Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet): Difference between revisions

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ceres (dwarf planet) → 1 Ceres
• Eris (dwarf planet) → 136199 Eris
• Haumea → 136108 Haumea
• Makemake → 136472 Makemake

– Firstly, using "dwarf planet" (DP) in the title and treating the IAU-recognised dwarf planets as fundamentally different from other minor planets seems to be based on the situation in 2006 when the IAU stated that it would start a process to recognise dwarf planets. However, it's now over 15 years later, and to date there seems to be no such process. Haumea and Makemake were named in 2008 only assuming they were DPs, because they met the absolute magnitude cutoff H < +1 (and were announced as DPs by press release). This is not actually part of the IAU definition of a DP (only a rule saying that bodies found to meet it will be named assuming that they are DPs), and no new bodies have met that since 2008. Also, we don't even know that Haumea, Makemake, and Eris truly meet the IAU definition to the letter, since that requires hydrostatic equilibrium, and to strictly find it out to the standards most scientists seem to use in papers (which excludes round Iapetus), you basically need to send a space probe. Even Ceres is noticeably not quite right, but before we sent the probe, measurements were consistent with it being in HE.

But in practice, scientists routinely call other objects DPs in their papers, whatever IAU press release recognition and the IAU definition strictly read say. It is completely normal to see the term "dwarf planet" in papers referring to the large TNOs Quaoar, Orcus, Sedna, and Gonggong. Our articles on these bodies (50000 Quaoar, 90482 Orcus, 90377 Sedna, 225088 Gonggong) already call them dwarf planets without reservation because that's what the scientific consensus seems to be, but their titles follow the minor-planet convention to have the number. To use a different naming convention here seems to imply that the IAU-recognised five are the only dwarf planets, which not even the IAU seems to believe (it calls them the five identified DPs and admits that "There may be dozens or perhaps even more than a hundred [DPs] waiting to be discovered."), and which is against common scientific usage.

Secondly, Ceres and Eris already need disambiguation, and it seems more natural disambiguation to use the minor planet number than to use parenthetical disambiguation. Especially when that's what's done for most minor planets (e.g. 2 Pallas, 4 Vesta, 10 Hygiea which in 2006 were considered as DP candidates too). Haumea and Makemake do not need disambiguation, but it is already common to use the minor planet number on WP even when it does not need disambiguation (Quaoar redirects to 50000 Quaoar, and 52246 Donaldjohanson is where it is despite Donaldjohanson being a redlink).

Pluto is not requested because it is by far the most well-known DP or minor planet and its MP number is a modern afterthought rather than contemporary with its name.

P.S. I'm aware that this move request goes against WP:NCASTRO making officially recognised DPs an exception from the minor-planet naming convention. But that was established back in 2006, where there was some reason to believe that the IAU would actually follow up on creating a process to designate which objects were DPs as they said they would. In 2021, with no process still, there is no such reason. Double sharp (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for Makemake and Haumea, proposed titles are unlikely search terms for non-astrogeeks, and disambiguation isn't necessary, so the choice consistent with our naming conventions is the current title. Neutral on the others, don't care much what's type of disambiguation is used here. —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nobody would search for Makemake as 136472 Makemake, and the same is applicable for others. It's redundant level of complexity and would benefit nobody at all. And Ceres here is a lot like Pluto - it's well known by people by its name, not by a number. Artem.G (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dwarf planets are usually not referred to with their minor planet numbers, unlike most other minor planets.--Beanpickle (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the OP. Many of the arguments given here so far seem equally true for large planetoids that either are not DPs or at least have not been recognised as DPs, like 2 Pallas and the similarly unmemorably numbered 225088 Gonggong. I agree that DPs often are referred to without the minor planet numbers, but it is not just them. Pallas in Google Scholar seems to lack the number quite often, too. Even when the number is present in the header and first occurrence, it is often absent afterwards. Or if we want likely-dwarf TNOs, the same's true for Gonggong. However, the already standard naming convention on WP (WP:NCASTRO#Asteroids, also see List of minor planets) gives them all the numbers in the title, and the five IAU-recognised dwarfs are the only exceptions. So given the way this seems to be going, perhaps WP:NCASTRO needs updating away from using the MP numbers in titles. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Most articles I see refer to minor planets with their numbers in their titles, but for the rest of the article they use their name only. However dwarf planets (especially the 5 IAU ones) usually do not show their number at all.
• Oppose as common name should win out here. I think the first 20 numbered asteroids have numbers and names that are easier to recall. As I wrote over at Talk: Pluto, "Before looking at List of minor planets: 1–1000, 19 Fortuna is the highest minor planet that I can recall the number to on any given day. I do know the numbers to 24 Themis, 52 Europa, 65 Cybele, etc, but I do not think of their numbers unless I am already thinking specifically of that asteroid." -- Kheider (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kheider: Do you mean this oppose to apply to Ceres too, since it's in the first 20? Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being easy to recall "1 Ceres" does not make it the common name used by the public. Since there are only 5 original (significant) dwarf planets, we should point to their common name as the general public does not care to see a MPC number in a large BOLD font leading the article title. I suspect a lot of astronomers do not care if other minor planets receive the official dwarf planet title because it will not change the science. -- Kheider (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I mostly just think it should be consistent, if Pluto isn't showing it's number, the other 4 IAU dwarf planets shouldn't either, or alternatively no minor planet shows its number.Beanpickle (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Though from what I see online, small minor planets are commonly referred to with their numbers, the 5 IAU dwarf planets usually don't have their numbers displayed and the non-IAU dwarf planets use varying designations.Beanpickle (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There plenty of online sources that use "(1) Ceres" or "1 Ceres". Several of them are in the refs to this article. There are also recent print sources, such as 'Bright carbonate deposits as evidence of aqueous alteration on (1) Ceres', Nature (2016) and 'The brittle boulders of dwarf planet Ceres', Planetary Science Journal (2021): "Dwarf planet (1) Ceres maintains a position somewhat in between small bodies and the terrestrial planets." — kwami (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency with the many many similar article titles. Most of these need dabs anyway, so it's not a matter of what people would look up. If we're going to tag something as 'dwarf planet', what qualifies? Whose opinion do we follow? If Grundy, Buie et al., then down to Orcus or Salacia, but per Sterns dozens of named bodies are DPs. We shouldn't be picking a POV in an article title. Such things can be discussed in the text. Also, for Haumea, IMO a major deity that is culturally important takes precedence over a planetoid that was in the news for a short while but no longer gets much attention, so the planetoid should be moved to something.

Some of the objections above are specifically for the higher numbers. Is there any problem moving 'Ceres (dwarf planet)' to '1 Ceres'? If we're going by search criteria, the latter is easier, and is what I put in the search window. (There's also some doubt that it's actually a dwarf planet, according to the only ref to evaluate the situation that I've ever seen.) — kwami (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This isn't the first time this discussion has happened. Adding a bunch of numbers in front of recognized names makes the article names less accessible, not more. If you know about asteroids, you already know that Ceres was the first discovered. If you don't, the "1" would be simply mystifying, and not self-explanatory. As for the rest, the names are well known, the numbers are not - and we have no need to make the article names more complicated than they are. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, and above. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Peter Ormond 💬 07:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this argument, which has been made several times now. How is "Ceres (dwarf planet)" a more common name than "1 Ceres"? Should 50000 Quaoar be moved to "Quaoar (dwarf planet)"? 4 Vesta to "Vesta (asteroid)"? Without any reasoning, it doesn't make sense to me. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres was discovered in 1801, and since then it has only been referred to as "Ceres" commonly. In most of the books you'll find this object named as only Ceres. Same is the case for Pluto. Nobody, apart from the IAU (officially), calls it "134340 Pluto". 4 Vesta and the 2002-discovered 50000 Quaoar are not known to as many people as the ones who know Ceres or Pluto. Peter Ormond 💬 09:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not advocating it be located at "Ceres", you want it located at "Ceres (dwarf planet)". That doesn't follow COMMONNAME. If we're going to have a dab anyway, "1 Ceres" wins out per COMMONNAME, as well as following the pattern of all other MP's but Pluto. (Pluto's unique in not being assigned a MP number until decades after discovery.) And probably about as many people know about Vesta as about Ceres, so that's not much of an argument either. If we need a dab, why should the dab for Ceres be different than the dab for all other MPs? — kwami (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at Ceres because of the deity. But more people know Ceres as a "Dwarf Planet" than as "MPC number 1". The general public does not know Quaoar from a hole in the ground. -- Kheider (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And more people know of Vesta as an asteroid than as "MPC number 4", yet the article is still at '4 Vesta'. Then there's the problem that the only RS we have says there are 'unexplained anomalies' re. Ceres being a dwarf planet. We shouldn't be making a claim of truth in the article title about something debatable like that. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia long ago decided to treat the 5 IAU dwarf planets as more special than the other 585 THOUSAND NUMBERED minor planets. Debates can be covered in the article body. -- Kheider (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that that categorization is obsolete. There are other dwarf planets than these five, and the IAU has nothing to do with classifying them. As for debates, that's precisely my point: they should be covered in the article body and not in the title. Since there is uncertainty whether Salacia is a DP, the article shouldn't be at "Salacia (dwarf planet)". Same for Ceres. It's one thing to say in the text "the dwarf planet Ceres (BTW, we're not entirely sure it's a dwarf planet)", and another to formally declare it one in the title. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is a name which won't change if the category of the object changes. As best I can tell from the Venn diagram at Minor_planet#/media/File:Euler_diagram_of_solar_system_bodies.svg, such a universal designation doesn't exist. It used to be "minor planet", but the IAU reclassified dwarf planets to not be included in that designation. The best you could do would be "astronomical object" or "small solar system body", which would be even worse in terms of usable name. In general, I'd suggest trying to solve this problem comes under Ralph Waldo Emerson's "foolish consistency" dictum, and thus not worth pursuing. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple solutions. "1 Ceres" is the most consistent, but it could also be "Ceres (asteroid)", "Ceres (astronomy)", or just "Ceres", making it the primary topic of the name. And it's not a matter of "if the category changes" -- Ceres is what it is. The problem is that we're not sure what it is, and claiming surety in the article title is unprofessional. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wouldn't disagree in saying that Makemake and Haumea should remain titled as they are per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

As to naming: looking at the links from the current DABs Ceres and Eris, the primary topics for these names are indeed the dwarf planets due to the length of the articles and they are also rated as at least good article class. Per page views of Eris and Ceres shows both the dwarf planets have higher page views over the latest 20 days, more page watchers, larger size and are rated as higher class articles. Moving Ceres & Eris to Ceres (disambiguation) & Eris (disambiguation) respectively and Ceres (dwarf planet) & Eris (dwarf planet) to Ceres & Eris respectively could be a better alternative.

The dwarf planets article does not have any numbers visible in front of the names i.e. 90377 Sedna is just seen as Sedna. Per comment made by Beanpickle, numbers are not really well known to most people and I don't know the actual number in front of Sedna as much as the name of the dwarf planet itself. Either way, we should consider the dwarf planets to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as they have higher educational value and more significance than others listed on the disambiguation pages including Ceres, Eris and Sedna so I say they should be titled as Ceres and Eris and perhaps remove the 90377 from 90377 Sedna as well as numbers are obscure in this part of the Solar System. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this has been suggested a couple of times here, I would support the moves Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres and Eris (dwarf planet) → Eris. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Nope to Ceres and Eris as primary, the figures in mythology, who the topics are named after, would intrude on that idea. Anyway, this RM is for the dwarf planet and any other naming idea would need another RM (which would likely be wasting time per the mythological figures, see this 2006 RM and this 2018 RM which tried to go the other way). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]