Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Requested move 30 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Dragons flight (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

– WP:COMMONNAME. People are more likely to look for the dwarf planet than the goddess. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Procedural discussion

Comment For reference, see the previous request to move Ceres (dwarf planet) to Ceres. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Converted to double move, this being clearly the intent. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Closed without prejudice. We just had this discussion, and things haven't changed much. Give it some time and see if news of the Dawn mission has a permanent impact. Kwamikagami 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, please read & follow the instructions. These templates should be substituted, and the /dated template needs to be removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, per the appeal at User talk:Wbm1058 § re-open Ceres (dwarf planet) move, I am reopening this. Please let it run for the full seven days. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose, again, due to the long-term significance of the Roman goddess. Compare, for example, Eris, which goes to a disambigation page directing to either the minor planet or the mythological figure, and Ceres (one of the twelve major gods of the Roman pantheon) has more long-term significance than Eris does. Ceres the goddess is an important part of the culture of the ancient Romans, a culture which had an incalculable effect on first Western and then worldwide civilization. Look at Ceres (mythology)#Legacy. There are statues of Ceres on government buildings in a country that never worshipped her, and they're there because of of her cultural significance and what she represents. She appears in the works of Shakespeare, who I think we can safely say did not put her there because he was secretly a worshipper of the Roman pantheon. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Inclined to oppose – The same request was considered just a few months ago, and another move request was closed just a few days ago, and I see several other move discussions in the archives – let's give this a rest for a year. The status quo is acceptable, and the asteroid/dwarf planet was presumably named after the goddess, and there are lots of other meanings to consider as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose To soon to reconsider. Give it a rest.--agr (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ditto. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This issue has already been settled; why should consensus change? Dustin (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We just did this. Several times. Unless we launch a manned expedition there, or start mining its resources, or it hatches into a space dragon, the asteroid isn't going to get much more media attention, and it's never going to have more long-term significance than the goddess after whom it's named. P Aculeius (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The asteroid is an order of magnitude more notable than everything else put together. Compare here and here. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Page views measure reader interest. I don't think its appropriate to look down on our own readers. Are we writing for someone else? ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No one said page views were unimportant. Your claim was that it was more notable because it had more page views, yet they are not the same thing. WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity ..." - DinoSlider (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the semantic enlightenment, but I will continue to get word definitions from a dictionary. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. All places mentioned at Ceres have <240 page views per day combined, the acronyms <210, and the rest that have a standalone articles <430. The goddess has ~350 and the dwarf planet has ~2500–3000, not counting spikes. Looks like the primary topic for Wikipedia readers to me. --JorisvS (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the second or third time this year for the same reasons as before. —  AjaxSmack  22:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose High popularity now is going to go away once it's out of the news, & the goddess will come back. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's not like the goddess has seen a drop in 'popularity', nor is there any cause for an increase coming. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sort of Support - After careful consideration, I don't support a move of "Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres" but I do support a move of "Ceres → Ceres (disambiguation)." I would then redirect "Ceres" to "Ceres (dwarf planet)". Yes it's a compromise, as horrific as that word often sounds in wikipedia discussions, but considering the new discoveries every week at Ceres and the fact that Dawn is going to be there for the rest of it's life, I think it will work well for our readers for the near future. Further arguments below in the discussion section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both articles have comparative notability. Greengreengreenred 02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest we close on the grounds that there is no consensus for the move. Jusdafax 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    Remember this is not a hand count. Any admin worth her salt would throw this oppose out as simply a show of hands. They are looking for reasoned responses so they can compare the best arguments and make a determination. Counting is never the way to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, this is a hand count. The whole purpose of this section was to determine whether a consensus exists for the proposal. Everyone here has not only said what they thought, but given their reasons. And this has been discussed ad nauseam in recent months. It's very clear that the consensus is overwhelmingly against the proposal. The only question remaining is how long to leave this open for comment, in case we haven't heard from people who have yet to make their opinions known. P Aculeius (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    Actually it's not... and never is a hand count. Some have not given reasons or I would not have mentioned it in the first place. The whole purpose of this section and the next discussion section is to present arguments whereby the closer can weed out the the thistle from the roses. This topic of Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres, was only discussed on 26 February 2015, per the log above. That's quite awhile in wikipedia or dog years. It'll probably keep on being brought up every 3-6 months (which is an editor's right to do so) because it's in the news every other day. Heck, I'm against the move but may bring it back up myself in 6 months if I see it even more lopsided in the dwarf planets favor at that time. I may bring up the move on Ceres → Ceres (disambiguation) on that talk page with a redirect of Ceres to the dwarf planet sooner than that since I see that hasn't been discussed at the Ceres talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    The reason to not re-re-re-reconsider questions like this is editor exhaustion. After so many arguments, editors just give it up as a bad job and don't comment any more. Please don't bring this up again until the body has stopped spinning. WP:DEADHORSE Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    Till the body has stopped spinning? Knowing readers and editors at wikipedia, I can guarantee that won't happen. As long as the the dwarf planet get far more hits, and as long as DAWN keeps putting out more info, this will get revisited again and again and again. You know it will. You can get an administrator to stop a new rm or rfc after a month, but after 4-6 months it usually passes muster. And will you say the same thing about no more rm's if the closer reads through these discussions and decides it's best to move it (or move part of it)? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm saying that repeated rapid fire re-re-revotes result in progressively lower quality discussion and votes, as you drive away editors who have other things on their plates. I think WP:DEADHORSE very much applies here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous moves record:

  • From the earliest days of Wikipedia, back in December 2001, the goddess and the planet have shared top billing for the title. See nost:Ceres.
  • The original title of this was 1 Ceres, as split from the disambiguation 2 April 2002. I see that the number 1 is part of the numbering convention used for exceptional asteroids.
  • On 12 April 2006, 1 Ceres was boldly moved to Ceres (asteroid). On 17 June 2006, it was moved back to 1 Ceres.
  • There has been half a dozen reverted bold moves since then, to titles such as Ceres and Ceres (planetoid) in 2006.
  • The only move that's stuck is the October 2006 move to the current title, Ceres (dwarf planet). Ceres is the most exceptional asteroid, as it's the only one without a number on Wikipedia. — Wbm1058 (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - In determining a primary topic, wikipedia tells us there are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors. So no matter the amount of searching we do it would be good to reach a firm consensus so we don't have to do this over and over. I looked at many of the other "ceres" topics under the disambiguation page and most seem to get about 5-10 hits a day except for Ceres, California which gets about 30-40 hits a day. Ceres (mythology) gets 200-400 looks, and Ceres (dwarf planet) gets about 2000-3000. I think it's safe to say that the dwarf planet gets more than double the hits of every other ceres topic combined. So over the last 90 days our readers are overwhelmingly searching for the dwarf planet rather than anything else. It's not close.

The question is, is that enough to make it the primary topic as opposed to leading readers to a list of every ceres topic? Ceres has been in the news at least since Dawn arrived in March... 5 months. Dawn will not be leaving Ceres so info will keep coming in until the spacecraft dies. In late August, Dawn will start taking images and other data of the dwarf planet at unprecedented resolution per NASA so readers will be heading here at least as much for the near future. A few years from now that may change. One thing I looked at is how we treat other planet/mythology topics. Here's a generalization of what I found.

Daily wiki searches over the last 90 days using traffic statistics. Just casual eyeballing. Mercury has no primary topic and it's easy to see why....

  • Mercury (element) 1800-2600
  • Mercury (planet) 2200-4000
  • Mercury (mythology) 500-800

Uranus the planet is the primary topic and the mythology topic gets more daily hits than Ceres (mythology)

  • Uranus 2500-3000
  • Uranus (mythology) 800-1200

Eris the dwarf planet is the primary topic (though it is by redirect)

  • Eris (dwarf planet) 1200-2000
  • Eris (mythology) 500-700

I picked Uranus, Eris and Mercury because they really aren't in the news as much right now. Based on what I'm looking at and the fact that space exploration today is more newsworthy overall than mythology, I would make this recommendation. Keep it at Ceres (dwarf planet) but redirect "Ceres" to point at the dwarf planet. Therefore change the Ceres article to "Ceres (disambiguation)." Our readers, over the next 12 months, are my primary concern and I think it would serve them well to be redirected to "Ceres (dwarf planet)." If things radically change after a year then at least Ceres (dwarf planet) or Ceres (mythology) won't have to be moved. Just the redirect would need to be changed back to the disambiguation page. I welcome any discussion here and alternate thoughts. Just trying to reach a real consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Eris is a disambiguation; see Talk:Eris (dwarf planet) § Requested move 30 July 2015. It is a similar situation to this one. In each case, the dwarf planet and mythology topic are blocking each other from primary topic status.
I don't think Mercury and Uranus are close enough to this to represent good edge-case examples. Better to compare Ceres with the other four bodies that the IAU has recognized as dwarf planets. Eris (dwarf planet) is one of them (see Dwarf planet § Dwarf planets and possible dwarf planets.
  • Pluto is by far the most famous of these, which justifies its primary topic status over the Roman god of the Underworld. It was recognized as a full-status planet for many decades, and got a big boost in name recognition from Disney, within months of its discovery.
  • Haumea and Makemake are each the primary topic for their name, despite the fact that they are not well known to people without a special interest in space exploration. Apparently neither the Hawaiian goddess nor the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) god are sufficiently notable to pull these dwarf planets from primary status.
  • Thus three of the five are currently primary for their name. That leaves Ceres and Eris, the two that are not in the Kuiper belt, fighting a losing battle to gain primary status. The Roman goddess of agriculture, grain crops, fertility and motherly relationships, and the goddess of discord in Greek mythology are waging a strong fight. The lesson here: if you want your dwarf planet to be primary for its name, don't name it after a Roman or Greek deity unless your planet is particularly notable.
  • Noting that the Dawn mission is still ongoing and promising high-resolution images to come, there is hope. The more I look at Wikipedia's coverage, the more surprised I become that the mass-media hasn't raised its profile in my consciousness. Maybe I just missed the coverage, I don't know. Bright spots on Ceres and Pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres seem interesting enough to inspire the general public's imagination. Maybe that will yet happen soon.
On the suggestion to keep the parenthetical disambiguation in the title, but redirect the base title to it – that doesn't happen very often, but there is some precedent for it. Inverter is the example I always recall. Though the title it redirects to, power inverter, uses natural disambiguation, not parenthetical. That one has stuck for three years now, see the discussion at Talk:Power inverter § Requested move. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree with you here. The viewing numbers of our readers in the Uranus situation is pretty much the same as the numbers for Ceres. I think it is a very viable comparison. And I don't know what you mean that Ceres is fighting a "losing battle" for primary status. It's burying the god as we speak, pretty much the same as Uranus. The only reason it is not primary is that some are worried about the lasting number of hits it will retain in the future. If it keeps these hit numbers it will become the primary topic (at least by redirect). The question remains, is it helpful to our readers to change the title to simply "Ceres" (which I don't agree with) or perhaps change the redirect (which I do agree with). Our readers are my concern and at this point in time I think it is the best choice. As for coverage, I still see a lot but the ship has been maneuvering during the Pluto flyby so it's lost in the dust by comparison. Sort of like the '86 Uranus flyby that everyone ignored since it happened during the Challenger disaster. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the battle, I was referring to the battle for the minds of Wikipedia !voters. Page-views is just one component of that battle. "Long-term significance" is a more fuzzy criteria which is harder to capture. I will grant that the planet has won by a landslide on Google (provided they haven't warped their results to fit what they think I want). I went 14 pages deep into my search before getting the first goddess-link (though each page helpfully suggested that if I was looking for the goddess, I should specifically say so). Right after that was this link to Neil deGrasse Tyson on "the most underrated planet"... and that's the problem. Guys like deGrasse Tyson need to talk about Ceres more, until they get the general-interest media to pay attention. Noting that the Ceres dab itself has a relatively low page-view count (which isn't always the case in debates of this sort), it seems most readers are finding their way to the (dwarf planet) page without much trouble (Google and our search box are both pointing them directly to the correct page). Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Changing Ceres to redirect to "Ceres (dwarf planet)" wouldn't do much good. I'd say the same result would be accomplished by simply moving the dwarf planet article to Ceres, and moving the current contents of "Ceres" to "Ceres (disambiguation)". I don't really think the Greek goddess is more notable than the dwarf planet. Just because the goddess has been known longer. The dwarf planet existed first. Long-term significance, Ceres is more significant. Not the goddess, the dwarf planet. It's always, ALWAYS been that the dwarf planet has gotten more views than the goddess. Do we do this with any of the planets? No. Mercury is unique - the element is at least as much of the primary topic as the planet, but the god is just a secondary topic at this point. When people search for Ceres or Eris, odds are they're not searching for the goddess. They're searching for the dwarf planet. With Dawn exploring Ceres, Ceres is becoming well known. With Pluto having been visited by New Horizons, and turning out to be larger than this other dwarf planet, people are wanting to know more about that other dwarf planet. "Oh, it's named Eris. That seems cool, I oughta look at that." So people are going to be interested in Eris by way of Pluto and the size debate (which is now a moot point, as we know which is more massive and which is more voluminous). Eris is already becoming popular. With this being basically the "Year of the Dwarf Planets", due to both Dawn and New Horizons reaching their targets, all the dwarf planets - Varuna, Ixion, Salacia, Quaoar, Orcus, Sedna, 2007 OR10, 2002 MS4, 2003 AZ84, 2004 GV9, 2002 AW197, Haumea, Makemake, Ceres, Eris, Pluto, and probably Charon - are in the spotlight. People want to know more about these objects like Pluto and Ceres that aren't planets, but aren't asteroids or moons either. They're gonna want to know more about Pluto's fellow dwarf planets. The popularity of other dwarf planets aside from Pluto and Ceres will only rise. The popularity of Ceres and Eris is still rising, the question is whether that of the other dwarf planets will. Haumea, Makemake, and Pluto already have primary topic status. Consistency would be best here. Those three don't have a "dwarf planet" dab at the end, and it's kinda arbitrary to state that the namesakes for Haumea and Makemake are less of the primary topic than the dwarf planets named for them, in the eyes of some people. It's much of a double standard. For consistency and for convenience to the general public, who will only continue to become more interested in Ceres and Eris, those two should be given primary topic status. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You say that redirecting Ceres to Ceres (dwarf planet) wouldn't do much good, yet you failed to say why. It seems like it would do a gigantic amount of good to me. Anyone typing in "ceres" would go directly to the planet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Moving the page to Ceres would be more efficient because it would mean one less redirect that people would have to take to get there. It would also mean a shorter page title. Yes, there's still a redirect, but people will go to Ceres anyway. Ceres being a redirect is rather pointless. With the dwarf planet clearly the primary topic, it is more practical to move it to Ceres, not make Ceres a redirect. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a far different statement than "wouldn't do much good." I look for compromise in every discussion since that's what consensus is supposed to do. I kinda like Ceres having the (dwarf planet) attached, but I also realize that it is far more popular than the mythological god and isn't likely to dip below the god in reader searching. But it may draw much closer as exploration dies down and the primary topic becomes hazy. I say may. The redirect takes about a millisecond so that's not a good argument. It would certainly be a shorter title but it's a title that is used by other space objects. I think it's a good compromise for our readers in the short term and can be re-examined later to see if things change. I hope whoever closes this weighs the merits of the arguments rather than a vote tally of editors saying give it a rest or the goddess will come back or it wouldn't do much good. I think it's important that over the next year our readers get right where they want to go and this tries to strike a balance while doing that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map of quadrangles

Names of the map quadrangles do not exist on their own, they are taken after the name of the prominent feature within each quad. Currently most of the quad names shown on the preliminary map do not exist, they did not obtain IAU approval, which took place in July 2015. Just two of the 15 names saved, Asari and Rongo. The rest 13 names shown on the preliminary map of quads do not exist now, they were just preliminary and now dissapeared. That is why this preliminary map should be deleted from an article. In other case it makes confusion providing a wrong information. Three times I've deleted this wrong map, but every time my editing was reverted without clear explanation of its reason. The last time it was proposed to me to discuss the issue at this talk page. Please, give your opinions if the map with a wrong information should be saved in the article or not? 108.167.40.165 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank You for your comments - Yes - as before (see => ref 1; ref 2), I understand your concerns - however - afaik atm - the approved IAU names of "craters" on Ceres[1] - may (or may not) - be related to the unapproved, but proposed, names of "quadrangles" on Ceres - currently presented on the "Map of quadrangles" in the Ceres article - and which seem *entirely* ok atm afaik - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - Thanks again for your own comments - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
So if this map was used to identify regions and items of interest on Ceres, and there's no official deprecation or rejection of the unused quadrangle names, it seems like it would still be relevant and usable for new features of interest. It'd also be relevant as part of the history of Cerian exploration, even if it were officially deprecated at some point. I don't see any risk of people getting "wrong" information simply by seeing that the map was divided into a number of quadrangles for preliminary purposes. It was a perfectly accurate description of the exploration process, and might still be relevant as new features are identified and studied. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The unused quadrangle names could not obtain *official* deprecation or rejection because they never had *official* approving by the IAU. In fact they are rejected due to approving of the first 17 names (see ref. cited). People who see the map with non-existing names obtain a wrong information about the names on Ceres. These names have no historic value, they are now just a waste.
Once again I'm trying to explain that names of quads do not exist on their own - either on Ceres, or anywhere. Such names are taken after the name of the prominent feature within the quad. There was a working version with preliminary names, which were rejected and are not in use now. All this process was a usual working process and there is no necessity to put such preliminary map into enciclopedia, which is Wikipedia. Such information does not bring any useful knowledge, but leads to making a pile of waste data.108.167.40.165 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - afaik - the cited reference[1] only notes the names of approved "craters" on Ceres - the cited reference[1] does not reject names of "quadrangles" appearing in the "Map of quadrangles" - as you seem to indicate in your comments - also - where is it cited (specific reference?) that such quadrangle names, in your words, "... are taken after the name of the prominent feature within the quad ..." - this may be true in some instances - but may not always be true afaik atm - for example, on planet Mars, a "prominent" feature clearly is "Olympus Mons" - but this "prominent" feature is in the "Amazonis quadrangle" and "Tharsis quadrangle" - and not in a quadrangle by some more related name - otoh - geographical features within a quadrangle may take on the name of the quadrangle instead - for example, on planet Mars, "Aeolis Mons" and "Aeolis Palus" took on the name of the "Aeolis quadrangle" - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Staff (17 July 2015). "First 17 Names Approved for Features on Ceres". USGS. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
Once again I'm trying to explain that the unused quadrangle names could not obtain official rejection because they never obtained official approving by the IAU, i.e. from the formal point of view there is nothing to reject. These names are rejected just by the fact of approving of the first 17 names (see ref. cited). The IAU does not reject or approve any info published either in personal blogs or in scientific presentations. People who see the map with non-existing names obtain a wrong information about the names on Ceres. These names have no any value, but to serve as a waste in Wikipedia.
Naming the map quads after the name of the prominent feature within its outlines is a usual cartographic approach which needs no special reference. One could find such info in any regular university textbook on cartography/mapping. Application of such approach to the maps of planets is described widely, e.g. in Planetary mapping (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/astronomy/planetary-science/planetary-mapping?format=PB).
The names for the qudrangles on Mars derive from the names of albedo features. In case with the Olympus Mons area such features were Amazonis and Tharsis.
It is delusion to consider that the names of topographic features on Mars derives from the name of quadrangle. The causal relationship is turned upside down in such approach. Instead, the names of topo features on Mars (but craters and valleys) are given after the classic albedo feature name nearby. In the case of "Aeolis Mons" and "Aeolis Palus" the names follow the albedo feature name Aeolis. Same do the quad name. --With hope my explanation could clarify the issues,108.167.40.165 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your opinion and/or point of view - however - seems, in this instance atm, you may need WP:CONSENSUS from other editors - after all, according to WP:OWN, All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively. - presenting well-worded text with relevant citation(s) from WP:Reliable Sources may help of course - as well as - the agreement from other editors before posting - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What I told about are a real things, which exist independently from anyone's opinion or point of view. Please, try to apply every of your advises to youself as well, and try to understand that your point of view should not be the only one in the paper. And using numerous references to the rules in your comment does not mean you follow them yourself. There are some things which you have no clear understading about. Nevertheless you use a lot of efforts to fill this paper with a mistaken info. It looks my explanations of 5 August 2015 left unclear to you. My text to the map of quadrangles was deleted, but previous one saved. There are strange explanations in that text, e.g. longitude 0 East is described as applied to equator. It is a gluring mistake, because any meridian goes from N to S pole and every poin along it have the same longitude value, not only one point at the equator. Mistake made by one editor should be corrected by another editor. Instesd, my correction was deleted. Is it a real collaboration? Not at all. It is pity that some editors consider Wikipedia as a space for their own mistaken views. Such content does not bring a correct knowledge to the readers.108.167.40.165 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Crevasses

These should look like crevasses in ice (¼ from the right and ¼ from the top, just above the long cliff). Don't know if any RS is talking about this. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Size of Ceres

Ceres dimensions are given as 482.6 × 480.6 × 445.6 (semi-major axes it seems), unlike Vesta where its actual size is given. --U-95 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, those are radii (x,y,z) not diameters. And the reference is dead, points to a node which isn't up. Fixing and pointing to a reference which is live. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Diameters are simply times two. Inserting pre-Dawn values and removing any and all information on its third axis is poor editing. Searching for a source that *is* live is what you should have done. --JorisvS (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that I couldn't find a source that has that information. A cached version of that presentation is certainly better than what I had, thank you. But better yet if we could find somewhere that information has been published in a peer-reviewed journal rather than slides from a one-time presentation. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You could also have simply tagged it as a dead link, giving other editors the opportunity to help search instead of immediately changing the values. I googled the value of largest semi-axis and quickly found something. The reference could be indeed better, but something is better than nothing and for peer-reviewed articles we may have to have patience. --JorisvS (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird crater

"Weird" bright crater on Ceres.
Oxo crater - context
Irregular-shaped craters on Ceres.

Does anyone have an idea what's going on at the weird bright crater in this image? It looks like it consists of two parts, one of which is distinctly non-round. --JorisvS (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Could it be the "pyramid" mountain? BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That image isn't Pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres. But it is one of the other "bright spots" on Ceres, the ones in Occator crater weren't the only ones. That image suggests to me a sinkhole, which I also notice on Occator's surroundings. I suspect that in both cases an impact created an underground slurry which flowed and then sublimated, undermining the surface. The current bright area in this image could be ice that was exposed by a landslide. I also rather suspect several Ph.D. dissertations are going to be written on the topic, and our guesses here won't answer the question :-). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking something along those lines as well. I hope we don't have to wait too long for an answer. --JorisvS (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at these hexagonal-ish craters (see image above). Start with something like that, then have another crash on top of it, and you might get something like what you see. Tbayboy (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, funny craters. I also get the impression that the weird crater is on top of a mountain. Or is that just my imagination due to the bright streaks? --JorisvS (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I've identified the crater as an unnamed crater near Ceres's prime meridian, at about 45 degrees north. it either IS or is near Oxo crater. The whole area is low in elevation, and to the resolution of Ceres's topographic map, there is no mountain in the area. Considering the sharpness of the slope, I would say that the crater itself is astronomically young, and the shape mentioned is a collapsed subterranean cave system. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Checked. Archive use looks good. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Gallery contents

This is not my area of editing involvement but, somehow the page made it to my watch list. My concern is are we going to list (by link, not display) every image of Ceres that exist ? Seems a better way to do this is to link to Photos of Ceres by Dawn category on Commons. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - agreed - this could be an option of course - the present method of linking to images seems convenient for me (and perhaps others?) to track/sort the very latest images as they become available - however - I'm flexible with this - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done => Brief followup - as an additional alternative, added a "Photos of Ceres by Dawn on Commons" link to the Gallery/"Mapping orbits" table title in the main article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I value the work DrBogdan does in all his articles, so it is difficult to me to express agreement with Mlpearc. The list of links to images (about 166) in the Gallery section is unlike anything I have seen in Wikipedia. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

NASA Briefings/livestream (March 21 – 22, 2016) – Ceres, Mars, Pluto Results.

NASA Briefings/livestream – Experts to discuss the latest Ceres, Mars, Pluto results (near Houston, TX; March 21 – 22, 2016)[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie; Jeffs, William; Tygielsli, Julie (March 16, 2016). "Media Advisory M16-029 - Planetary Conference to Feature Ceres, Mars, Pluto Science Results (March 21 - 22, 2016)". NASA. Retrieved March 17, 2016.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Tarl N. (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

cryovolcano

One lone cryovolcano on all of ceres

Now all we need is a giant kid with blond ringlets to come along and clean it out. Serendipodous 07:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Pallas / Vesta

In the Classification section I read the quote from Space.com and concluded that Pallas was the second largest asteroid after Ceres -- is there a way to clarify that it is Vesta? Pbackstrom (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede & bright spots

The largest paragraph of the lede is spent detailing a blow by blow account of the quest to determine what the 'bright spots' on Ceres are. It seems to me that this is too much detail for the lede which should just contain a summary of what was found and maybe detail what questions are still open. Would anyone object to this change? Ashmoo (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that paragraph could use some trimming. Go for it. Sario528 (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ceres content appears to be incorrect

Specifically -

is the largest object in the asteroid belt that lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Its diameter is approximately 945 kilometers (587 miles),[6] making it the largest of the minor planets within the orbit of Neptune. The 33rd-largest known body in the Solar System, it is the only dwarf planet within the orbit of Neptune.

As stated, Ceres is the largest object in the asteroid belt. Neptune is not an object within proximity of the asteroid belt. I believe the reference to Neptune to be an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.167.110.52 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think the error is? The asteroid belt is within the orbit of Neptune, i.e., it is always closer to the sun than Neptune. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I imagine he thinks it should read "Jupiter", expecting that it would be logical to limit the clause to the inner solar system, since all of the other dwarf planets are in the outer solar system. "Neptune" might seem like a random choice, if you're used to thinking of it as one of the planets in the middle (with Pluto being further out). Of course, since (at least according to the IAU) Neptune is the outermost planet, it makes some sense to use it as the delimiter. That's what I think the question was about. However, in one sense he's correct; Pluto is currently classified as a dwarf planet, and its orbit overlaps that of Neptune, so that for part of the time it's within the orbit of Neptune... in which case, the delimiter would have to be Uranus. You might reasonably argue that because Pluto's orbit is larger and mostly beyond Neptune's, the statement is still accurate. Or that it's accurate because Pluto is currently beyond Neptune's orbit, and will remain outside it for a number of years. But a reader might reasonably infer from the statement that no dwarf planets orbit within the limits of the major planets, which isn't quite the case. I imagine this would best be cleared up by a footnote. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
For a long time, the article read "entirely within the orbit of Neptune". I'm not sure why it was changed. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps that sounded even more confusing. That'd require a footnote to explain the counter-intuitive idea of a dwarf planet partially within the orbit of Neptune, whereas the one I added explained an exception to a clearer statement. At least I think it's clearer to state something and then give an exception, than to say that somehting is and isn't, and then explain what you mean by that. P Aculeius (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It's presumably a reference to the Oort cloud or something. Neptune marks the edge of the solar system as you would normally think of it. I think there is, or may be, a larger dwarf planet beyond Neptune.GliderMaven (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please explain "a body in hydrostatic equilibrium with partial differentiation and isostatic compensation"

I think this is a bit dense for the rest of us who did not take that upper division course in planetary geology. If we could get someone to explain for us mere mortals who just wanted to use an encyclopedia, I'm sure many would appreciate it. Jyg (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Map projections

One of the maps is described (by NASA) as "Mercator" but clearly isn't. A Mercator map is conformal, so that all the craters should be nearly round; this makes for stretching at higher latitudes so that the poles are at infinity. Can you tell what mapping it is? Is it equal area, or equirectangular? —Tamfang (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many pictures/maps

Hi everyone 

 I would like to make a suggestion regarding this page...

 As it is now, it appears that it has too many pictures. In particular, it has way too many low-resolution pictures taken during the initial approach by Dawn. That was exciting at the time, so everything coming out of Dawn in those early days was dumped in this page as it arrived. Since then those early pictures have been superseded by many others with much higher resolution, which by the way are showing at the bottom part of the page.
 
 So how about being a bit more selective?

 Cheers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.83.162 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Gauss

It should be said how accurate Gauss's calculations were. Also, it might be said how many others were attempting the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a considerable literature on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
See http://bdaugherty.tripod.com/gauss/ceres.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I stupidly over-looked the fact that the above is a passage from the Wikipedia article on Gauss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceres (dwarf planet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reclassification

The statement about when Ceres was reclassified has no reference. "Ceres was the first asteroid to be discovered (by Giuseppe Piazzi at Palermo on 1 January 1801). It was originally considered a planet, but was reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s after many other objects in similar orbits were discovered." Work done by Phil Metzger debunks the idea that the asteroids were declassified as planets in the 1850s: http://www.philipmetzger.com/blog/debunking-an-urban-legend-of-asteroidal-proportions/ A preprint of his paper on the topic is here: http://www.philipmetzger.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Preprint_Asteroids-reclassified-as-non-planets_Metzger-et-al.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2A32:F100:8C9D:1F8C:4AD6:7E42 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, that's a blog, so it's not a reliable source. Once it's published somewhere, we can use it. However, I'm not sure what the point is; whether they were called "asteroids" or "minor planets" isn't relevant, what matters is they were considered a separate category from the major planets. Indeed, it was understood they were sufficiently different that they had to be numbered, which was never an issue for the major planets (and Pluto ended up having to be given a number recently, because it was not considered a "minor planet"/"asteroid" before). Tarl N. (discuss) 11:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
See When did the asteroids become minor planets? The word games (planet vs asteroid/minor planet/small planet vs satellite) are irrelevant: there were distinct groups, and they weren't based on geophysics. Tbayboy (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

inconsistent data values

I cannot find one single value for the diameter of this object. This page alone has at least 2 wildly different values for it. Can someone who knows what they're doing correct the information in this article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37F5:5390:FD8B:F8C7:ED76:7A79 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox has the triaxial dimensions (it's not a perfect sphere), and the body has the equivalent spherical size. Tbayboy (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, the lede says that it has roughly one fourth of the mass of the Asteroid Belt, but the section on Classification says that it's about one third. Would somebody who actually knows please correct whichever one is wrong. JDZeff (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done – Discrepancy corrected.[1] — JFG talk 00:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ceres' rulership in astrology

Ceres could co-rule earth signs of Taurus, Virgo and maybe Capricorn. If not, it has a powerful influence over the sign of Cancer. I don't think Ceres should be treated as an asteroid, like Juno, Pallas and Vesta are. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Too much information in the lead

There is a extremely large paragraph in the lead, that should be shorter in consistency with other FA articles. -Theklan (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW – This proposal is obviously not getting any traction. — JFG talk 20:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres – Since the last attempt to do this in July 2015, Ceres (dwarf planet) has consistently gained three to four times as many daily page views as Ceres (mythology). There has been more coverage of Ceres, the asteroid, on Wikipedia through articles such as Geology of Ceres, Bright spots on Ceres, and features such as Ahuna Mons and Occator (crater). The article for the asteroid Ceres has been featured since 2008, and is identified as a vital article in Physical sciences, while the article for the goddess Ceres does not have such editorial recognition or importance. With the conclusion of the Dawn mission, Ceres joins a very rare class of astronomical objects to have been studied in great detail, and for humanity to have extracted a great wealth of knowledge about, making it more commonly known among the public compared to three years ago. It helps that Ceres has consistently been in the news over the past three years, and will continue to be so as Dawn mission data continues to be processed and evaluated over the next few decades. Because of this, in not only an educational setting, a scientific setting, but a casual setting as well, the asteroid Ceres will most likely come to mind when its name is mentioned.

Wikipedia's guidelines on disambiguation state that "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely..." and "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value..." Pageview statistics and editorial attention prove the former and the success of the Dawn mission and Ceres' persistence in the news ensures the latter. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose per recentism: the dwarf planet made news because of Dawn, but the goddess has enduring notability and there are many other meanings. Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed - there are about 50 items listed in the Ceres disambiguation page, and it is no evident to me that this dwarf planet is the most prominent Ceres subject of them all. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the goddess is the reason for this planet to have it's name, several things are named after her, if one artikle deseves the bracketless lemma, it's hers Norschweden (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the namesake deity is the perpetual primary topic. It remains a mistake that the disambiguation is there, but its an even graver mistake to put the dwarf planet named for the deity ahead of that deity. -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per recentism. The goddess certainly has (so far) had a greater impact on Western culture than the dwarf planet, and "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", and I suspect will have for some time to come. Paul August ☎ 00:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Should have stopped at "recentism". How does an imaginary character provides "substantially greater educational value" than a coordinated scientific expedition? Inquiring minds want to know. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest:, you should read our article Ceres (goddess). The goddess has "substantially greater educational value", If for no other than the fact that (as I stated above) she has had a far "greater impact on Western culture". Understanding that impact helps us understand who we are and how we got where we are. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The dwarf planet was named after the goddess, so let’s leave it the way it is. Jusdafax (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's recentism, but it's also clearer this way for those of us who still think of Ceres as a plenetoid... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and WP:SNOW early close for all the above reasons. 14:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The goddess is most certainly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. Calidum 16:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
per Eris would be a better comparison עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like to note that Eris is a disambiguation page, just like Ceres is currently. Sario528 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was saying compare to Eris and oppose the move.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ice ratio

Do we have a post-Dawn ref for the ration of ice to 'rock', for comparison with TNOs? We used to have this info, though our old sources are now obsolete. (I'm curious because it would be odd to call plutoids "ice dwarfs" if Ceres is icier than say Haumea, but it would be good info to have regardless.) — kwami (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Internal structure

@Rowan Forest: @Drbogdan: I deleted the pre-Dawn pubs, and our two remaining sources, one from 2016 and the other being the caption of the structural model from 2018, contradict each other. Actually, I'm not sure what the latter is trying to say. It doesn't make much sense. (If the mantle lies below the thick briny layer that extends past the 100km in which we can determine composition, how do we know its composition?) Anyway, the second paragraph currently contradicts the first, so any clarification or correction would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review?

Going on 4 years after Dawn arrived at Ceres, our 'internal structure' section was still based on pre-Dawn publications (with some post-Dawn stuff tacked on to the end). This suggests that there have been no serious attempts to update the article since Dawn, making it too dated IMO to be a FA. My attempt at updating the section resulted in 2 contradictory paragraphs, as I don't know the lit. If there are no objections (e.g. someone who wants to revamp the article to restore it to FA quality), I'd like to nominate it for FA review. I suspect that the loss of the star might prompt someone to bring it back up to snuff. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators:

No response to active editors pinged in the previous response, nothing here. I also started a thread at WP astronomy (objects), nothing there. I don't think an article on a topic where our understanding's been revolutionized since FA status was awarded (due to the Dawn mission) can be of FA quality without an overhaul. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: FYI - I don't think your @FAR above did anything. Pings don't happen unless they are placed in a paragraph with the quadruple tilde; the notification happens as part of the translation from "~~~~" to signature. This is mentioned in the @FAR template documentation. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 15:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I have made a very small change to the lead. It previously stated that Ceres was the only dwarf planet within the orbit of Neptune. At the moment this is not known for certain. It is possible that Chiron, Chariklo, 1995 SN55, and even asteroid Interamnia (which currently has no detailed lightcurve analysis) are also dwarf planets inside Neptune's orbit, thus Ceres is the only "known" dwarf planet inside Neptune's orbit. I have made this slight change to reflect that.XavierGreen (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The possibility is infinitesimal. All together they can rattle around inside either of Mimas or Vesta, neither of which is HE. Also, HE-consistent-shape does not imply DP-eligible by itself, nor does even HE (see Methone). Tbayboy (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted the reinsertion of the waffling commentary, accuracy doesn't require that we express doubt about whatever we might not know about, and in fact it is extraordinarily unlikely that any large object will be found. The plane of the ecliptic has been watched for centuries. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, per WP:BRD, the comment should stay out until consensus is achieved. I haven't seen a WP:RS stating that those asteroids/comets are potentially dwarf planets. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Chariklo, Chiron, and 1995SN55 are plainly listed as possible dwarf planets on Mike Brown's Caltech page listing all possible dwarf planets. That is a reliable source. See here [2] Chariklo and Chiron around the size of Saturn's moon Phoebe which at one point was in hydro-static equilibrium, 1995 SN55 is larger.XavierGreen (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, the wikipedia pages of Chariklo and Chiron both mention that they are possibly dwarf planets.XavierGreen (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, for accuracy, Cal Tech lists them as "Probably dwarf planets." Further down the list are the 661 "possibly" dwarf planets. I was about to say that it would be best if you could find more than one source that lists these objects as potential "Dwarf Planets" but then I saw this from Dr. Benoît Noyelles, planetary professor at the University of Franche-Comté. I read some other sources talking about centaurs as possible dwarf planets as well. It would appear you have a valid point on the wording based on sourcing. However, I would change it to a small degree and say "the only confirmed dwarf planet inside Neptune's orbit." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The definition from the IAU says that a dwarf planet has enough mass to collapse into a spheroidal shape. Just being spheroidal isn't enough, it has to be the mass overcoming the material strength of the planetary crust. The quote from our page on Dwarf planets: [...] subsequently decided [...] diameter of ≥838 km [...] are to be named under the assumption that they are dwarf planets. At the time (and still as of 2019), the only additional bodies to meet this secondary criterion were Haumea and Makemake. However, doubts have since been raised about Haumea. I'm not an expert on the subject, but the sizes described for Centaurs don't come close to that size. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
FYI, take note of Centaurs and Dwarf planets on the following diagram:
Also note that a list of 661 dwarf planets won't fly —- the whole point of the term was to distinguish Ceres and Pluto from other junk. Term used advisedly, the asteroid belt can be described as Ceres plus junk, since Ceres masses almost as much as the entire rest of the asteroid belt put together. The advocacy of the label for that many other objects strikes me as likely publicity-seeking stunts rather than a serious taxonomic exercise. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
We have a reliable source which clearly states that Chiron, Chariklo, and 1995 SN55 are potentially dwarf planets. That in itself is enough to render the statement currently in the lead of the article inaccurate. I think the language proposed by Fyunck addresses the issue in a satisfactory manner and i would support it.XavierGreen (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
We might consider "unambiguous" or a similar construction as an alternative to "confirmed," since the issue is with nomenclature rather than the objects themselves, and Ceres stands out from the rest. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I can live with unambiguous. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Brown's evaluation there was written assuming Mimas and larger were HE, before discovering that Mimas and Iapetus were not HE, when Vesta was still considered a possible DP, and before 2002 UX25 was to have insufficient density for a DP. See also recent work by Grundy et alii. Even back then, the centaurs were only considered "possible" because of the large error bars in the size estimates (that is, they might have been much larger, over 300 km); subsequent occultations have firmed up their smaller size. Brown's page was a reliable source, but is now outdated (note Pluto's size there!). Tbayboy (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ocean update?

Currently the entry says "It probably no longer has an internal ocean of liquid water" Dropped by the Ceres entry after the recent NASA announcement, and was wondering if the sentence on brine/ocean was worth tweaking. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ceres-ocean-world-1.5681683 "The findings confirm the presence of a subsurface reservoir of brine — salt-enriched water — remnants of a vast subsurface ocean that has been gradually freezing. 'This elevates Ceres to 'ocean world' status, noting that this category does not require the ocean to be global," said planetary scientist and Dawn principal investigator Carol Raymond. "In the case of Ceres, we know the liquid reservoir is regional scale but we cannot tell for sure that it is global. However, what matters most is that there is liquid on a large scale.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.126.29 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction of grammar, not a material change to the meaning of the paragraph

This is current: "Ceres' surface is warm enough that surface ice sublimates in the near vacuum. Material left behind by sublimation of could explain the dark surface of Ceres compared to the icy moons of the outer Solar System"

I wish to remove the emboldened word "to", which I think will make the paragraph read better and correct the grammar, without materially affecting the meaning: "Ceres' surface is warm enough that surface ice sublimates in the near vacuum. Material left behind by sublimation could explain the dark surface of Ceres compared to the icy moons of the outer Solar System"JojoTNO (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. The original sentence read
"Ceres' surface is relatively warm.[clarification needed] Ice sublimates at this temperature in the near vacuum. Material left behind by the sublimation of surface ice could explain the dark surface of Ceres compared to the icy moons of the outer Solar System."
When an editor fixed the 'relatively warm' part, they accidentally a word from the rest of the paragraph, probably lost while cut and pasting.122.174.198.197 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Contrasting information

States that Ceres makes up 25% of the mass of the asteroid belt in the section titled "Classification," and that it makes up a third in the section titled "Geology." Both sources seem reliable, but the Geology section uses a source from 2005, and the other was updated in 2019. --PersonalParadise (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

good point. Swapped. Serendipodous 22:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Discovery in the lead

Most articles don't cover first invention / discovery in the lead. For example the first electric car is not in the lead and the first toilet. Not so true of more scientific articles. The scientific community is keen on attribution. I suspect most people reading this article don't find discovery to be of keen importance and thus should not be in the wp:lead. It is definitely of interest in the history section. What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Astronomical objects are not cars. They are unique. They have histories. A better analogue, if you insist on comparing them to artificial objects, would be a cathedral or a government building. Serendipodous 19:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Daniel.Cardenas​, when you say "I suspect most people reading this article don't find discovery to be of keen importance and thus should not be in the wp:lead", are you suggesting the lead shouldn't "stand on its own as a concise version of the article" as stated in MOS:INTRO? This article complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections—please check the GA criteria before you revert the editing done by the article's nominator.
I might add that this Wikipedia article is as well researched and as properly written as many other encyclopaedia entries on Ceres (printed and online). If you are you perhaps concerned that the discovery of Ceres in 1801 is not notable enough to include in the lead, I would point you to articles by NASA (here), Encyclopedia Britannica (here), or the French general encyclopaedia Larousse.(here). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"Stand on its own as a concise version of the article" obviously does not mean to include every piece of trivia in the article in the lead. Any ideas how to poll if readers consider initial discovery as important enough to include in the lead? Again it is well known that scientific culture demands attribution, but that is not necessarily required for a wikipedia article in the lead. Other encyclopedias have followed traditional attribution many of which were guided by the same scientific types. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
You'd start an WP:RfC, but you'll need to be clear if the issue is with mentioning the discovery or mentioning the attribution, because I am not sure which one is the case reading the above. CMD (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sig figs for orbital elements

I have reduced the sig figs in the infobox orbital elements from 11 to 6. Using 10 sig figs, the orbital elements change every minute. This also allows a bot to do a more appropriate conversion from AU to millions of km. These frequent changes to the orbit is also the reason the "unperturbed two-body" JPL SBDB (using epoch 2021-Jul-01) misses the time of perihelion by 1 day. -- Kheider (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kheider: The semi-major varies in its 4th digit from year to year, and eccentricity in its 3rd, so even 6 would seem to be too much. I'll round off to 3 -- pls rv if you think that's too much. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
My biggest concern with 3 sig figs is someone coming back at a later date and putting back in 10 sig figs. Another option might be 5 sig figs and use |sigfig=3 for the conversion template. -- Kheider (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Done. That does generate an error for the Proper orbital period, though [fixed], and if I round off by hand, it still calcs out to 6 digits. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking something like {{Convert|2.54885|AU|e6km|abbr=unit|sigfig=3}} which outputs 2.54885 AU (381 million km). -- Kheider (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but that still shows more precision than is justified. And this way, if someone does put in 10 digits, it won't make any difference. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2021

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)


– 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • @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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, and above. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Peter Ormond 💬 07:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who approves of US missions?

The paragraph ending "Other missions to the asteroid belt were proposed in the 1980s by France, Germany, Italy, and the United States, but none were approved" reads as if the European Space Agency has dibs on missions to this place. I suspect that if the United States or rather someone in the United States were proposing a mission it would be NASA or Congress that was the decider. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed I think. I can't check the soruce, since it's a book, but I assume that's what was meant. Serendipodous 15:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that will get deleted during copy-editing, as it's completely redundant. "Other missions" can't be read to mean "the same mission". — kwami (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. And there I was thinking you were going to say something constructive. Speaking of, what's the point of that graph? The selection of comparative objects seems completely random. Serendipodous 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
No need to be hostile. It probably will be deleted some day, because people are going to think, "of course, who else would approve of the missions?", just as the title of this thread states. It's even confusing, because the reader is going to wonder why we would say something so superfluous -- surely we meant something by it, but it's not clear what that could be. Then when they realize it doesn't mean anything, they'll delete it to clean up the article.
The selection of objects is those closest to Ceres in mass. If it were random, they wouldn't be comparable -- either they would be invisible or Ceres would. Orcus we mention in the text. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
What's the point of comparing Ceres to a group of objects of similar mass? Surely the point of such visual comparisons is to show differences, not similarities. The real question is, given that no one outside of astronomy nut-dom has a clue what those names mean, shouldn't we use more familiar objects? As for hostility, well as it happens the guy you just said was too stupid to understand something so obvious as who would launch a space mission is a friend of mine. So yeah. Not happy. Serendipodous 01:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I never said anything of the sort. You really do seem to search for things to be offended about. What I said was stupid was claiming that 33% is a "quarter". That is stupid, and if you're offended by that, too bad. As for the above, I wasn't criticizing the objection, but the awkward fix.
What's the point of comparing Ceres to other DPs? We do that in the text. In fact, you were adamant about doing that to the point of inaccuracy. What's the point of comparing it to other asteroids? We do that in the text. Personally, knowing that Ceres is about the size of Dione or Ariel, rather smaller than Charon, and midway between Orcus and Quaoar among DPs gives me a better feel for the Solar system than just a raw number for its mass. If you want to show differences, fine and good: what did you have in mind? — kwami (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with kwami that it's redundant. But I guess, if someone has wondered about what it means already, then it's better that it's redundant than slightly confusing.

I like the comparison of Ceres to the largest asteroids, but I think that there should be a few more, not just the big five, or at least a sector for "all other asteroids". Otherwise it looks a bit weird to have that pie-slice that looks like it's more like two-thirds than one-third.

The comparison to similarly-sized round objects seems quite nice to me too; it makes me understand about how big these things are. Admittedly this is because I have a feel for the planemo moons' sizes already, so maybe that's a case of "astronomy nut-dom". But outside that, what's better? Size of the Earth? That's not exactly a comparison in similar scales anymore. Size of the Moon? Better but still not much? Size of Pluto? Judging by how it's often depicted on solar system posters as comparable to Mercury (combined with Jupiter and Saturn failing to look as overwhelming as they should), I suspect the average person has a pretty wrong idea of what that is. Although at least that seems like a more reasonable comparison, of Ceres to the other DPs. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was leery of adding many more, because their masses are so uncertain. For these five, we're pretty sure that's the order they go in. But after that, any new estimate is likely to scramble the order. I agree that having them as a %age of the whole belt would be useful, even if we only have a very crude estimate for it. That's what we currently have at asteroid#Largest asteroids. That chart's already badly dated, so I should probably replace it. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated values

JPL's small body database has orbit parameter updates to a new reference epoch 2000001 1 Ceres (A801 AA) epoch=2022-01-21.0 e=0.0785 a=2.76 q=2.549 i=10.59 om=80.27 w=73.64 ma=291.38. 112.119.158.212 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated. Little diff at 3 sig fig except for mean anomaly. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Boulders

Re "Their maximum age is calculated to be 150 million years" calculated sounds precise, I'm not sure what method was used - an explanation or a link to that would be great, but given that geologists don't have a sample of those boulders to test, I'm wondering if calculated is more accurate than estimated. ϢereSpielChequers 10:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ENGVAR

In 2010 this article was written in British English (Harbour, vapour, colour). Was there a consensus to change it to US English? John (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2007 FA version also had these spellings. "Honour" as well. I wish people wouldn't do this. John (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
"Do this" suggests someone actively changed something. More likely people just wrote the way they write, and if the result is a mix of Oxford and Cambridge spelling, or whatever, who cares? It's not like readers are even going to notice the difference. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, we have MOS:RETAIN which recommends not doing this. It isn't "Oxford and Cambridge spelling, or whatever," but UK English being replaced by US English. WP:ENGVAR is there for those of us who care. John (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, you're talking about someone "doing this". Do you have any reason to think that's the case? — kwami (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, the article was originally written in American English, so we should RETAIN that, even if someone done changed it in the meantime. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? When was that? John (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
2002. Just click on "oldest" in the history. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
BTW, I tentatively reverted your copy edit. Am I missing something? Or is it just that the meaning is so obvious from context that it's best to make an exception and not hyphenate? — kwami (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's sort out the ENGVAR matter, then we can do the other copyedits. John (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
There should not be a mix of Oxford and Cambridge spellings. That would be unprofessional and un-encyclopedic. I don't care what it is but there should be consistency. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, whatever its original spelling, it's in American English now. I can't find any examples of British spelling. So, let it be. Serendipodous 20:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Policy suggests otherwise. John (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Policy depends on what we have here. If it was changed gradually to American English, and been mostly stable in that rendition, policy states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." Otherwise we don't use the first variety that article was made with in the beginning... we use the first "non-stub" version of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't get it. If it changed (gradually or purposefully) from US to RP (at least for a few words?) and then back to US, why wouldn't we leave it? — kwami (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't see where it was ever written in American English in a non-stub revision. I see things like "kilometer" but I also see "catalogue" in the really early versions. But when it first passed FA, the peer-reviewed version used UK English spelling (RP is something different). It's a long-standing practice in our project not to switch versions of English in an article this way without good reason. This is embodied in the Manual of Style, but it's also just obvious good manners to the previous editors who wrote in their own version of English. Sometimes there might be good reason to change, but I'm not seeing it here, and "people just wrote the way they write" isn't great when we are in a FAR, where MoS compliance is one of the criteria. John (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking at the initial stub.
It's unreasonable to expect people to write in an orthography that's not their own just because that's how the preceding editor wrote. If I tried writing in British English, it would probably look like a spoof. If an article is supposed to be in a particular orthography, a Wikignome can fix it. Failing that, the editor who expanded the article in the first place should have it on their watch list, and keep it in a consistent orthography as others edit it. If they don't, then it evidently isn't an issue for them, and the article's going to evolve in the direction of its later editors. That's different than someone coming along and intentionally changing the orthography. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. Unfortunately, unless this is resolved, I don't think the article can be a Featured article again. MoS compliance is one of the criteria. How do we best resolve this? John (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Why would you say something like that? It can't be FA because it's in the wrong orthography? Change it to British if you like, I don't care. But that has nothing to do with FA. — kwami (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

When the article hit 6kB, it was no longer a stub, and at that time was in a mix of British and American orthography. Therefore per RETAIN the article should remain with mixed orthography. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I swapped it out. Can we put this to rest now? Serendipodous 09:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It hardly matters, but I just noticed that when it first passed FA, it was written in a mix of British and American orthography. Evidently the FA reviewers didn't care about such trivia either. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Nice work, Serendipodous. Kwamikagami, not that it matters, but where do you see American spellings in the 2007 version? I assure you that the criteria definitely included decent writing back then, and decent writing includes (at a very basic level) consistent spelling. John (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The date formats were American at first, later mixed American and British. It appears to have passed FA that way. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel a couple editors should arbitrarily change the article to British English only so I've started an RFC to gain consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Date formats and spelling are two different things. Date formats were still controlled by linking in 2007 so it was less of a thing. Is there any evidence that the spelling was ever in the American style in any post stub version prior to the recent work? John (talk)•

"The 2007 FA version" was 15 years ago, how this fact is even relevant for current state of the article?! If people use different spelling now, just let it be so, it should be the most simple and logical solution. Artem.G (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, a month has gone by and here we are, in British English. I would note here that Oxford English wasn't mentioned (thankfully) in the RfC, and that "categorisation" is the commonest version in British English. Please let's not relitigate this having been through the formal process that we have. John (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it help to make this choice explicit in the Talk header box? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Shall this article be deemed American English or British English only?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The article's subject hasn't got a strong connection to any English-speaking country whatsoever, so the variety used really doesn't matter so long as it is used consistently. There are better ways to waste our time than this. If folks here want BrE, as the vote indicates, so be it. Go for it. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


As the discussion above illustrated, there are reasonable reasons for using either English variant in the article. It appears to have started in American English (semimajor rather than semi-major), when more than a stub it may have been both American and British English (hard to tell), and when first nominated as a good article it looks to be a mix (colour but neighborhood) with American dates. When it made "good article" it was still a mix of usage and dates. When it made featured article it was still a mixture of styles plus it had American dates. It went through years of demotions. In 2021 it was relisted as a good article... American English but British dates. That has stayed ever since, until yesterday. Having both styles in one article is messy for an encyclopedia so we should settle on one type and use it throughout. Yesterday someone changed it all to British English and today someone added the template "British English Only." This is a level 4 vital article and a former featured article; current and past good article. There should be consensus before adding such a permanent template to this article so I'm attempting it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • American English only
  • British English only
  • Use both styles in the article (This would be against Wikipedia's MOS:CONSISTENT)

Survey

  • I started the RFC and I'm totally flexible on what we use so long as it has consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • BrE. i) I don't think this requires an RFC. It could have been resolved on this talk page. ii) the RFC introduction acknowledges that there are good reasons for either AmE or BrE, then only lists the reasons in favour of AmE, which is not neutral. iii) I don't think it particularly matters, iv) there are no obvious national ties per MOS:TIES and v) the oldest version I can find which uses a specific variant of English in the text (as opposed to wikicode or links) is [3] in August 2004. That used the BrE spelling 'catalogue'. So unless I missed an earlier diff, MOS:RETAIN means the article should be in BrE. Modest Genius talk 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    What reasons did I give to use either? I simply checked key milestones and reported what I found. And "catalogue" is part of a proper name so of course it used that spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Unified English and ISO dates. — kwami (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • MOS:RETAIN pertains to the first non-stub version of an article. Back in the day dates were linked and auto-formatted to taste, so date format does not imply English format, and indeed NASA, for example, uses dmy format in its books. Language and date formatting do not require an RfC but can be changed for an individual article based on local consensus on the talk page. In this case there are no obvious national ties per MOS:TIES so I would recommend sticking with DMY dates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • British English, per Modest Genius. I do not see the relevance of semi-major v semimajor. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Semimajor is the American spelling. The usage of a hyphen is British. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    According to which RS? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    Misunderstanding here. There is no RS because there is no authoritative standard for American English, just style guides published by government, commercial and educational organisations. When we refer to American English what mean is American English as defined by our own Manual of Style (WP:MOS). This has been established by consensus on the MOS talk pages. While most Americans will find it quite normal most of the time, it has some peculiar quirks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't understand. Are you saying there is no such thing as an RS for any American English words? Or that there is no RS for the use of hyphens? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    We have RS for English words. What we don't have is authoritative sources for what constitutes American forms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    What's wrong with Merriam-Webster? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Don't get me started on Noah Webster, who used spelling to advance the cause of American Christian Nationalism, and therefore is responsible not just for the spellings, but for American snowflakes getting hurt feelings when they see different spellings Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    If Semimajor is the American spelling. The usage of a hyphen is British. is true, how come our article is at semi-major and semi-minor axes, in US English spelling? And how come Brittanica uses "semimajor"? This really isn't a very good way to decide it. There are so many unevidenced assertions in this unnecessary RfC. John (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    We weren't getting anywhere with a couple people discussing it so it is best that many eyes see what's going on. Many of our articles are a mish-mash of usage as was this articles when it it made good status. Just like "catalogue" when it's used in a title of a work doesn't signify British English. When someone wants to suddenly demand, by template, that this article be changed to British English then we need more eyes. If it changes, it changes. I didn't even !vote because this looked like a perfect venue for those in "WikiProject Astronomy/Astronomical objects" to help out with their knowledge and experience and with the beginnings of this article fairly convoluted. And whether you have semi-major/semimajor. semi-circle/semicircle, semi-final/semifinal, the ones with the hyphens tend to be British English as they have retained the hyphen in many spellings where American English hasn't. Regardless, it looks like, for whatever reasons, editors want British English for this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • British English, per Modest Genius. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • British English, per Modest Genius. John (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't yet see evidence that the article was started in American English. Can you provide such evidence? John (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean like the very first entry where the editor used an American English date format? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I mean spelling. Date formats are not spelling and were less important back then. It would be a shame to have an RfC based on a false premise. John (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It is important but also we have the use of "semimajor axis" in the second edit which is usually the American English variety as opposed to the British "semi-major axis." I don't think there is any doubt it was done in American English to start. But it really doesn't matter as it was a stub at that time. It may also have been only American English when it was first more than a stub... but it's hard to tell. I did tweak the wording to say it "appears" as opposed to ironclad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not that hard to tell. You just have to go back and find a nonstub revision that was written predominantly in American English. This would evidence the assertion in the RfC. Otherwise, what's the point of the RfC? John (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It is hard to tell. If it's extra easy you find it instead of nit-picking. There are hundreds of non-stub versions where I'm searching for British spellings vs American spellings. The point of an RFC is to get many editors from space and science to come to a consensus agreement. That's all I'm trying to do. I read the above discussion and wrote the RFC based on what I found myself, and if it doesn't satisfy you then !vote for status quo mixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It isn't nit-picking to ask you to provide evidence for the assertion you made in your statement above. If you are unable to provide any evidence, but still want to have an RfC, I will consider this as a borderline WP:POINT activity, especially alongside your (equally false, or at least unevidenced) assertion that the current status quo is "mixed". It is not, and cannot be. Why on earth would anyone !vote for that, or recommend someone else to? Another problem is that you have not clearly stated in your RfC whether you are talking about spelling (my concern) or date formats (which has not been raised as a concern). I think you need to rethink the whole thing. The article was stable and peer-reviewed in 2007 using UK English spelling, so RETAIN tells us to leave it in that spelling. The solution was to follow RETAIN. There is no need to have a malformed RfC based on false premises to solve this. John (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Goodness gracious. I gave evidence that you seem to ignore. The status quo is mixed as far as words and dates. The most recent long term status quo is a mix of American English words and British dates. What we see right this second is not the status quo, it was just not reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
My last effort to resolve this here. "For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Strong national ties to a topic) are independent issues." The US military, for example, uses day-month-year dates, and so we are recommended to use this date format on US military-related articles, although they would use American English spellings. If you want to go off on a tangent about dates, have at it, but I am concerned with spelling. I have seen no evidence presented here that spelling (never mind dates) was ever standardised on US English on a non-stub version of this article until the recent work. On the other hand, there is lots of evidence that the 2007 FA version was written in British English. Therefore, per RETAIN, it should have been retained in this spelling, in the absence of strong national ties (nope) or a strong consensus to change it (don't see that either). It seems wholly straightforward to me and not worth the effort of an RfC when we already have a very clear policy in place to cover cases like this. John (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
If we go by Retain. it should then be retained as American English since the first non-stub version was American English. And the last time it passed a good article it was not in British English. I should also point out that this came about because someone unilaterally just changed this article to British English. If nothing happens with this consensus building it goes back to American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This version is in British English (catalogue, not catalog). It does not seem like a stub to me. Is there an earlier version in US English? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I now see that Modest Genius has already made this same point. I concur. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, even in American English that catalog tends to be called "Mayer's zodiacal catalogue" or "Catalogue of Zodiacal Stars." It a proper name. And throughout all those edits it was using semimajor rather than semi-major. The first thing I can see that isn't a link or proper names is in the 24 August 2006 update when space authorities update the definition of a planet. American English "neighborhood" is used. We have to really dig in and search to find these things because it isn't obvious which to use. The last time it made "Good Article" it was American English, and when it made Good and Featured prior it was a mixture. Basing a decision on any of these past items is probably a mistake as there was never anything set in stone. That's why I was hoping that a whole heap of wiki space editors could come up with a newer reason and consensus for one version or the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
But what reason could there possibly be to prefer one over the other? And why not Ozzie? The only reason for preference would be whichever orthography the article was originally written in, which it appears we can't agree on. I mean, if we can't even tell the difference, how important can it be? If we want a later reason, then I suppose we could go with the Dawn mission sources, which are presumably largely in American English. But the article was already well developed by the time of Dawn. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
What I propose is that whoever contributes to the article writes however they choose. And the rest of us leave it alone and stop quibbling over trivia. I mean, if it reached GA and FA as a mixture of orthographies, that's evidently good enough. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
No. An inconsistent article is a crappy article. EEng's proposal is better. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Would there be anything wrong, since all the parties seem friendly and cooperative and no violence has yet broken out on this trivial matter, with y'all saving further time investment by agreeing to have a neutral and utterly (I assure you) disinterested party (me) flip a coin and tell y'all the result? Heads = Br, Tails = Am. OK? EEng 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    I support EEng's excellent - if somewhat unconventional - proposal. If his coin flip yields Tails I pledge to reverse my preference to US English. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Apparently you and I are the only sensible ones here. EEng 20:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    In case it is unclear to others, EEng is an honourable editor and his proposal is a serious one. He and I often disagree on substance, but I respect him because he edits with the highest ethical standards. If he says he would flip a coin, he would, and I trust him to report the result fairly. I contend there is no better way to resolve this dispute. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    We're like a UN peacekeeping force. We tried. EEng 21:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Or United Planets perhaps, with headquarters on Venus? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Venus is good. Has real atmosphere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple entries saying that this is an "Asteroid"

On the NASA website this is stated as NOT being an asteroid. Yes, it is in the asteroid belt, but it a dwarf planet. PAGE: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/overview/ (look at No.4 on list). I believe NASA should be considered a very valid authority. NASA tends to defer to other agencies/ organisations as well. If no one objects I can go through and remove references implying it is an asteroid. If someone beats me to it then fine. EDIT: I have now found there is a large archive... Look the issue is that there is contradiction. It is either a dwarf planet or asteroid! It says in the opening paragraph, so any further refs are indeed contradictions (asteroid). 92.238.237.65 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I object. Numerous objects fit multiple categories. -- Kheider (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. "Asteroid" has no formal definition. BTW, I'd like to know where they got their estimate of the mass of the asteroid belt from, that Ceres is 25%. (I assume that's spurious precision for a quarter.) — kwami (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, no problem. It just seemed to me that NASA would have been classed, at least on some level, as an authoritative body. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
In general parlance, Ceres is both a DP and an asteroid. There is no formal definition of "asteroid", so no chance for a contradiction in that sphere either. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Same as above comment regarding NASA. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ceres_(dwarf_planet)/Archive_7&oldid=1218585182"