numbering in general. Even the MPC circular admitted that their numbers may be superceeded later. Furthurmore, "(dwarf planet)" is informative, where "(astronomy)" is too vague, while something like "136199 Eris" is too cryptic: someone who doesn't know about Minor Planet numbers would have no idea what it meant. JamesFox 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Dwarf planets are not minor planets and "Pluto" alone works fine for the article. Take them on a case-by-case basis. Pluto is Pluto, Eris can be Eris (dwarf planet) and Ceres can be 1 Ceres. And for example, Quaoar is a dwarf planet, decide on its name INDIVIDUALLY!

   • Have you even read these circulars? IAUC 8747 announces the numbers. It says nothing about "being superceeded" or the like. By all means, point to the section that does. Now IAUC 8747 references MPC 57525. This one says (hearsay, in part, I can't find the original online):

   MPC@CFA.HARVARD.EDU

   URL http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/mpc.html ISSN 1523-6714

   EDITORIAL NOTICE

   (From MPC 57525)

   At the IAU General Assembly in Prague on Aug. 24 a very substantial majority of the members present agreed to accept that the solar system contains just eight "planets" (Mercury-Neptune) and that objects in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting the sun but not dominating their vicinity would be considered as "dwarf planets". (1) Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 were identified as members of this new category, with other objects such as 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 likely to be added in the future. Since at least one of the "dwarf planets" is already included in the catalogue of numbered "minor planets"--with comets and other natural sun-orbiting material a component of a new category of "small solar-system bodies"--and since the Minor Planet Center Terms of Reference emphasize the need for the MPC to maintain a database of the astrometric observations of such bodies observed beyond the confines of the earth's atmosphere, Pluto and the above-mentioned three provisionally designated objects are now being added to this list of objects with reliable orbit determinations under the numbers (134340), (136199), (136108) and (136472), respectively. It should be noted that, just as some of the numbered objects that have exhibited cometary activity also have designations in the catalogue of numbered periodic comets, the numbering of "dwarf planets" does not preclude their having dual designations in possible separate catalogues of such bodies.

   Timothy B. Spahr © Copyright 2006 MPC M.P.E.C. 2006-R19

   I guess I misremembered the comment about separate catalogs. Sorry. However, that doesn't really change my opinion on whether the MPC can decide on it's own on these things. One thing I'm wondering, however, if that a new catalog is formed, or a convention arises that is different from the minor planet one for dwarf planets, will Wikipedia use it? JamesFox 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   MPC can do what it pleases re: names etc, since they are the ones with the telescopes and computers. If you want things done differently, why don't you start pointing telescopes and running your own parallel version of the MPC? As for things that are in multiple catalogs: not a new problem. Consider Crab nebula and its multiple names. mdf 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'll reply here: the MPC is not a large body of astronomers, it is a small group that keeps track of discoveries made by others, and keeps a database. The MPC has no telescopes, does no computer processing of images, and it is run out of a research institute. The MPC discovers nothing. They merely keep track of things and decide whether proposed names meet the guidelines set down by the IAU, and sent out messages about discoveries and namings. My comments were made because it was clear from thier circular that the MPC alone decided that dwarf planets were minor planets, and thus it was thier responsibility to number them, causing the huge furors which erupted by people who insisted that now, formal names for the dwarf planets must include the numbers. It was not decided by an IAU vote, by consensus of astronomers, or anything like that. JamesFox 12:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   Who said the MPC was a "large body of astronomers"? Indeed, does it even matter how large a group they happen to be? All that matters is they are at the telescope, not a bunch of random Wikipedia editors. And when I say they are "making discoveries", I was speaking in the "royal" sense of the phrase. If you read their circulars, they are naturally very careful to meticulously credit each discovery to the person/team that submits the initial observation. Regardless of all this, it is utterly indisputable that at this time they are the gate-keepers of the database, and there is no other institution or group performing a similar function at this time on such a large scale. In particular, there is certainly no Wikipedia version of this entity. As for your claim they "alone decided that dwarf planets were minor planets" -- this appears to be your inference. If our own personal opinions matter, then my reading of the circular is simply the MPC washing their hands of the entire affair, simply tracking everything "outside the Earth's atmosphere". They apear to be willing to go as far as making a minor planet/comet distinction, probably because this is easily made on the basis of the source data they have (images and orbits), but are unwilling (if not unable) to make "dwarf planet" decisions. I would suggest, however, that if they could make such a determination, they would still just assign it a number like all the other objects, if only out of bureaucratic expediency. As soon as the MPC or some similar agency publishes a table of "official designators" that do indeed override the current MPC database, Wikipedia can certainly follow along. mdf 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   I see no "superceeded" stuff here either. In fact, I see an organization that has made a decision and is following through. Something Wikipedia might want to consider. I also find it more than a little amusing that you question the authority of the IAU in naming things. Of course, the IAU has no real authority: to my knowledge, they have no aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs and an army of men with guns to enforce their idle whim. However, the IAU and the legion of astronmers they "represent", babysit the telescopes and computers that collect the data that is directly cited at Wikipedia, and I encourage all editors to reflect on this fact. If, for example, these people call it "136199 Eris", and we end up calling it "Eris (dwarf planet)", have we not engaged in the dreaded original research, even in some minor way? Or does the expediency of "dumbing it down for the expected users of the encyclopeda" override WP:NOR? It is for these and other reasons that I can not more strongly oppose this "(dwarf planet)" nonsense. This whole issue is making WP look increasingly silly. If the IAU can come to a decision, why can't (a) WP do as much and (b) as per policy, etc, follow suit? A solution is out there, and has been in active use for a long time, longer than some editors here have been alive. Why invent new stuff? Why waste time collectively navel gazing like this? mdf 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Please try and read what I wrote. I said the MPC, not the IAU. the MPC may operate under the auspices of the IAU, but given that it took an entire general assembly of the IAU to define planet and dwarf planet, but the MPC apparently decided that the existance of 1 dwarf planet with a number was enough to justify adding number for all of them, I get the strong impression that that the MPC alone made the descision that dwarf planets were minor planets. JamesFox 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   My argument stands even if you s/IAU/MPC/g: their authority flows from the fact they are the ones logging the observations, reducing data and generally making discoveries. This is standard fare for all scientific endeavours, the guys who do the work generally get to name it. Even after his pet cat if he so chooses. I have seen no compelling reason why Wikipedia ought to invent some new scheme in the face of long-standing prior art. mdf 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   Why can't we just leave everything as it is for now? Is there really a pressing need for any of this? Are we all just wanting 1 Ceres to go to Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet)? There is no need for a systematic naming. Again, we just need to keep everything on a case-by-case basis. Ryūlóng 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, and now I just found out that someone decided to cut-paste move 1 Ceres to 1 Ceres (dwarf planet); that's fixed now, at least. Ryūlóng 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Additionally, I would like to submit a fourth option as I have been for the past few weeks:

4. Support and personally, I am sick and tired of this debate. --Deenoe 00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support seeing that no-one likes the astronomy term. The Enlightened 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   Could you please make it clearer to whom you are supporting, as you're cutting in the middle of my fourth option. Ryūlóng 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'm supporting option 3, and not cutting in anything. Option 4 is below.The Enlightened 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. --Algorithm 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - also a bit tired of these polls, but as previously stated, we don't need a six figure numbering system to disambiguate a class of three to ten objects. It may be useful for the MPC, and by all means include it within the article, but as a page title on Wikipedia it just looks ugly. SteveRwanda 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I find it irritating that I'm having to vote again. I also would like to note that Options 2 and 3 seem only to offer a way of splitting the "I don't like numbers" vote, rather than anything particularly distinct between them. aLii 10:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Although mildly annoyed at having to participate in yet another straw poll, I am sufficently convicted on this issue to continue activities within it. Usage of "dwarf planet" in the name only makes sense whether it is for disambugation or not. It allows for quick, clear, and concise understanding that the object belongs to the catagory of "dwarf planets". Since there was no provisioning by the IAU to create a group or assignment of responsibility to a specific group for the new catagory, somegroup was needed to step in and the MPC having lots of experience with catalogueing stepped in to fill the void create by the IAU. Having a huge workload already, with very limited resources to say the least, they sould be commended rather then condemned for having stepped up to the challenge and ensuring that these bodies will at least be watched over until IAU allocates resposibility. Abyssoft 10:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
10. support MPC numbers are tremendously useful to SSSBs, don't make them the devil by adding them to Dwarf planets titles, were they are just tedious and useless. MPC number should be a field on the dwarf planets template. --Pedro 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
11. I support option three. It is the only way that Pluto will mesh with common names policy. Pluto, like it or not, is more important then either Ceres or Eris and will be so for a generation or more assuming the IAU doesn't change the rules again in 3 years. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support I agree with a number of the points already made in favour of this option.Number36 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Vigorously Support The minor planet number does not supercede the actual names of any of the objects. They are not planets, they are not asteroids, they are dwarf planets and deserve a consistent nomenclature. Further, using a tag like (astronomy) like they do in other languages would not be helpful since there are other astonomical objects and features using the same names in other spheres (as someone demonstrated somewhere in this discussion). They are X (Dwarf Planet). I would further propose for all of the major planets to have a consistent wiki-nomenclature as well. It's not fair that only mercury (planet) has a disambiguation. Hopquick 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I'm pleasantly surprised that we seem to getting consensus on this, so I'm moving my vote here to support consensus on what seems like a reasonable compromise. Nfitz 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support I haven't weighed in on the debate so far. Bluap 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support The numbers are ugly, and confusing to the layman. Who wants to look up Pluto and find an unfamiliar string of numbers in front of it? 1 Ceres is even worse in its way: it would look like a typo if I weren't familiar with this obscure numbering system. Nobody, not even astronomers, uses the numbers in parlance. Since more graceful means of disambiguation are available, let's use them. Montalto 08:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Dwarf planets is what they are (and will be unless and until this changes), and their names are Pluto, Ceres and Eris. The MPC numbers relate to their position in a catalogue and are not part of their name. --Cuddlyopedia 12:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    Everyone does know that the only page that would change with this is 1 Ceres, right? Which is a "more graceful means of disambiguation" here? "1 Ceres" or "Ceres (dwarf planet)"? Ryūlóng 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    This has nothing to do with aesthetics, and everything to do with what is best for the majority of users. Also the point of this voting for some people (see above) is to add numbers to the Pluto and Eris article names, so no, this isn't just about Ceres. aLii 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    Very true, but this is all that would change under this option. I understand that "(astronomy)" will be added to Ceres and Eris under the second option, and the six digit MPC numbers will be added to Pluto and Eris under the first option. I do not really support any of these options at this time, because the sense of a required uniformity is a little ridiculous. Does it really matter what the articles are named just so long as they provide accurate information and if someone needs to find it, they will get what they are looking for, regardless of the name? Ryūlóng 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

18. Support Commonly-used names are better as article titles. Other names, including official designations, can be mentioned (and bolded) in the first line of the article. The "dwarf planet" term is also a reasonable disambiguator. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - nonstandard naming schemes should be avoided whenever possible, and we have a golden opportunity here to fix the Ceres article. --Yath 20:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support It's stupid to let a hodge-podge go on now when this is the most sensible disambiguator. No report I've read has referred to Ceres with a 1 in front since it got "promoted" to dwarf planet.Child of Albion 04:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    — Possible single purpose account: Child of Albion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. I hate to do this, but, this is the user's second edit. Ryūlóng 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry. I've been editing wikipedia for a while but as I use university computers to edit my IP address was being shared with others, so I created an account. I'll happily remove my vote until I've acquired suffiecient edits for my vote to count. How many do I need?Child of Albion 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    You don't need any. Ryūlóng suspected that you were a sock puppet based on your lack of edit history. However by doing so, he failed to assume good faith, and didn't consider that you could be an existing user who normally edits just using an IP number, and had decided to create an account to take part in this vote (though voting by IP number is fine too ... but with shared accounts, you can see that can be confusing!). I don't see any reason to suspect anything untoward here, and don't see any reason why you shouldn't vote. Nfitz 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    I've chosen to remove the strikeout of this support. If the support level for this option ends up being marginal for determining a consensus, we can revisit the issue of this vote. However, at this time we seem to be moving into a "safe" range in that regard. Given the tone of this editor's response and a lack of the kind of ranchor here that usually leads to sock pupperty I find it hard to believe that this is not a valid vote. (However, if there are more votes from new accounts, I will quickly reconsider this position.) --EMS | Talk 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

21. Support Placing the articles for the objects at their common name (rather than MPC catalog index number) is the only logical option to me. Disambiguating with (dwarf planet) is a logical step if necessary, and is infinitely more preferable than adding the catalog numbers to the name. -- Jordi·✆ 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Option 4

"We take the naming of each newly categorized astronomical object on a case-by-case basis; with discussions on where and how to rename each article. Should the Wikipedia community decide to use a name that conflicts with a scientifically established name, so be it."

Ryūlóng 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See Option 5

• This is arguably the worst of all, since it encourages pointless debate more or less forever. Better: make a simple plan that works for almost anything and stick to it. Mega-strong hint: this is what the IAU is doing. I'd say that Wikipedia will have the "authority" to name things as it wants as soon as Jimbo installs the telescopes and editors here begin making discoveries. mdf 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that is what Wikipedia is. We decide things on consensus; however, I am having second thoughts about this after having put it up, again, here. Also, Wikipedia only has the authority to name things within itself. What we call what is catalogued as 134340 Pluto has no merit on what the general public or the scientific community does. Ryūlóng 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  No, but what the scientific community does affect what we should do. Part of what an encyclopedia should do is to categorise information. As such we should have uniform naming for objects of the same category. I can't honestly see why anyone would want to support this option, other than in trying to show Pluto as being more important than the other two objects. We should work as with the consensual view, and as large as one as possible. Breaking people up interested in all dwarf planets into individual pages will just create a mish-mash.The Enlightened 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  Uniformity is impossible on Wikipedia. In the hundreds of Pokémon articles, all are generally named without a disambiguator, but when it comes to Mew or Abra, they are disambiguated. Right now, this is happening with Eris, and 1 Ceres (in this case, the 1 disambiguates it). Disambiguating to (dwarf planet) just for the sake of uniformity is nonsensical. Ryūlóng 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  In the sense of whether a disambiguator should be used or not you're right. But what disambiguator is used should always be uniform. And this is achievable.The Enlightened

  That sounds great, but from many of the comments above, many people are thinking that Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3, is their chance to impose a name change on the Pluto article. Nfitz 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  In my paper encyclopedia it is called simply "Ceres", I see no reason why Wikipedia should be exception from other encyclopedies. I see no conflict with established naming--Nixer 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  There is the Roman goddess of growing cereals, and several locations listed at Ceres (disambiguation). Nixer, you must remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As such, what is in your paper encyclopedia should not affect what is on this encyclopedia. Ryūlóng 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Postpone the voting

"We just let this be for 6 months or so, and see how things pan out."

Support -- Nfitz 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Support as it's essentially mine, but much clearer. Ryūlóng 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   Essentially, but leave the door open to revisit in the future (though the door is always open at Wikipedia!) Nfitz 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Change vote to support consensus that has surprised me by appearing Nfitz 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Support-- there is too much emotions at the moment. In addition, Wikipedia should not be creating naming standards it should accept the most commonly used names. After couple of weeks it is not clear what those names are. --Jan Smolik 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   It is wierd to react to myself but I have one more argument. I current sitation there is a group of fighters against Pluto's "demotion" that are trying to get different treating for Pluto than for other celestial bodies and are shouting at anybody who wants some consitency. Opposing to this is a group of supporters of the decission who want to hurt these people by saying Pluto is object as any else. Which is strictly speaking truth, but human emotions are not lead by brain. So in the case where discussion is lead in this style where one camp is trying to hurt the other and vice versa, there is no way to get a consensus. Let's wait until we all cool down. --Jan Smolik 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

   Noone is trying to hurst anyone else here. However, you are correct that there are two or three camps here which feel strongly about this in one way or the other. I agree that time is needed to give things people a chance to settle down. --EMS | Talk 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Support nothing is gained by continuous polling and move warring. Consistency is not necessary because every case is slightly different. When there are 15-20 dwarf planets it will be more of an issue. Eluchil404 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support for reasons as expressed here and elsewhere: the energy expended on this debate could be better used on the articles, while we let things cool down. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

   Support - We're not getting anywhere. --Aranae 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Does your subsequent vote for Option 1 above relegate this to a second choice, or is this now not your vote? I'm confused. aLii 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   I am treating Aranae's vote as having been moved, and striking this one so that Aranae is not counted twice as opposing any other option. --EMS | Talk 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   And I am undoing that because it blatantly says that she will support Option 1 given that this option is followed. Ryūlóng 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   It's hardly fair that people can vote twice. The Enlightened 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   She's said that she will support the first option, but would prefer that we wait; what's so hard to understand about that? Ryūlóng 04:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   It's not hard to understand, its just unfair that its listed as two votes. If you want to add a second preference under your primary vote thats fine too. If you want to switch your vote before vote closing that is also fine. But to list numbered votes under two options is unfair when it comes to final vote tallies. 70.225.182.43 04:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   And this is why I wanted to get rid of these numbers. Ryūlóng 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   Ryūlóng - How about if we don't try to confuse things? Aranae has changed her vote given the developing consensus. It's that simple. To retain her vote here can bias the count against the consensus, and that is not fair. I will admit that the numbers are only a guide, but let's at least let them be a fair guide. --EMS | Talk 05:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   Excuse me guys, but you are all being totally obnoxious. My question required a response from Aranae — no-one else. Can you not be patient for once and just wait for a response without butting in and offering your own opinions? And I don't care to see any responses to this message either. Grow up. aLii 10:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   aLii - Please don't resort to personal attacks. This debate has been carried out without too much acrimony so far and it would be nice if it could stay that way. People are permitted to discuss the validity of casting two votes if they so desire (and I'm entitled to respond to your comment, even if you "don't care to see" it!) - you aren't the "referee" of this page. Cheers — SteveRwanda 11:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Discussion status

My feeling at this time are to let the current poll run its course over the course of a week or so. If no consensus develops, I strongly suggest that we ababdon this effort for at least three months, or until after new dwarf planets have been named. Just to review the current situation:

• Pluto is retaining its title in accord with a consensus of its editors.
• Eris is at Eris (dwarf planet) instead of 136199 Eris is accord with the consensus of its editors.
• 1 Ceres is retaining its title due to the lack of a consensus to change it to anything else.
• This discussion has failed to reasch a consensus to do anything due to what I perceive as a combination of
  • lack of interest,
  • differing opinions on what the standard should be, and
  • the vehement refusal of the Plutophiles to accept any change to the article name for Pluto at this time.

We need to allow some time for feelings to relax, and for a de-facto standard to appear as more dwarf planets are named. (I assume that (136108) 2003 EL61 and (136472) 2005 FY9 will be named as dwarf planets at some point, and possibly 90377 Sedna too.) --EMS | Talk 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just exactly how much consensus is needed to be "consensus"? We have a 10 to 4 vote in favour of using "dwarf planet" as the disambiguator at the moment. That goes up to 11 to 4 if we include the guy who wanted "astronomy". We can still leave "significant" ones (like Pluto) without a disambiguator - all I wish for is that we use the same disambiguator for one to be used, and presently a 2/3 majority wish that to be (dwarf planet). The Enlightened 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that "lack of interest" isn't really a problem here. Editor burnout - now that is another story. Look at all the energy and time that has been expended in this debate, and think about what could have been accomplished if it had been directed towards the actual articles instead. Also, continually blaming "Plutophiles" for the name not changing IMO is problematic as well. I think the discussion has shown that there are several camps here. There are the above-named "Plutophiles", of course, who want nothing less than to see Pluto redesignated as a planet. Conversely, there are a number of people who (it seems) would be quite happy if (136340) Pluto were to fly off into space and never be seen again. Then, there's a third group, caught in the middle, that wants to try to strike a balance between maintaining scientific accuracy while acknowledging the long-standing cultural significance of Pluto. Physically, it might just be "another ball of ice", but culturally, it's a very different story, and that will be the case for quite some time. Given all of the above, I can't help but think that a speedy adoption of Option 5 (wait for a while) is the only reasonable choice. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want the endless strawpolling to end x_X. I feel that where each article is now is fine; it's just that some of the mythological counterparts that were displaced need some moving back. Ryūlóng 08:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Emphatic no. Nothing needs to move, nothing is "displaced", no more changes. PLEASE. This has gone on for far too long, and wasted far too much energy. Just, everyone, please, please let it go for now. There's nothing that needs to be "fixed" - the redirects are redirecting, the disambiguation pages are disambiguating. Let's get back to working on the articles, as opposed to the talk pages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the move of Ceres to Ceres (mythology) and of Eris to Eris (mythology) weren't done out of process in anyway? Ryūlóng 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checked those pages (again). There's no complaint about the moves. Heck, the folks at Ceres (mythology) even think it was a good idea. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no they aren't. Read the talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, it would have been better if it had not been done through copy-paste moving, as it was then (for Ceres). Ryūlóng 09:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Ckatz and Ryulong. There is nothing wrong with leaving the articles where they are - inconsistency in naming is utterly trivial when compared to inconsistency in quality of articles. --ajn (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong is that the titles are inconsistent. There should be a pattern here. However, it may be too soon to form an consensus on this. Let's see what happens here, but I want there to be no more polls after this one for a while, especially if the result is a lack of consensus. --EMS | Talk 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how waiting for more dwarfs discovered and/or named will modify the outcome, either now or in six months or six years. Suppose we had 100 dwarf planets at hand, with names and MPC numbers. What effect will that have? Are there people who have cutoffs, a la, "beyond N dwarfs, we move to MPC numbers!"? If there are people in this position (or similar positions), it would be better they parameterize themselves now, as it can be built into The Rules and a decision made. Otherwise, waiting is just kind of "precedent setting" tactic. More than likely the next bout will "wait" again, especially for those who want the status quo to perpetuate itself. It's so easy. I suggest instead that if a decision can't be made, this issue be moved up to the next level of the formal dispute resolution mechanism at Wikipedia. "Shit or get off the pot", as it were. mdf 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it until we find out what scientific consensus is reached on name-of-Pluto in Scientific papers. All others... Eh, anything but no disambiguation, please. That 1 Ceres -> Ceres move was the daftest thing ever. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, but you forget the MPC naming convention is decades old, and in active, daily, use in the scientific literature. Pluto, Eris and others are getting assigned numbers like the rest of them. Yawn and move on to the next one: many more to come. mdf 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not forget. A body of this notability hasn't been demoted to a minor planet since Ceres et al, and so I'd like to see how this ends up being treated in the literature. The MPC gave Pluto a number, as they said, for sake of CONSISTANCY. Anyway, everyone is sick of the debate. Let things settle down a couple months, so there's new evidence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting will give emotions time to cool even if there are no furhter dwarf planets. If there are, then we can see how those articles are titled. I admit that there will always be people who support the status-quo or some part of it, but in general I have seen people bind together to achieve a goal. As I read the current situation, people need time to consider this isuue. So more polls don't help the situation, but instead just keep people entrenched in their current positions. --EMS | Talk 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting and consensus

There seems to be a conflict over whether to use numbers in the above poll or not. I put the numbers in originally to aid in determining if a consensus exists. As I read current policy, a consensus can be declared in there is at least a 2:1 majority favoring a given viewpoint over all of the other alternatives. The numbers help to determine that. For example, at this time, the "vote" is going 4-1-12-0-4. So option 3 currently has a majority (at 12 for and 9 prefering other options) but that is a 4:3 ratio, which is much less than a 2:1 ratio. On that basis, I can say that no consensus exists at this time, and don't need to consider support levels and reasoning (as would be appropriate if things where more borderline). --EMS | Talk 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The option 5 is not a naming option, but the option not to decide it now. Properly it should be separated in another poll whether we should decide the question now.--Nixer 03:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It also seems with each passing vote, less and less people are voting... i dont think these could really be used to gauge consensus as many people arent bothered/able to follow every vote on the matter. Perhaps option 5 is good as it would allow some time for some organisation towards a true poll of community consensus. (ie. we could set a date, type up (short) arguments for each viewpoint, set a closing time, etc.) until then we retain each page where it currently is (1 Ceres, Pluto, Eris (dwarf planet))? Thoughts? -- Nbound 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the best to do right now, and this isn't even in a good place to gather consensus from the whole of the community. Ryūlóng 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you Kidding? 12:9 is not just a plurality, but an absolute majority of over 57% in a discussion with more than one option. That is a very strong mandate considering that it is 3:1 over any other option. ems57fcva says 4:3 isn't a true consensus. I would beg to differ. It would still be a consensus if there was only two options. But since not one other option got even 1/3rd of option three's majority. I STRONGLY believe consensus has been found and respectfully ask for any stalling to cease. Option 3 has definitively won and I beg the editors and users to abide by this descision. Passive resistance should not win the day. Hopquick 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you are kidding... if this was a democracy you would have won... but it isnt... consensus means a general agreement among an overwhelming majority of people. 57/100 is barely over half. and besides as has already been stated each vote we do seems to be getting less and less interest and is thus not getting true community consensus. The option i put forward above i beleive is the best idea, for finding the true consensus of the wikipedia community. -- Nbound 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nbound's right. There is no consensus here. We just need to stop the strawpolling and just give everything time. Right now, everything is all right where it is. Pluto remains at Pluto, Eris remains at Eris (dwarf planet), and Ceres remains at 1 Ceres. Should other planetoids be designated as dwarf planets, then we deal with them when they pop up. Strawpolling here is getting us no where. To gain a better understanding of the consensus of the entire community, we should let this issue sit until December at the earliest. Ryūlóng 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree except for the fact that "waiting" was given as an option, option #5. It recieved 4 out of 21 votes. So the concensus is 17:4 AGAINST "giving everything time". My two cents. Hopquick 01:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Waiting was given as an option by mistake, as it is seen above. There is no consensus here at all, nor has there ever been. Ryūlóng 01:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If waiting isn't supposed to be an option in the poll, then the vote stands at 13-5 in favor of (dwarf planet), a clear consensus. --Algorithm 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the waiting is more like an all over oppose. Ryūlóng 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So? You're saying that there's two polls: one to decide whether to take action (currently 18-5 in favor), and one to decide what action to take (currently 13-4-1 in favor of dwarf planet). Both polls have consensus. I don't see the problem. --Algorithm 03:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Option 3 does not have consensus, 13 people voted for it, 10 voted against it (in various areas). -- Nbound 03:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, who added the 5th option confessed he made it by mistake. So those who voted to postpone voting cannot be counted as votes against option 3.--Nixer 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not add option 5. I added Option 4. Do not try to sway it to your opinion on the matter. Those who are voting to postpone can and will be counted as against the third option. Ryūlóng 05:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no decision to where things should change; right now, we are deciding, separately, that we should put this issue on the backburner, and wait until December to start thinking of what to do now. It's time to close the above strawpoll and set all of this off to the side. Ryūlóng 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, the poll should remain open for "a week or so." It's hardly time to close anything. I was just pointing out that your logic was flawed, that's all. --Algorithm 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course Hopquick... we would all like this issue settled now... but its becoming apparent that it wont be. I agree with December at the earliest as well Ryulong -- Nbound 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So far the consensus in this "Voting and Concensus" section seems to be 3:1 to table the item until december, when all the monday morning quarterbacks will have forgotten about their deep hatred for the IAU and moved on, leaving those who genuinely care to revote. ^_^ (for: ems, Nbound,Ryulong, against: hopquick, unknown: Nixer) Hopquick 02:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hopquick and Algorithm - There is no fairness in declaring a consensus based on one-vs-one results for the options. It must be assumed that anyone supporting one option is opposing the others unless they state otherwise. At this time, the only statement of support for other options is four people supporting option 3 who also say they are tired of this polling. This effectively gives option 5 nine votes (not that I will count the votes that way for consensus purposes). I assure you that this type of tallying is very important since a controversial declaration of consensus will only create problems instead of solving them. (It is worth noting that an admin tried to close the recent Eris renaming voting as a non-consensus in the face of an almost 5:2 majority favoring the change, and was shouted down by everyone including some of the opponents of the change. Another admin soon overruled the first one, much to everyone's relief.)

Here are the current for-against tallies as I see them:

Option 1: 4:19 for:against

Option 2: 1:22

Option 3: 13:10

Option 4: n/a

Option 5: 5:18, or 9:14 depending on how you count comments in other sections.

More importantly, if we take this tally to the Pluto or 1 Ceres folks, they will not see a 13:5 consensus but instead a 13:10 non-consensus, and the more vocal people there will shout us down. In fact, I would expect even people who support the (dwarf planet) position to shout us down out of disgust and their perception that we are disrespecting the Wikipedia consensus standards. So like it or not, consensus must involve all of the participants in the poll, and not a selected subset. It may be the hard way of getting a consensus assembled, but if we cannot do it right then we should not do it at all.

As for option 5 itself: Those people are effectively saying that no standard is needed at this time, which explicity opposes all other options. As for the matter of closing this discussion itself, you see in the thread above that even many of us with set positions would vote to close given a close/no-close vote. My suggestion is to let the current poll expire and then if there is not a good-faith consensus for one of the options that we close this discussion until December (or even January at this point). --EMS | Talk 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that any "consensus" originating with this poll will not be well received by the community at large. There are too many ways that people can poke holes in the process, especially with the poll questions changing during the course of the discussion. It's unfortunate, given all the energy expended so far, but I think that if we don't wait for a while, we're just setting the stage for an endless series of new calls for votes, random page moves, and continued arguing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I quite agree with this. I see this poll as being fairly clean, and the prior history is just that: history. The problem is that the results must unambiguously show overwhleming support for a given option if consensus is to be declared. I do see a majority favoring the (dwarf planet) option (with an out for Pluto). What I do not see is an obvious community consensus that we as a group can stand behind and use to recruit support for the appropriate renamings on the other pages. --EMS | Talk 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I want to see, is my support for 5, being seen as blocking consensus. So in light of this, I'm moving my support from 5 to 3, which makes the currnt tally: Nfitz 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Option 1: 4:19 for:against

Option 2: 1:22

Option 3: 14:9

Option 4: n/a

Option 5: 4:19, or 8:15 depending on how you count comments in other sections.

Oh, don't tell me thi s whole thing is still going on. You don't seriously think that any consensus reached by now will mean anything, do you? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And with that, I've closed down all of this. We're never going to get a clear consensus, ever. Ryūlóng 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, you've made your opinion painfully clear, but many people disagree. Let the poll take its course, and if no consensus appears at the end of the allotted week we can close it down then. --Algorithm 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's time that we let this end, though. It's been going on way too long and there's been a side decision to let all of this sit which developed into the fifth option. Ryūlóng 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, you should not close the poll busause you participated in the voting.--Nixer 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But it needs to stop. No one's going to get to any sort of consensus. This is the fifth or so poll on this talk page, alone. Ryūlóng 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're trying to close down the poll before it reaches a 2-1 supermajority against your view.The Enlightened 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When time is up, if we haven't reached a consensus, I'll agree with you. Until then, let's let it be. --Algorithm 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Noone else is visiting this page except us... and compared to votes held earlier this page does not sample the community at all. It should be closed for that reason alone -- Nbound 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because the people that are left are the ones that genuinely have an interest in the issue, rather than the flyby passing-interest "save Pluto" crowd. The Enlightened 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just fyi, I conceded that the discussion has died due to lack of quorum. Of the 5 people who still care, a majority have voted to table the item. Unless the voting continues to remain open, and the ratio reaches 18:9 (#3 vs. all other options), the motion to move dies due to lack of supermajority, and now lack of quorum. Sorry Algorithm. Hopquick 00:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Calm down folks, the vote has only been going 4 days. Supermajority? Quorum? 18:9 ratio? (wouldn't it be simpler to say 2:1?) I think you've mistaken this place for a democracy or perhaps even an American-government style system. Nfitz 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

At current the poll now reads 4-1-19-n/a-5. By my reckoning that makes:-

Option 1: 4 for, 25 against

Option 2: 1 for, 28 against

Option 3: 19 for, 10 against

Option 4: n/a

Option 5: 5 for, 24 against

Isn't this a virtual 2:1 majority of Option 3 versus all other options, and thus enough to reach a consensus? It seems like one or two people supporting option 5 are succeeding in making it seem like a non-consensus just because they make enough posts.70.225.182.43 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Policy

Any reflections on how Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority applies to our situation?Hopquick 01:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the closing admin in those situations would either go off of the arguments that the users put forth or use numbers in places where supports and opposes go into the hundreds, such as at some RFAs, AFDs, and RMs. This doesn't really have any effect on us, since there's too little to go over, and we really cannot reach a consensus at this small an exposure to the whole of the community. Ryūlóng 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire community has been invited. There is a principle that those that are here are the right ones to be here. And we do seem to be reaching consensus; of the 20 people voting so far for options on choosing a naming system, 75% (15 people) have voted for Option 3. 4 other people have voted in favour of delaying this until the dust settles, primarily from the look of the comments, because they feel that consensus was not reachable; though if we actually do achieve 75% of people in favour of one option, then perhaps their views can be disregarded. Nfitz 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

15:10 is only 66%... and besides its already been stated that noone is voting as each vote progressively delivers less and less, which is why a real final vote should be set in the future where the whole community can vote. -- Nbound 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There were 29 votes in the first poll on this page; and there have been 24 people weighing in on this vote so far; not exactly a major difference. You can always go contact the 5 other (or more?) missing people, and get them to give their thougts. 15:10? (3:2) Not sure where you get that ... I count 15:5 (3:1) on the basis I used above ... if you lump in the final option (which I didn't include as I noted above), you'd get 15:9 (5:3) Nfitz 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What about compared to the votes on individual pages -- Nbound 02:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that it's 17:5 I think we have a solid consensus here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd like Option 3 to win, I think a few people should read the abstention article. Most of the time such votes do count toward the complete tally. aLii 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, casting a vote whilst expressing a mild fatigue with continual voting is not the same as abstention, as someone above seems to be claiming. We currently have 17 for option three and 10 against it (5 for other options and 5 "abstentions"). I'm tempted to think that's a clear consensus already, but if the poll runs a few more days it should exceed the magic 2:1 anyway, and a move from 1 Ceres to Ceres (dwarf planet) should follow. SteveRwanda 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind - if it is decided that there is consensus, that does not mean that 1 Ceres automatically moves to Ceres (dwarf planet) at the same time. By the terms of Option 3, it will then be up to the editors at 1 Ceres (admittedly, many of the same folks who are here!) to start a discussion about a page move, and decide which way they want to go.--Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the text of Option 3, 1 Ceres should move to either Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet), with the editors there (and presumably those at Ceres (mythology) as well) having the say as to which of those it is. According to this page at least, 1 Ceres would no longer be valid. SteveRwanda 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think that it would be with the dwarf planet disambiguation; there are way too many persons, places, and things named after the goddess (or some form of it) that 1 Ceres just loses its number. Ryūlóng 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I think we're saying the same thing - my point was that the decision as to which way to go would depend on consensus at the 1 Ceres page. A successful vote for option 3 here would not mean that the Ceres article could then be moved right away. There would have to be another poll that also reaches consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Help! We're drowning in polls! In fact, as Ryūlóng says (and per WP:DAB#Generic topic), there's no way that the dwarf planet can take prime position at Ceres, so Ceres (dwarf planet) would be the only option remaining according to Option 3 and no poll would be necessary. SteveRwanda 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why is it that the "let's wait for a while" is "Hey, they're not voting, it's a consensus" conclusion coming up so often? Voting not to decide on anything just yet is the same as deciding on something. Given time, I think that we can gather a much larger consensus of the entire community, instead of this group of 30 or so who keep squabbling amongst themselves (sounds familiar, doesn't it). I do like option 3, just not for Ceres right now, and I would not oppose a vote to move 50000 Quaoar to Quaoar (the latter redirects to the former regardless) in the future. It's just that everything is still too new and emotions are still running high over this. Ryūlóng 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The consensus policy states that any supermajority from 60% (3:2) to 80% (4:1) can be used to declare a consensus based on the circumstances. I figure that 2:1 (67%) of ALL votes case is reasonable. My reasons are:

1. we need more than a minimal majority as this page's results is more advsory than binding, and
2. this is not so important that we need an extreme supermajority to have people support the result.

At this time, the vote for option 3 is 20:10 for/against, with at least two option 5 people apparently ready to join a consensus once established and myself willing to do the same (altough my vote is for option 1). I would hold this poll open a few more days to see if the option 3 vote consolidates some more, but at this time it looks like option 3 will be the choice. --EMS | Talk 05:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it humouous that while this isn't supposed to be a democracy, vote-counting is done anyways. Whatever tickles WP's toes. I'll just note that, in general, science is not run in this manner. Physical reality is not subject to Wikipedia "concensus" (majority, supermajority, first-past-the-post, 60% of, or whatever cutoff one uses). Wikipedia can play its little concensus games, invent its own, unqiue, naming scheme that is at odds with published research. Who can stop it? (I've tried.) Research will carry on though, and WP will just have to actively keep up -- cf. my earlier remarks about demands for pointless human labour -- as opposed to cuddling up as close as possible and free-riding on the coat-tails of science. Which makes WP's seemingly inevitable decision -- count those votes! -- all the more perverse: science actively encourages such freeloading. More and more this whole episode sounds like a case of "not invented here". mdf 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll closed, Option 3 chosen

I have just closed the most recent poll, and am declaring that option 3,

"Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages"

to be the consensus selection. By counts, it has a 22:10 support:oppose margin. Furthermore there is little in people's comments that would lead me to believe that the support for this option is weaker than it appears or that the opposition is stronger than it appears. Finally, based on my prior experiences I believe that future dwarf planet articles would be named in this way even without this result.

As I see it, what has been achieved is a standard that we all can use in deciding the name for the dwarf planet articles. In the process, we will avoid having a set of rolling debates on the title for each one. For those who opposed this: I am on your side, but that just was not the decision here. If this term starts to look silly in the future, this issue can be revisited. In the meantime, the best thing to do is to follow through with this and support this consensus until there is good reason to decide on something else.

With respect to the articles on the so-far designated dwarf planets: At this time,

• Eris (dwarf planet) already conforms to this standard (as is in fact the prototype for it),
• Pluto conforms due to the presumption that "Pluto" is used most often in reference to the former planet, and
• 1 Ceres needs to have its name changed to either Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet).

I will leave it to others to request the name change for Ceres, but do encourage everyone to voice there opinion in the resultant poll. As for Pluto: If someone wants to request that its name also be changed, then be my guest. I will support that, but doubt that it will succeed at this time. However, I do see Pluto eventually becoming Pluto (dwarf planet). --EMS | Talk 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree that this needs to be done now, I am glad that this is finally done (and Pluto is not going to move, based on at least two Requested Moves on it already). Ryūlóng 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

One problem, now fixed: the actual text of the decision was not listed here. What was originally posted above dropped the second sentence, "Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages". I have corrected the mistake in the above reference, and changed "its name changed to Ceres (dwarf planet)" to "its name changed to either Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet)". (This is the second page that has left out part of the text - it was also misstated on 1 Ceres.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah. Back up. Poll ≠ consensus

Consensus is a general agreement on what needs to be done. A poll can demonstrate that that's already been achieved, but to use it to build that agreement is a mockery of what consensus really is. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that everybody involved go back and discuss this. If you have to count votes, or even to THINK about the numbers, its NOT consensus. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding option 5, which was a vote not to decide, the score is 6 for option 1, 1 for option 2, and 22 for option 3. 22 to 7 in favour of option 3, or ~3:1. And even counting option 5 the result is 22 to 11, or a 2:1 majority for option 3. If 3:1 (2:1) is not a sign of consensus, what IS then? -- Jordi·✆ 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read what Triona wrote? Consensus is not "this has more votes than the other". It's a discussed agreement. Ryūlóng 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since a discussed agreement is impossible here - positions are far too entrenched - the poll is our attempt to approximate consensus as best we can. And since it's been hovering in the 2:1 range for some time now, that seems good enough. Even Ryulong was saying "While I disagree that this needs to be done now, I am glad that this is finally done" only two hours before the comment above. So please, no more discussions. Let's just act on this and move on to something else. SteveRwanda 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that it was closed. Ryūlóng 09:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had unclosed it while I sought out counsel off-wiki from other users, and Triona was the one who basically answered me there and here. Ryūlóng 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to yourself and Triona, this debate clearly has no real consensus in sight, even after three (or more) weeks of constant discussion. It says in WP:NOT that In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes which obviously can mean anything or nothing, but I did believe the first part might be accepted, even by those opposed to the vote's outcome, and we were finally moving somewhere this morning. I'm basically trying to ask you to accept this and go along with the outcome, since the alternative is just more weeks of pointless argument instead of constructive encylopaedia building. For the record I've now opened up a properly formatted WP:RM entry for 1 Ceres -> Ceres (dwarf planet) in the interests of clearing this up once and for all. Cheers — SteveRwanda 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ryulong, why are you refusing to drink the koolaid? Are you some kind of trouble-maker?  ;-)

Seriously: as I said earlier, once this little exercise in democracy is done, it's time to move this matter up the normal dispute resolution process -- if only to get (supposedly) unbiased parties to examine the merits of each position. Just ramming through a random decision and ask everyone to support it anyways is, as Triona says, a mockery of the word "concensus". I have no idea why people are so afraid of discussion. mdf 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Daugherty (Triona), you really should have a look back through the last month or so of archives if you haven't already. While almost everyone here will agree that polling isn't an ideal way to decide this matter, it does seem to be the only way for this community to solve this particular problem. Both sides have strong arguments for their positions and are unlikely to budge. Further discussion isn't going to help. If you have any constructive ideas for solving this naming problem I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear them, cheers, aLii 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Triona - I have no good reason to believe that individual discussions on other future dwarf planet pages would not individually reach the same conclusion. "Consensus" is not majority rule, but neither is it unanimity. I chose to use a specific supermajority standard as a guage of when further discussion of the issue is futile because enough of the participants are united behind a certain viewpoint. That standard has been achieved by option 3. Given that, I am now supporting option 3 even though I prefer option 1, and I hope that others will also do so.

My main point is that a decision was needed, and has been made. I can't give you perfection here. I would have loved to see everyone unite, but the only compromises proposed (options 2 and 4) went down in total flames. In the end, this is a fairly cut-and-dried choice between highlighting the status of the dwarf planets of continuing to treat them as minor planets. The decision is to highlight the new status of these objects, and I see no good reason to continue that debate at this time. Let's go with this decision and see where we end up. --EMS | Talk 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I want to do is to sabotage a true consensus. However, there's enough bad blood here to make it pretty obvious to me that a consensus hasn't been reached. When that happens, its time to go back, see where the process failed, and try again. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Triona...It, "Positions are too deeply entrenched for 100% concensus to be reached.", has been said more then once; and I am saying it again. We could debate this for at least the next 20 years, forseably, and not get the desired golden 100% consensus. If you look at the IAU, they did not reach 100% concensus, the ultimately had to use a strawpoll to determine the acceptability of some proposals; the validity of those votes is a matter for a different debate. Ergo, we must rely on some form of polling to achieve a conclusion to the debate. In this case, significant interest, the grand majority of all active participants have indicated that the most acceptable result is Option 3.

Those who have either:

1. ) abstained due non-interest
2. ) abstained due to infrequency of visitation/participation
3. ) simply have not voiced an opinion

must be reflected upon; science and time wait for no one.

If all things scientific required 100% concensus we would still call the earth flat, rather then round as there is still a group of persons who consider that the earth is flat. Abyssoft 12:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

as an afterthought this old adage came to mind: "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." --Abraham Lincoln

Where the process failed? It has failed because some people simply refuse to budge from their positions because they have the advantage of the status quo. It's quite clear this is just two or three individuals (heck, only five voted for the numbers option) who are making a lot of noise and creating the "no consensus" facade. The vast majority of people in this decision agreee with option 3. Even people like myself who initially supported another option have come round to this in order to try to achieve a consensus. What else can be done to achieve consensus on this issue? And if what we have (effectively a 20:5 vote) doesn't count as consensus and the change can't be made, that is favouring the very small minority rather than the large group which are trying to sort this out. Hardly fair. The Enlightened 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll is irrelevant

I'm afraid the previous poll is irrelevant as it failed to list all possibilities: Option 3 (Name or Name (dwarf planet)) was not balanced with (Name or number Name). Since the Pluto hotbutton issue is so looming over the discussion, this was BOUND to bias the results. As such, this poll cannot show consensus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You could add any option you want. In fact the option which gathered the most votes was not also initially proposed. I've added it later.--Nixer 14:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the advice on polls is to try and get options from the start. One more vote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, sod it. Let's do one more straw poll

Granted that Pluto is probably not going to reach consensus for anything but Pluto for now, it would be good to decide how to disambiguate 1 Ceres and Eris (dwarf planet) consistently. Two major alternatives exist as to their disambiguation: Disambiguation by number (not an option in the previous poll), or disambiguation by parenthetical note.

• Note for Adam: See Option 1. The number option was there, 5 people voted for it. 22 voted for disambiguation by parenthetical note. aLii 15:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the benefits of each are:

• (dwarf planet), e.g. Eris (dwarf planet): Clearly shows new category, though this will appear in the article as well.

• Number Name, e.g. 1 Ceres: Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet) are Wikipedianisms: noone would ever refer to them by that exact phrase outside of a wikipedia title. Since noone would ever search for Name (dwarf planet) without previous knowledge of the pages, but it is possible, if not particularly likely, that they would search for Number Name without prompting, it makes sense to use an actual, accepted name to disambiguate rather than making up our own. This has the added benefit of keeping the other former-planets (besides Pluto) consistant: 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta. Since Ceres directly links on to the chain of numbered asteroids - um, or SHOULD if someone hadn't deleted it - see 2 Pallas - as well as appearing in the List of asteroids by number this is not a trivial issue. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not refer to Titan as Saturn VI, even for disambiguation.--Nixer 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we do refer to Pallas as 2 Pallas. How is that relevant? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for disambiguating either by Name (dwarf planet) or Number Name, or for Neither. A discussion is ongoing at Talk:1 Ceres

• Number Name' - as per above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• No poll - the fact that I gave you a beer notwithstanding! This will not achieve anything new. Cheers — SteveRwanda 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You're probably right, but if it was possible to quickly get a consensus, it'd be nice to. Figured it worth a rather pessimistic try. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but a quick consensus is never going to happen. The comments above have been dribbling through for weeks and people are certainly weary of polling! If it's OK I'll take the liberty of closing this poll. SteveRwanda 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is dumb and not needed. We just ran the exact same poll. We know the result. Lets close this "poll" now before people actually start voting and confusing things more. aLii 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Where? A poll with only one of these options was run. I'm trying to make sure that the option selected was actually the presferred one. Please don't attempt to supress discussion, and please don't close a good faith poll less than an hour after it opened.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Look. If there's a consensus, a poll will show that. The last vote was badly done and had problems with the text of the options and poll contents being changed after it started. I want to make sure there is consensus. This poll will do that. And if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll go away and shut up. But stop trying to suppress any and all discussion, please. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not need new poll even if you're not satisfied. You seem to try re-voting unless you get the desired result. People are tired with votings.--Nixer 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No different from stopping to vote once you have obtained the desired result ... which is basically what has happened. ("We are tired, lets just call the winner a concensus!") This is why voting and straw polls and the rest of it are discouraged by the wp:concensus guidelines. I've suggested that in the face of the hung jury, someone move for a bench trial. Talk more, vote less. "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." You know. mdf 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Where? Read up. See the part:

Option 1: "The three dwarf planets should continue to have the minor planet number in front of their name to have Number_Name as article title."

(this is the one you seem to think wasn't covered)

Then also see:

Option 3: "Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages."

In what way does that not cover your two options? aLii 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BECAUSE AS I SAID FIVE OR SIX TIMES ALREADY, THAT EXPLICITLY INCLUDES PLUTO CHANGING AS A REQUIREMENT FOR NUMBERS, BUT NOT FOR (dwarf planet)! ARE YOU READING A WORD I SAY? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an attempt to claim consensus using a very dodgy poll. You can't both claim consensus on questionable grounds and try and suppress attempts to confirm this. It's making me strongly suspicious that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of: voting until you get something that vaguely supports you, then claiming consensus. I have not initiated a single vote before now, and promised to shut up had this poll gone strongly against me. Instead, all I have gotten is bullying and attempts to supress fact-finding and discussion. How am I to believe this is consensus? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep things civil Adam, there's no need for shouting. The reason is that using the numbers would not be a disambiguator, it would be choosing it for the primary name. Using numbers for Ceres and Eris, but not for Pluto would imply the common name is 1 Ceres yet just Pluto. By using a disambiguator in brackets it implies the common name is still Ceres. A consensus has been reached after a long period. Please can we abide by it. The Enlightened 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had responded to the "no-Pluto" point on Talk:1 Ceres where you have been making the same points — I forgot to paste it here for you to read a second time. Surely having a discussion about a naming scheme for all three dwarf planets becomes irrelevent once you decide to exclude/exempt one of them? aLii 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam - I would prefer 1 Ceres myself. However, what I am seeing in the poll done here is that if the "let's wait" crowd is split 50-50 (as those who did switch votes split) and your opinion is included, then we get a 5:2 ratio in favor of the (dwarf planet) suffix. Furthermore, this is the exact same margin that gave Eris (dwarf planet) its current name! So I have no problems with the use of option 3 representing the true choice of the the community. Furthermore, if anyone had said "I will support option 1 if Pluto is excluded", I'm sure that option 1 would have been adjusted accordingly. There are no comments to that effect, which tells me that this is a non-issue. I'm sorry that your side (our side?) "lost", but it did.

BTW - There was notice of this poll on talk:1 Ceres. If you felt so strongly on these issues, then you should have been participating here while the discussion was ongoing. --EMS | Talk 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest possible terms with running a poll at the present time. Talk this out first. Everything shouldn't be turned into a vote or even somthing into something remotely resembling a vote. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Triona/Stephanie, please note the large amount of discussion already archived, not only on this page but on the pluto/eris/ceres pages as well. This has been discussed for the last week of August, the entirety of september, and now the first week of october. This discussion has been going on for 6 weeks. Please check to see if your opinion has already been stated and resp;ved. ^_^ Hopquick 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Hopquick said, it has been talked out dozens and dozens of times. Everyone has heard every argument, I fail to see what else talking can do.The Enlightened 02:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Motion to call this whole discussion closed

Not that this is a democracy, but I move that we close and archive the whole /Naming page being that the necessity for a discussion that spans the 3 impacted pages has now run its course. This multi-page consensus reaching tool now needs to trickle back down to the individually impacted pages, where the discussions probably need to continue and reach their quick conclusion. Hopquick 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing this on Talk:1 Ceres. I was told that it was decided that issues should be discussed here, os I brought it here. I am not bringing up issues that, to my knowledge, have come up before. To my knowledge, the numbering as disambiguation has not ever been considered without bringing in Pluto. I'm trying in good faith to check there IS a consensus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a straw poll to see if there ought to be a straw poll?

• Abstain - there has been enough of this nonsense already. --ajn (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam, unfortunately it seems that you came to this discussion a day too late. It has been going on for a month or so, and the latest poll was open for the last week. Anyway you should feel better in the knowledge that if you had voted it wouldn't have made much of difference. aLii 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If every section since that poll closed didn't have people talking about how there was no consensus proven, I might agree with you. As it is, I'm being bullied due to attempts to get provable consensus, and begining to think that the only thing to do is put a formal objection to the request for move. I don't want to do that, but if any attempts at discussion are being suppressed.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah. This isn't worth it. Leaving discussion. Just make damn sure you can prove consensus, can justify it, and are willing to do all the work needed for the move. I'm deleting these pages from my watch list. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)