Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Ceres (dwarf planet), Dwarf planet and 2006 definition of planet these three articles are interrelated yet inconsistent in what they refer to Ceres as. Specifics;

• 2006 definition of planet -- This category would exclude Ceres, which does not lie beyond Neptune's orbit

This refers to Plutoids, not to dwarf planets. Ruslik (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dwarf planet -- The IAU currently recognizes only four dwarf planets, includes a number of tables comparing four dwarf planets
• Ceres (dwarf planet) -- is the smallest identified dwarf planet in the Solar System, and is now classified as a "dwarf planet" (along with Pluto and Eris).

You meant that Makemake was not mentioned here? I added it. Ruslik (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The FA articles dont clearly distinguish the difference of definitions between Ceres and Pluto, Makemake & Eris as indicated in the 2006 definition of planet. Gnangarra 05:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the "2006 definition of planet" article to address these concerns. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit improves 2006 article but my concerns is more with this and Dwarf planet where they dont address the distinction of the subcat Plutoid. Gnangarra 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the articles and they are OK, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the last paragraph in the hitory part. Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it from the plain manila, if an admin or someone whose been a major contributor to the article objects, go ahead and change it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

it's a small detail, but can someone add in the simple fact that Piazzi named this dwarf planet after Ceres because it was the patron goddess of his native Sicily. Also it could be mentioned that he discovered it while observing from Palermo, Sicily. Spettro9 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any refs? I'm digging up that Ceres was the patron of Enna, not Sicily. kwami (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a way to do it (or a need, for all that), but I get the sense the "in Latin" was meant to suggest a different pronunciation (which it had in the less Italianate Classical Latin). Is there a way (& desire?) to show this? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:34 & 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For Latinate names, there are two basic approaches to pronunciation: a literary anglicized version, as you might expect in Shakespeare, and a more Latinate one. So, for example, some astronomers pronounce "Io" eye-oh, and some pronounce it ee-oh. However, there are several conventions for how to pronounce un-anglicized Latin using English phonemes, and past experience has shown that choosing any one of them will spark edit wars over the "correct" Anglo-Latin pronunciation (as if there were such a thing) as opposed to all the others which are "wrong" (generally because their professor or pastor said so). In the case of "Ceres", the c might be pronounced /k/, /ts/, /tʃ/, or /s/, and so on with the rest of the letters. Since most people who want to do this already know how, it's easiest just to give the Latin orthography and let them choose the convention they prefer, whether that's a reconstruction of Classical Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, botanical Latin, or whatever. (I'm assuming you know the conventions, Trekphiler; I'm writing more for our audience.) kwami (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not the conventions, but I was taught Latin (yes, taught, in HS; in retrospect, German would've been more useful... ;p) to use certain pronunciation, so it'd come out "care ace", & I was asking on behalf of those like me (both of us =]) as well as those who think President Sheen's Latin was fine. (It made me cringe.) Nor do I want to encourage edit warring. Heaven knows, language has been enough of an issue some places; Latin's a dead language, no need to resuscitate it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I, like many others I assume, lack the scope of reading numbers unless put in comparison with something I know. I have no direct citation for exact diameters of Spain, France, and Germany, but on Google maps it shows it to me as around 980km wide from widest point. If you measure from the mid section of Spain (removing Portugal's diameter) it comes to around 940km). While Wikipedia discourages original research, I thought in the spirit of making the article more common-knowledge friendly I'd put this piece of information in there. Mkdw^talk 19:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but get it right. Madrid to Berln is nearly 2000km. 82.1.62.101 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say capital to capital. It's the width, not the point to point diagonal length across the its x and y axis. Mkdw^talk 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I doubt that I'll be the only one confused by that comparison.82.1.62.101 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement. I reacted immediately when I saw the comparison with the "width" of a country (what's the definition ?). The two first named countries are roughly each 900 km "wide" and Germany is 650 km wide. Adding the 3 countries width even "side by side" makes roughly 2500 km, not 900. It's much easier to write that Ceres has a diameter of 900 km which is roughly the width of Spain OR France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.98.126 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. It makes little sense as it is because any way you fit Spain, France and Germany together comes to a lot more than 950km "wide", and the notion of the width of an irregular land mass is ill defined - widest point, narrowest point? A sentence such as "For comparison, Great Britain is approximately 980 km between its most distant points" might work, but throwing in three countries, with no clear way to gauge what distances are being referred to and in what combination is just confusing.--Mongreilf (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone with a more direct and verifiable reference might update the article, assuming the article below pans out as more than just wishful thinking:

"New Lander Could Probe Dwarf Planet Ceres For Life" Lee Pullen Astrobiology Magazine SPACE.com. This is evidently a proposed polar lander. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090416/sc_space/newlandercouldprobedwarfplanetceresforlife;_ylt=AhVVZ2ebu618Czx50io.Vzms0NUE Tomligon (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i have a quick question what is the surface area of Ceres? or do we have to wait till 2015? does any one have a rough estimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.144.242 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In the main article, there is a sentence: "However, there is a chance that Ceres formed in the Kuiper Belt that was captured by the asteroid belt." This is a typo, I think; the Kuiper Belt has not been captured by the asteroid belt. I'd like to change this to: "However, there is a chance that Ceres formed in the Kuiper Belt and was later captured by the asteroid belt." However, since it's protected, I can't. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPM-Wikihelper (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Shimgray | talk | 14:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Brown mentioned the IAU meeting and "Is it possible that in the early solar system things from the Kuiper belt got mixed out to the asteroid belt?" on his 2009-08-09 blog with the answer of No... -- Kheider (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a study here which estimates "a few to ten percent" chance depending on the model; I'm not sure who Brown's quoting as having told him a categorical "No" there, or exactly what it comes from, so I'm not entirely confident we should drop the comment for now. Shimgray | talk | 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should drop it. But a year later it does appear that perhaps the odds of a large body migrating from the Kuiper belt to the asteroid belt are dropping. -- Kheider (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it is protected (why?) could someone add the pronunciation? I'd suggest pointing out that it sounds like the word "series". 70.232.86.117 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)DB

It is in the article... -RadicalOne---Contact Me 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

congrats editors and contributors for making it featured article. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

--Dojarca (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the context. Probably intended to describe vapor that contains water and ammonia. I don't see it mentioned in the current version of the article though. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Already corrected:[1]--Dojarca (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another possible protoplanet, Vesta, is smaller; it suffered a major impact after solidifying, losing ~1% of its mass.

Huh? How is the second point relevant here? Vesta is smaller than Ceres by a heck of a lot more than 1%. —Tamfang (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno how going into that much detail about Vesta is relevant here, but Vesta lost 1% of its mass in an impact; the 1% has nothing to do with Ceres. --Patteroast (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous user: Since that part of the article talks about Ceres surviving the oddities of (that part of) space, then mentioning Vesta's impact and loss of mass might be relevant by comparing the two bodies.

"Mathematically, this means determining a conic section in space, given one focus (the sun) and the conic's intersection with three given lines (lines of sight from the earth, which is itself moving on an ellipse, to the planet) and given the time it takes the planet to traverse the arcs determined by these lines (from which the lengths of the arcs can be calculated by Kepler's Second Law). This problem leads to an equation of the eighth degree, of which one solution, the Earth's orbit, is known. The solution sought is then separated from the remaining six based on physical conditions."

If the equations are set up to obtain the conic section describing the orbit of an observed body such as Ceres, then how can the orbit of the Earth itself be a solution to these equations? It seems not to make sense. 81.129.128.129 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

I agree this passage is confusing, and needs some work. I think it is trying to point out that both the orbit of Ceres and the orbit of Earth are involved, because Earth is the platform from which Ceres was observed. The orbit of Ceres was to be determined, the Earth's orbit was already understood, and both orbits are modeled as ellipses. CosineKitty (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The known data are a series of lines-of-sight joining Earth to Ceres at known times. Earth is necessarily on such lines, thus Earth's orbit is one of the solutions. —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Some one can explain by math the method which Gauss invented to detect Ceres's positons? 222.252.102.20 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that Ceres may play a vital role in the eventual terraforming of the planet Mars. One effective method of ensuring water on Mars is to smash Ceres into Mars. Ceres is composed of about 20% water. The force of the collision and the 20% water-ice will churn up a massive dust-storm creating the much-needed global warming effect, the heat from the temperature will create varying temperatures causing precipitation (rain/snow) and lead to a chain-reaction creating the foundations of a simple ecosphere, and the collision itself might force the creation of a magnetosphere around Mars. The water contained within Ceres will be able to fill up oceans, lakes, and rivers on Mars. After this, we just need to drop some extremophile bacteria onto Mars, and perhaps some algae and lichen, and we'll have oxygen being produced. As for getting Ceres to collide with Mars, it isn't too hard since they're very close to each other (astronomically speaking), and Ceres is small enough that nuclear bombs can be exploded on one side of it to force it to get into a trajectory to smash into Mars. Very doable with current technology, actually. --24.222.82.111 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't include that in the article without reliable sources, and it would need to be more than just a minor suggestion from a fringe source. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Ceres would be useful for such a task. Ceres is a massive object and would require a ridiculous amount of energy and time to move into a collision orbit with Mars. The energy from such a huge impact might also destroy the very water you want to save. Smaller comets and asteroids would be much better choices. Perturbing the orbit of Ceres would cause Ceres to perturb the orbits of many asteroids, not good a good idea. :) -- Kheider (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, Ceres is much more valuable in situ as a site to mine for rocket fuel. :D Much simpler to trap a passing comet to terraform Mars--if you insist on climbing down into a 4km/sec gravity well. 80 80 TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Such an impact would also scatter debris over a vast area volume. I don't want to guess at the size of the biggest chunk, nor at its perihelion, if you get my drift.

Better to import water the Martian way. ;) —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. (Thx for the link, BTW. Haven't read it.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Titus-Bode Law described in the text as an "abandoned theory", bearing in mind that similar relations are also found in the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn? The radius of the planetary part of our solar system is, so far as we know, around 40 AU. If we allow Bode a predictional accuracy good to say, 0.1 AU on average, then we can divide the solar system into 400 of what we might call "Bodal Units". Now... place 400 tokens into a hat, each consecutively numbered, and then draw out one token for each of the planets. What are the chances that, randomly, you will draw all of the correct numbers (one for each planet)? Millions to one!!! Very similar mechanism to the National Lottery!!! Does anyone know if there are any plans to exploit the probable ice deposits on Ceres? The low gravity and the probable availability of H2 and O2, together with Ceres' relative proximity, might make for easier and cheaper spaceflight, whereby spacecraft en route to the outer solar system could stop off there for victuals, thereby meaning that they wouldn't have to be so heavily loaded to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree in part with one point here: to call Titius-Bode an "abandoned theory" is inaccurate because it never was a theory. —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I was visiting this site, I read the above section and my immediate response was "and WHO CARES...?" With a (journeyman level) background in astronomy, it is somewhat obvious to me that you would be able to see solar transits of the inner planets from Ceres - IF YOU LIVED THERE. However I am wondering why this information is 1) listed at all and 2) with such detail that someone actually entered the transit years for the planets as if this trivial information wasn't already esoteria to the nth degree to begin with. Also the link is to someone's software and appears to be a blatant commercial insertion, since the linked page says zero about transits, Ceres, or anything else beyond how the program works. Therefore my suggestion is that this section be deleted as trivia and as a somewhat obvious advertisement. Ckruschke (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I am curious how you found the ref/link to be "commercial". I was just able to download the software for that link without paying anything (thus, not "commercial" by definition). Of course, as a user of Linux only, I was unable to actually use the software . . . but that is irrelevant, as there are plenty of open source alternatives for us Linux users. In any case, I am not sure why anyone would have a problem with this information. Even though no human lives on Ceres, one might wish to know how the rest of the inner plants appear if one were to be on the surface of Ceres. I vote that the information remain (but, maybe change the reference/software to any other open source program out there that can do the same calculations). --Thorwald (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than JPL Horizons, Solex, and Gravity Simulator are the best programs out there for gravitational n-body calculations. The Sky and Celestia are better for visual observers more than gravitational interactions. Of those programs only The SKy costs money, and it is mega-$$$.-- Kheider (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you'll have to forgive the fact that I don't work in the industry and have therefore never heard of the program - obviously this was not a discussion about the program... Also I was using the term "commercial" as meaning an advertisement - I saw that the software was free. Overall I "don't have a problem with info" - just thought it was useless trivia, which is why I put it in the Talk section rather than simply deleting it. However, my original point remains that I don't think this section adds to the overall subject matter, but instead falls in line with the opinion that many have about Wikipedia - that he info is either incorrect or is useless garbage (or both). However, if others have a strong opinion about keeping it - again - that is certainly fine with me. Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I am neutral on the subject of Transits of planets from Ceres because this is a FA and to confirm it one would have to download Solex and be shown how to use it. I added a Solex reference to Mercury (#88), but I gave a blow-by-blow on how to reproduce the results, thus creating a form of Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have never simulated transits with Solex. -- Kheider (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Ckruschke that this section probably shouldn't be there, but not because of the "who cares?" thing, but because "why only Ceres and Pallas?". If it's worthwhile to have here, shouldn't it also be on the pages for Mars, Earth, Neptune, Callisto, Hygiea, etc.? I think a better structure is to have a separate transits page (one page containing info for all bodies, maybe as tables) that can be linked to in the "see also". Actually looking, Astronomical transit is very nearly it (see table at bottom), just needs whatever non-planetary perspectives anybody wants to add. Tbayboy (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does the surface area cited in the article come from? I tried several online calculators for the area of an ellipsoid, using the polar and equatorial radii given, and got 2851881 sq km. Also the precision shown is unwarranted.--agr (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed the area number shown to 3 significant digits. I also fixed the conversion to sq mi, which was way off.--agr (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the citations for pronunciation imply a diphthong is used for the first syllable. Dictionary.com uses "Seer" not "Sear" to describe the sound. Additionally Merriam-Webster uses "Sir" to describe the sound^[1]. Therefore I removed the schwa. 3lb33 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. An entrenched faction prefers /iər/ to /ir/ in (at least) astronomical names; I've asked why, without getting an answer that made any sense to me. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ceres" has two syllables, not three, so "seer" (if by that you mean "see-er") is incorrect. If you don't mean it has three syllables, then it is pronounced the same as "sear". Webster's describes their \ir\ as a diphthong, and that's how they transcribe sear and sere, both of which are /ɪər/. Dict.com transcribes Ceres as "/ˈsɪəriz/". The OED doesn't list it, but they do have the derivative cereal, which is /ɪər/. Since your own sources support the /ɪər/ pronunciation, why do you think it's wrong? — kwami (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Two syllables (sɪriz) or three (sɪəriz)? If three vowel-signs ought not to be read as implying three syllables, then how would /ɪr/ sound different? —Tamfang (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

/sɪəriːz/ is two syllables. As 3lb33 noted, /ɪər/ is a diphthong, and therefore one syllable. Follow the links or just read the mouseover: /ɪər/ is the vowel of near or beard. /ɪr/ is the vowel of Sirius, /ɪər/ the vowel of serious, though those may be homonyms in your dialect. If we had a more phonemic notation, these would be /ɪr/ and /iːr/; the schwa in the latter is a concession to non-rhotic dialects, while the ar is a concession to rhotic dialects. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's news to me that they're ever not homophones. Is there a minimal pair of common words? —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

((edit conflict) Added some clarification immediately above) Since I don't control that distinction, I can't just think up minimal pairs. But serious - Sirius is commonly presented as a minimal pair, so there probably aren't many if any that are more common than that. (Syrop and sear up, maybe? Or spirit and spear it, or pyramid and peer amid. Syrian and Siberian are minimal in the rhyme.) /ɪr/ tends to be spelled ir, irr, or yr, whereas /ɪər/ tends to be spelled ere, ear, eer (same spelling rule as for /ɪ/ and /iː/, but with an ar added). /ɪr/ can only occur before a vowel, just like /ɛr, ær, ʊr, ʌr, ɒr/. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about (using English words) "sea rise" versus "sear eyes". I think of the latter (and Ceres) as two and a half syllables. Tbayboy (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's /siː.raɪz/ vs /siːr.aɪz/ (= /sɪəraɪz/), but doesn't cover /ɪr/. Yeah, if you've got a schwa diphthong in there, I imagine it would feel like an extra half syllable. I have that for long vowels before el (peel, pail, pile seem sesquisyllabic to me, pill, pell, pal monosyllabic). — kwami (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But how do you make Ce-res nonrhotic? —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No difference. But sear would be different, at least for the majority who do not have linking R. But as the ars disappeared from non-rhotic dialects, they diphthongized long vowels. At least in RP. So /iːr/ became [ɪər] before a vowel, [ɪə] elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I've always pronounced it like "Sears"... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is how ceres (uncapitalized) is pronounced! — kwami (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but you're all wrong. It's correctly pronounced "care ace". (Latin, doncha know?) ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we also say "or as in Latin". The vague wording is because many will dispute any particular Latin pronunciation, including yours: Is it [ˈkereːs]? [ˈkɛres]? [ˈtʃɛɾeːs]? Or semi-anglicized /ˈkeɪreɪs/, /ˈkɛreɪs/, or /ˈtʃɛreɪs/?

Anyhoo, good to get any problems aired before Dawn's in the news again. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Latin pronunciations have been influenced by Catholic Church usage IMO (& others, too, I suppose), which makes them very Italianate. I was taught very differently. (Nor do I expect to change anybody's mind. :D ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow, I stirred up quite a hornet's nest. (I LOVE wiki editors, you guys are such a lovable bunch.) While I have nothing further to add to this since you've all debated it to death, I just wanted to mention that the quiet folks over in the Mythology department have said nary a word to my changes. Cheers! 3lb33 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Trekphiler, that's the exact question that got me looking up both these articles the other day. I wasn't sure if it was a hard C or a soft C and neither article seemed correct, so I looked it up on the dictionary websites. I'm probably not the only one who's wondered this after studying Latin in high school. 3lb33 (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. ;p It's one of the few lessons I do remember, because Latin (as I was taught it) was so logical: one pronunciation regardless. (It doesn't hurt recalling "the idiot" ;p or that "k" substiuted in English, tho. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So in English "Ceres" makes a minimal pair wth "series" (-eez and -izz)? Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they're homonyms in both RP and GA. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel there is a problem with giving orbital characteristics at a given (arbitrarily chosen) epoch for bodies such as Ceres. The characteristics change so greatly and so quickly with time that these values are soon out of date and thus cannot be used as the basis for accurate calculations. Would it not be better to give the Proper Orbital Elements, as listed on such sites as AstDyS? (Space Mechanics group, Dept of Mathematics, University of Pisa, Italy. Website is http://hamilton.dm.unipi.it/astdys/ ). AstroSteve (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems this is embedded within the "Infobox planet" template so I've added the same thread to its talk page. Let's see what happens! AstroSteve (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the first sentences should be something like "Ceres, formally designated 1 Ceres, is a dwarf planet and is the largest and most massive body in the asteroid belt, with a diameter of about 950 km (590 mi). It contains almost a third (32%) of the belt's total mass." The bit about smallest dwarf planet should come later as it is based on a somewhat arbitrary designation and subject to change if new dwarf planets are discovered or Vesta is reclassified. Being the most massive object in the asteroid belt, on the other hand, is a hard fact and that should be the lede. --agr (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"The most massive asteroid". The NASA is still calling it an asteroid on today's Dawn announcement: Dawn will orbit two of the largest asteroids in the Main Belt. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How about something like "was the smallest of the charter dwarf planets", or change "charter" to "original". Perhaps not in the lead, though, as you say. Tbayboy (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ceres, formally designated 1 Ceres, is the largest asteroid and the only dwarf planet in the inner Solar System, with a diameter of ..."

At least, if Vesta counts as a DP, we should hear soon. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Partially reverted to the long-standing version re: dwarf planet per the IAU. Remember that NASA's material was also describing Pluto as a planet even after the IAU change. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Reworked to try to address the above. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that it was never *re*classified as a DP, so that was factually wrong.

The IAU never has defined what an "asteroid" is, and they have never pronounced that Ceres is not an asteroid. It's still considered a "minor planet", for example. Yes, some people continue to call Pluto a "planet", but in that case the IAU *has* defined it to not be a planet. Meanwhile, saying "object in the asteroid belt" for "asteroid" is just bureaucratese. We're bending over backwards to avoid calling asteroids "asteroids", not just Ceres but other large ones too, and for what? We're not adding any actual precision or accuracy to the articles. If we're going to substitute jargon for normal English, there should at least be some benefit to the jargon. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The IAU page we've referenced in the past indicates that they consider Ceres to have been reclassified. The same document also outlines that the term "minor planet" can still be used, but that the term "small solar system body" is preferred to describe objects that are not dwarf planets or planets. Furthermore, the language in use allows wiggle room for those who assert that Ceres is still classified as an asteroid whereas yours does not allow the opposite. This convention has been in use on Wikipedia for quite some time, and there is no pressing need to change it now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

From an IAU page referencing the launch of the '"Dawn mission: "2007, Sep 27 NASA spacecraft Dawn launched. Asteroid 4 Vesta (H = 3.20 mag, D = 530 km, main-belt asteroid) rendezvous in July 2011, leaving May 2012. Dwarf planet 1 Ceres (H = 3.34 mag, D = 952 km) rendezvous in February 2015." (boldface added for emphasis) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of "main belt object" is not "jargon" but instead parallels similar usage in other media such as National Geographic, Discovery and Space.com. It is not constructed to in any way suggest that Vesta or any other asteroids are not asteroids, but instead simply assists in avoiding making the assertion that Ceres is one. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting to note this text from Space.com: "On July 16, NASA's Dawn spacecraft entered orbit around the asteroid Vesta to spend the next year orbiting the space rock before heading off to an encounter with the dwarf planet Ceres. Vesta is unusually bright among the asteroids because of its different mineral makeup. It is actually brighter than Pallas, the largest asteroid, and Ceres, the dwarf planet formerly classified as an asteroid. At 318 miles (512 kilometers) in diameter, Vesta is slightly smaller than Pallas, which is 326 miles (524 km). Both space rocks are much smaller than Ceres at 595 miles (957 km)." --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Space.com got their facts wrong. Ceres is not "formerly classified as an asteroid", it was never classified by the IAU as an asteroid at all, and the people who did classify it as an asteroid are long dead. There is understandable confusion here, which we're not helping with our weasel wording.

Ceres was not "reclassified" from asteroid to dwarf planet, which is what your wording suggests (it was reclassified from planet to asteroid, and then to dwarf planet – the obvious inference is that it was declassified as an asteroid, which it was not). It was classified as a dwarf planet. Nothing was said about it being an asteroid, which makes sense, since the IAU has never classified anything as an asteroid.

Both the IAU and NASA continue to informally use "asteroid" in reference to Ceres. Since it's not a technical term, we don't need to treat it as one. It's a lay term and is covered by COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, having kicked this around a bit, I've reworded the lede as follows:

"Ceres, formally 1 Ceres, is a dwarf planet and the largest object in the main asteroid belt. Discovered on 1 January 1801 by Giuseppe Piazzi,[18] it was classified as the eighth planet for half a century before being reclassified as an asteroid and then as the only dwarf planet in the inner Solar System. It is named after Cerēs, the Roman goddess of growing plants, the harvest, and motherly love."

This should (I think) help address the initial concern raised here, as well as describing Ceres in a manner consistent with established conventions and other Wikipedia articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) it is weasely, (2) it is not long-standing convention, and (3) it is factually incorrect. The way it was worded was fine. — kwami (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Cambridge Guide to the Solar System (CUP 2011)

p 365: "Unlike most, if not all, of the other asteroids, 1 Ceres has a round shape, ..."

P 366: "The Dawn spacecraft [is] to orbit the dwarf planet–asteroid 1 Ceres in 2015."

p 372: "Dwarf planet–asteroid 1 Ceres". "The [IAU] has therefore added a new designation to Ceres, classifying it as a dwarf planet". "Principal characteristics of the three largest asteroids [1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 4 Vesta]".

p 435: "The asteroid 1 Ceres has been designated a dwarf planet".

p 442: "By this definition, Eris, Haumea, Makemake and Pluto, as well as the largest asteroid, 1 Ceres, are all dwarf planets."

• New Views of the Solar System (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, 2009)

p 3: "The organization created a new category of object called dwarf planet and made Pluto, Eris, and Ceres the first members of the group. Pluto and Eris are also considered Kuiper belt objects, and Ceres is also the largest asteroid.

p 5: "Ceres is the largest asteroid, ... The asteroids Pallas and Vesta ..."

p 17: "The first bodies to be designated dwarf planets were Pluto, Eris, and Ceres (which is also the largest asteroid)."

p 81: "Ceres is the largest asteroid by far, ... It is massive enough to also be considered a dwarf planet."

p 92: "Along with Pluto, the first objects that the IAU designated as dwarf planets were Eris, a Kuiper belt object that is slightly larger than Pluto, and Ceres, the largest asteroid."

• The sciencebook (National Geographic Society, 2008)

p 42: "Today, Ceres is the largest known asteroid ... and, like Pluto, is considered a dwarf planet."

• Hubble 2008 (NASA, 2009)

p 66: "Hubble image of Ceres, the largest asteroid in the main asteroid belt". "Ceres is compared with four other asteroids ... and Mars." "... of the dwarf planet's surface." "This cutaway view of Ceres shows the differentiated layers of the dwarf planet."

• "Fourth dwarf named". New scientist (July 19, 2008)

"[Makemake] joins the same classification as Pluto, Eris, and the asteroid Ceres."

— kwami (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

♠I don't think the Britannica quotes, at the least, are helpful. (Nor, by appearances, are most of the rest.) They are descriptive, not definitive. That is, they are explaining the change in status to an audience who may have no damn clue what a dwarf planet is, & saying dwarf planet Ceres was redesignated a dwarf planet is circular, unhelpful, & frankly pretty stupid.

♠Having said that, the lead as written leaves an obvious question hanging. Namely, if it was considerd the 8th planet for 50yrs, why isn't it now, & when did that change? My first reaction was, delete the mention of the 50yr, or we're getting into the definition quagmire in a place we really don't want it. Can we say simply it was "once considered the 8th planet but is today a dwarf" & leave it at that? Save the argumentation & explaining for the body, where it logically belongs, rather than try & cram the lead? Indeed, have an entire section on the dwarven debate, if required (as it appears).

♠May we down swords on this issue? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no definitive definition of "asteroid". It was always loosely applied. The quotes show that it's still being used, by CUP, by NASA, by NatGeo, by New Scientist. That is, Ceres is commonly known as an asteroid. Yes, some sources say "was an asteroid" etc., but they think that because DP status has been conferred, asteroid status has thereby been revoked. I've even seen a source that says Pluto & Eris aren't DPs because they've been reclassified as Plutoids! Nothing like that has happened. Now, when the Dawn team refers to Vesta as a "planet", they apologize. No such apology from anyone calling Ceres an "asteroid".

We're using twisted phrasing in order to avoid calling Ceres an asteroid, but there's no reason to do that. It's just as much an asteroid as it always was, just as much as Vesta is. I mean, Vesta's now being called a proto-planet: does that mean it's no longer considered an asteroid? These categories aren't exclusive any more than DP, KBO, and TNO are. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this issue simply comes down to what the mutually exclusive categorizations are. The IAU-defined mutually exclusive categories are "planet", "dwarf planet", and "Small Solar System Body". There is nothing in the terms "asteroid" and "dwarf planet" that makes them mutually exclusive. A simple reasoning why Ceres can be considered an asteroid, alongside it being a dwarf planet, is the following: "Ceres is part of the asteroid belt. The asteroid belt consists of asteroids. Hence Ceres is an asteroid". --JorisvS (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to muddy things up, the Minor Planet Center talks of TNOs as asteroids. There is simply no consensus as to what "asteroid" means, so we should not impose one. Eris is the largest known asteroid according to some authorities, Vesta or Pallas according to others, and Ceres by yet others. Rather than trying to impose a definition, we should avoid the ambiguity and stick to what is consensus: Ceres is the largest "object" in the "main asteroid belt", and it is a "dwarf planet". The term "asteroid" is not well enough defined to say whether or not Ceres or Orcus are "asteroids", and thus no ranking ("largest asteroid") is appropriate, either. Tbayboy (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with most of what both JorisvS & Tbayboy are saying, except, excluding "asteroid" entirely may not be ideal, either. I'm of a generation who, hearing "Ceres", does not think "dwarf planet". Indeed, I'm one of the fogies who remembers them being called "planetoids". 8o (Yes, why not make this an insoluble problem? ;p )

As I said, tho, the question for the lead isn't, "What are all the things we can call it?" but "What must we say about it?" So are both dwarf planet & asteroid essential, with a passing ref that there's disagreement? Or neither, with a note about disagreement? IMO, somebody sufficiently interested will read further, so leaving out the dispute isn't harmful to the more casual reader. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection to referring Ceres an asteroid, since it was unambiguously considered such until recently, and with no authoritative declaration that it doesn't remain so. Anybody researching it will often see it referred to as an asteroid, so it should be mentioned in the lead somehow. My objection is more towards the "largest asteroid" statement, since that has been in question since the recognition of centaurs 1977, when the division between "comet" and "asteroid" became blurry, and even more so since 1992 with TNOs often being called asteroids. How about "Ceres ... is the largest member of the main asteroid belt, formally classified as a dwarf planet, and commonly referred to as an asteroid."? All true, but not taking a stand (I should go into politics). Tbayboy (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the centaurs or comets are anywhere near Ceres's size. The larger TNOs are larger, but AFAIK no-one calls them 'asteroids'. People did call early TNOs 'asteroids' before we figured out the Kuiper belt, but those were all smaller than Ceres too. I don't think anyone calls Quaoar an 'asteroid', and anyway on WP we restrict the term to CNOs. — kwami (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, maybe you're right. According to the MPC link above, Pluto and Eris are asteroids. Really? Does anyone really consider Pluto an asteroid, even at the MPC? If we can ref that, I'll concede the point.

However, we've had recent edits removing 'main' before 'asteroid belt'. If Ceres isn't the largest asteroid, it's because KBOs are asteroids, in which case the Kuiper belt is another asteroid belt, and we can't remove the 'main'. — kwami (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case the Kuiper belt would have to be considered the 'main' one, since it is far larger and contains far more mass. I've never heard it being referred to as being the second asteroid belt though, even when said that it resembles it. --JorisvS (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)I've partially reverted Kwami again, since this remains unresolved and is in discussion. The lede now reads "the largest object in the main asteroid belt" (instead of "the largest asteroid"). This does not say Ceres isn't an asteroid, nor does it say it is, and echoes what has been here for a long period of time. I think it's fair to ask that we retain the existing format until we resolve this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Ckatz's version, which I have further trimmed to remove the "eighth planet for 50 years" factoid which was unclear to me. There is a section on the taxonomy of this body further down the article where the history of it classification can be discussed. This section should be extended and improved, but the lede, in my opinion, is not the place for a detailed discussion of this. --John (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I still have a problem with "and the only dwarf planet in the inner Solar System" given that this could change. Perhaps "the only object in the inner solar system currently classified as a dwarf planet." or maybe add a footnote that says Vesta is still considered a candidate.--agr (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd go for the first over the second. Less is more here. --John (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz, do you have an RS that specifically says that now Ceres is considered a dwarf planet it should no longer be considered an asteroid. If you do, we could note disagreement over whether it should considered an/the largest asteroid. We already have at least one recent RS that specifically says Ceres to be the most massive asteroid[2]. Or do you have a source that specifically says that Eris is the largest/most-massive asteroid? Then we could note disagreement in that area. --JorisvS (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Cambridge Guide to the Solar System and NASA's Hubble review are also RS's. AFAICT, people have merely assumed that Ceres has been reclassified, rather than, as CUP notes, the IAU having added a new designation. If we have RS's saying it's an asteroid, and no RS that such a designation has been revoked or overridden, then we should simply say that it's an asteroid. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We have the IAU saying it is a dwarf planet, and it was an asteroid in a circular issued at the time of the introduction of the DP category. Since they are the body that makes the rules regarding names, it should carry some weight. As for assumptions, one could also easily argue that we're assuming that asteroid is official as well. More to the point, we can avoid the issue altogether by the wording used already. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And on the same page they say it "was" an asteroid, they contradict themselves by speaking of "other asteroids". There is no coherent position from the IAU that I can see, and AFAIK the IAU has never concerned itself with defining what counts as an asteroid. These are extemporaneous comments by people working with the IAU, and we have no RS position from the IAU, but we do have RS's which continue to state that Ceres is an asteroid, and the largest asteroid. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Without a coherent position from the IAU, without RS(s) that specifically say it isn't an asteroid and recent RSs that specifically say it is the largest, then we may continue to call it an asteroid here. In fact, I'd say failing to do so would then be OR(-like) (think of reasoning like "I think the terms 'DP' and 'asteroid' should be mutually exclusive, so, despite what the sources say, I'll reword the text so that it avoids the issue."). --JorisvS (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)The IAU's "Questions and Answers on Planets" page, released following the introduction of the dwarf planet category, states:

"Q: What is Ceres?
A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter." (boldface added for emphasis)

Note also this statement from the Dawn mission:

"In much of the discussion, the change in the classification of the object 1 Ceres received little attention. As you may know, NASA’s Dawn mission spacecraft is scheduled to launch at the end of June 2007, on an eight-year journey that will take it to two of the largest bodies in the Main Belt of the asteroids, Vesta and Ceres. The IAU resolution changes the classification of Ceres from an asteroid, or minor planet, to a dwarf planet, the same classification as Pluto."

The IAU has issued a public page using the past tense. They have not - at least not that we've found - issued a page post-2006 using the present tense. Given that they are the body who makes these sort of decisions, we should skew our presentation to reflect their position. Yes, we have sources that are still using the term "asteroid" to describe Ceres, but we also see a trend toward describing it as an object in the asteroid belt, and as a reclassified object. Remember again that it took some time for descriptions of Pluto to change to dwarf planet. Note the New Horizons project still describes Pluto as a planet in some of its publications, five years after the IAU decision, but we certainly wouldn't use that as a reference to call Pluto a planet in the lede. As I've repeatedly indicated, I'm not seeking to say "Ceres is not an asteroid". However, we can simply word it to avoid an outright statement such as "Ceres is an asteroid" when there is uncertainty. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That statement ("The IAU resolution changes the classification of Ceres from an asteroid, or minor planet, to a dwarf planet, the same classification as Pluto") is demonstrably false: both Ceres and Pluto are minor planets. When Pluto was demoted to DP, it received a minor-planet number! Also, the IAU never classified Ceres as an asteroid, because they never defined what an asteroid was. The Dawn statement is an opinion piece, and evidently an ill-informed one, hardly a RS. As for the New Horizons team, they continue to call Pluto a "planet" because they refuse to accept the IAU's decision. That's not needing "time to convert", it's revolt. [(edit conflict) Okay, you just changed that argument. But we follow the IAU on Pluto because the IAU has defined what a planet is. The have never defined what an asteroid is.]

With the IAU Q&A, in that same paragraph they continue with, "There are many other asteroids that can cross the orbital path of Ceres." Other asteroids means of course that Ceres is the asteroid they're being compared to.

You argue, "They have not ... issued a page post-2006 using the present tense." But they have. In that very Q&A they say, "For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet." Present tense. That means Ceres is still called an asteroid or minor planet. Then they say "small solar system bodies [include] most of the solar system asteroids". If most of the asteroids are SSSBs, then of course not all of the asteroids are SSSBs. The only exception is Ceres. Again, Ceres is therefore an asteroid. So they say once that Ceres was an asteroid, and three times that it is an asteroid, in the same piece.

For your conclusion that "Given that they are the body who makes these sort of decisions, we should skew our presentation to reflect their position", again, the IAU has no coherent position to skew ourselves towards, presumably because they are not and never have been the body that decides what is an "asteroid". — kwami (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so sources that agree with you that Ceres is still an asteroid are reliable, but sources that disagree - including the team sending a probe to Ceres - are "ill-formed opinions". I think that you are also arguing based on your own interpretations of the IAU document - and remember that the IAU *is* the body that would make such decisions. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the IAU can only decide on planets and dwarf planets, but not on other categories. Furthermore, "has been referred" indicates past behaviour, and does not indicate that the IAU endorses it for the present or future. --21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To address some of your other points, we might have to dig into the archives from the discussions surrounding Pluto's reclassification. From what I recall, Pluto was given a number not because it was designated as a minor planet, but simply because Ceres already had one. I'll check on that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that opinion piece, which is not a formal publication, is ill-informed because it's ill-informed: she says Ceres, like Pluto, is no longer a minor planet, when Pluto acquired minor-planet status when it was demoted from planethood. Plus, as I said, it's not a formal IAU publication. You're equating blogs and Q&As which support your POV with published RSs which don't.

Haumea and Makemake were also given MP numbers. If they weren't MPs, they would be reassigned. The IAU says it's not going to bother with the category MP any more, but only with SSSB, DP, and planet. (And presumably satellite etc.) So MPs are simply non-cometary non-planets, as they've always been.

Yes, the IAU is the body that would make such decisions if it decided to make such decisions. But it has decided not to make such decisions. It's exempted itself. The IAU is a deliberative body, and its rulings have the status they do because it's a deliberative body. The opinions or conventions of individual members of the IAU cannot be equated with decisions by the IAU, any more than the decisions of individual members of parliament/congress can be equated with decisions (laws) made by parliament/congress. Since the IAU has excused itself from defining what an asteroid is, it has no opinion, as a body, as to what an asteroid is.

So, again, we have numerous individual comments that Ceres has been reassigned from asteroid to DP, where in fact the IAU never reassigned it, they only assigned it to DP. Against that, we have RS's stating that Ceres is the largest asteroid. — kwami (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, wait a minute here. The Q&A from the IAU is an official IAU release, part of the official IAU news release made at the time of the IAU decision regarding the dwarf planet category. How can you claim that it is not a reliable source? Since when do third-party sources take precedence over the IAU with respect to these matters? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We're *not* giving anyone precedence over the IAU! Again, the IAU itself is a "third party" in these matters, as they've specifically exempted themselves from any official decision re. asteroids. And regardless, they have no coherent view on the matter: in the same Q&A release they say Ceres is not an asteroid, they go on to say that it is an asteroid, then again that it is an asteroid, and then yet again that it is an asteroid. How can you use that as a source that the IAU claims Ceres is not an asteroid?

To be used as a ref, a source needs to be intelligible, and the Q&A is incoherent on this matter. (It would be interesting to ask the author why they flip-flop. I suspect they'd say it doesn't really matter, because "asteroid" has no formal definition.) And the IAU has specifically said they are not the arbiter in this case, so why shouldn't we take a CUP pub or New Scientiest to be a RS? — kwami (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• de Pater & Lissauer, 2010. Planetary Sciences, 2nd ed. CUP. An "introduction for graduate students in the physical sciences".

p 151, the asteroid Ceres, and the Kuiper belt objects Pluto, Eris, and Varuna.

p 366, the largest asteroid, 1 Ceres

p 367, The three largest asteroids, 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas and 4 Vesta ... The three largest KBOs, Eris, Pluto and Haumea ...

p392, table 9.5 of reprsentative minor planets, divided into orbital categories: Near-Earth Asteroids, Main Belt Asteroids (incl. Ceres), Trojan Asteroids, Trans-Neptunian Objects (incl. RKBO Pluto and SDO Eris).

• Mann, Nakamura, & Mukai, 2009. Small bodies in planetary systems. Lecture Notes in Physics 758. Springer-Verlag.

p 74, the largest asteroid in the MB called 1 Ceres

p 285, Ice stability ... has been established for asteroid (1) Ceres

— kwami (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're purposefully deleting references direct from NASA's Dawn mission and also from the IAU. "Object" addresses both points of view in a neutral manner. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm purposefully reverting your censorship. I don't care much about the ref, though it's incoherent and unencyclopedic, so I put it back it. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of fighting about whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid, add a paragraph at the end of the "Status" section, which describes the confusion. Give a couple of examples of people who still refer to it as an asteroid, and a couple of examples of people who don't. I propose a truce on reverts to other pages (such as 4 Vesta) until we get this paragraph sorted. (In the long term, the status during this iterim period doesn't matter. However, if you want to make things even for now, then I suggest that the lede for Ceres say "object in the asteroid belt", while the other pages assume that Ceres is an asteroid.) Bluap (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A paragraph discussing the issue would be beneficial. I suspect that we might still have a dispute over calling it an asteroid in the lede, though. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Added a paragraph, including the clearest refs from Ckatz that it is no longer an asteroid. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bluap, I was prepared to go with your proposal. Unfortunately, Kwami has chosen to disregard it ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceres_(dwarf_planet)&diff=prev&oldid=450760268 "Compromise not accepted") and repeatedly reverted back to his preferred version. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Ckatz, I did not "disregard" it. I wrote an explanatory paragraph just as Bluap suggested. That idea was sound, and was something this article needed.

But the lede compromise is a sop. No offense, Bluap, but splitting the articles so that some say one thing and some say another simply introduces inconsistency. If we say that Vesta is the 2nd-most-massive asteroid, then we're saying that Ceres is the most-massive asteroid. Removing that claim from this article violates the rigour I expect from a good reference work, and helps perpetuate the confusion on this issue. BTW, one of the Dawn research teams has just published that Vesta is the 2nd-most-massive asteroid (ref at Vesta). — kwami (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwami's at it again, despite being advised to avoid this sort of disruptive behaviour at dwarf planet. The "stable" version would in fact be language reflecting Bluap's suggestions, as that is what was in place for well over a year until Kwami made his changes in August 2011. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not really matter. But I recommend calling Ceres the most massive object in the asteroid belt. Leave it up to the reader to decide if it is an asteroid. -- Kheider (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We have numerous sources showing it's still called an "asteroid" despite qualifying as a DP. It's a bit bizarre to say that Vesta & Pallas are the 2nd- & 3rd-largest asteroids, but then to be too timid to say that Ceres is the largest.

Here's one[3] from the Dawn team announcing that Ceres is a DP and still calling it the largest asteroid. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That pathetic reference also calls Charon a dwarf planet... (FAIL!) -- Kheider (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not say (FAIL!) for the IAU ref? It's not even logically consistent with itself, yet Ckatz keeps trotting it out. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have had issues with that IAU statement that "Ceres both IS and WAS" since they made it in 2006. -- Kheider (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is inconsistent/weird calling Vesta and Pallas 2nd and 3rd but fail to call Ceres the 1st. What's so difficult about the logic "an object in the asteroid belt is an asteroid" anyway? And what's the point of avoiding calling the thing what it is? --JorisvS (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kwami: Note that your reference calls Ceres the "largest main belt asteroid", not the "largest asteroid". E.g., MPC refers to TNOs as asteroids. "Asteroid" is not a well defined term, so refering to the "Nth largest" (here and in other pages) is wrong. However, I've seen lots of papers refering to Ceres as an asteroid, so I think it's fair to call it one. "the largest asteroid in the main belt". Tbayboy (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@JorisvS - it's not a question of "avoiding calling the thing what it is" at all. There is uncertainty as to whether or not it actually is still classed as an asteroid, based on multiple sources post-2006. The IAU itself says, in their public material, that Ceres "is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid" and also addresses the question "Didn't Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet?". Therefore, the "object" wording - as used successfully here for well over a year before Kwami's changes - allows for ambiguity while not taking a definitive stand either way. (We're not claiming that Ceres isn't an asteroid, we're not claiming that it is.) As an adjunct to this, if Ceres had been reclassified as a planet under one of the abandoned IAU proposals in 2006, would we really be considering dual-labelling it as an asteroid? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if we really want to use the "stable" version, per Kwami, we'd need to use something along the lines of "Ceres, formally designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest identified dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one in the asteroid belt." A spot check of the article history demonstrates that wording (or minor variations on the theme) to have been in place since 2006. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is factually wrong. Ceres is still formally designated "1 Ceres"; Pluto was assigned a minor-planet number when it was designated a DP, so how can you possibly believe that Ceres had its mp# removed? DP's are effectively large minor planets: the whole point is that they're not planets. The IAU excerpt you quote then goes on to call Ceres an asteroid. And you're advocating inconsistency on our part: At Vesta, Pallas, and many other articles, we count Ceres as the first asteroid as well as the largest. Yes, TNOs might be considered asteroids, though we don't; we don't say "main belt asteroid" for other bodies. If you plan on changing what all of our other asteroid articles say, then you're requesting that we change what has been stable for them; if you're not, then you're requesting we speak out of both sides of our mouth. You even say it's the "first asteroid" just after you avoid saying it's the "largest asteroid"! And it wasn't the first asteroid at the time, of course: if we're going to use the terminology of the time, it was the eighth planet. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, you're engaging in exactly the same behaviour that led to a block re: your actions at dwarf planet. If you really want a stable version, go back to the one in place since 2006, not simply to your text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowingly insisting on a false version and rejecting the compromise we've agreed to is WP:POINTy, and not behaviour you should be engaging in. The stable version is the one no-one had any problem with until you decided WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Funny how whatever you like is "stable", and whatever you don't like is not. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"False version"? Be honest, Kwami, or this discussion will benefit no-one, least of all you. If you take issue with my claim, then do what I did - review the article history all the way back to 2006. Note how the current disputed text re: asteroid in the lead originates from your changes this summer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, not sure what you're going on about with respect to removing the MP number, as I didn't say that at all. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread "formerly" for "formally".

The changes this summer largely followed the 3rd-party suggestion. But it was a compromise between all sides that has stood since this summer. That's been the stable version. Now you decide that you don't like how the compromise was made, and want to change it to have it all your way. But it wasn't a problem until you decided to make a fuss. I put in a compromise, and the debate ended. You're the one opening it up again, so you're the one demanding the change. I could go to any article any say, "sure, this has been here since last year, but it was different for even longer before that, so we need to revert the changes made then because I don't like them".

And how can you insist we not call it an asteroid, when in the very next sentence, and the again in the next paragraph, we call it an asteroid? That's completely irrational. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You took it upon yourself to unilaterally reject Bluap's proposal re: "object", and reverted repeatedly to keep things your way. Do not confuse "consensus" with "tired of Kwami's desire to force his language into the article". --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I took it upon myself to implement most of Bluap's proposal. People accepted that and the debate ended. That's what "compromise" means: everyone concedes something until we meet in the middle. It doesn't mean everyone concedes to what you want. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz, you must admit you didn't pursue this matter for about 1.5 months, giving at least the impression of acceptance of the situation Kwami is reverting to. --JorisvS (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate that sentiment, even if the reality is that it was simply too frustrating to have to deal with yet another Kwami article-ownership scenario here, given his actions at dwarf planet and other related articles.

What the heck? I don't have ceres on my watchlist, so I missed this discussion. But I don't get the argument. The Minor Planet Center still calls Ceres (1) Ceres, Pluto is still (134340) Pluto, regardless of what other categories they may or may not currently be in. So I don't see why this is even under discussion, let alone why it has been altered in the lede. Serendi^podous 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing over the minor planet number, that was just a misunderstanding during the discussion. The big fuss is (ultimately) about the definition of "asteroid". Is Ceres an asteroid? Pluto? Chiron? QB1? The answers affect how Ceres is described in the lead. Tbayboy (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hence, the wording in place from 2006 to 2010:

"Ceres, formally designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest identified dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one in the asteroid belt."

That also has the advantage of mirroring what is in place at all four other DP articles. After all, ambiguity over the IAU's intentions for classifying Ceres aside, what is more important to emphasize first in the lead: that Ceres is one of millions of objects in the asteroid belt, or one of only five objects classified as dwarf planets? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, that it's a DP and an asteroid are both fundamental, and should both be in the lead. Since it's both, IMO the lead should be parallel to both the DP and asteroid articles, which is easy enough to do. But that's not been the argument. The argument has been that we can't say it's an asteroid, because we need to let people make up their own minds, yet in the very next sentence we say it's an asteroid. That's simply irrational. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If the discussion results in a consensus to dump the long-standing (and yes, five years is a long time) approach that is in sync with the other four DP articles in favour of your preferred text, then so be it. However, that consensus does not appear to exist as of yet and there does not seem to be a solid rationale to alter this from the version that stood for the past year, unless it is to restore the version that stood for four years before it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the proposed text is any more, but I would prefer to keep vague terms like body and object out of the first sentence, and keep it simple, not leaving the reader guessing or making up their own mind. It should include that it is an asteroid, not just merely happening to be in the asteroid belt. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Kwami's text - what he has been reverting in since August - is the "proposed", I suppose. What would be better would be to go back to something along the lines of the long-standing, long-accepted version that was in place since 2006: "Ceres, formally designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest identified dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one in the asteroid belt." --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked it to reflect the 2006-2010 verson that reflects the other DP articles, without avoiding the asteroid issue. It now reads as "Ceres, formally 1 Ceres, is the smallest identified dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one in the asteroid belt.[19][20][21] Discovered on 1 January 1801 by Giuseppe Piazzi,[22] it is the first and largest asteroid to be identified." --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But why are you avoiding the issue? Being an asteroid is fundamental, so it belongs in the 1st paragraph, not the 2nd. Why do you need the ledes to be parallel when the topics are not parallel? That's like saying the lead of Homo shouldn't mention that they include people because that wouldn't be parallel to articles on other mammals. Also, you imply that there are larger asteroids out there waiting to be discovered, when there are not. We wouldn't say Jupiter is the largest planet 'so far discovered'. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're fundamentally mistaken; the term asteroid is first used in the second sentence, not the second paragraph. The lead - which, again, now better reflects the consensus version that stood for almost five years before you unilaterally changed it - does not obscure the asteroid designation in any way. If anything, it is now more direct than your version. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But still, why do you insist on downplaying its dual identity? What's the point? Just the esthetics of making all the DP articles parallel? What about making all the asteroid articles parallel, and relegating mention of it being a DP to the second sentence? I really don't get it. It seems completly arbitrary. Dual identities should be given equal billing.

Your edit summary was "Not secondary - it's in the second sentence". That actually would be a pretty good MOS definition of "secondary". — kwami (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on, don't be ridiculous. Do you really expect me to believe that you perceive anything not explicitly placed in the first sentence to be "secondary"? I could easily strip out the period separating those two lines, but then we'd have a run-on sentence. Plus, how exactly is this "downplayed"? In the first two sentences, we state it's in the asteroid belt, it's the first asteroid to be discovered, and the largest asteroid. As for your "equal billing", what is more distinctive - one of five, or one of millions? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say being an asteroid is more distinctive: it's the largest asteroid, while the only thing that makes it distinctive as a DP is that it's cis-Neptunian. If it were trans-N, it wouldn't have even been accepted as a DP yet.

The first sentence is where we put the basic defining features of a topic. Both asteroid and DP are basic defining features of Ceres. Therefore both points belong in the first sentence. Your counter-argument is that we should force an artificial parallel on topics that are only partially parallel. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There was some duplication in the lede. For example, we said twice that it is the largest. Also, the logic of saying it was discovered in 1801 and then saying it is the largest asteroid escaped me. Therefore I've taken a crack at reworking it. Personally, I don't see a problem in first saying it is a dwarf planet and then saying it is the largest asteroid. --JorisvS (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am less concerned with calling Ceres an asteroid (does not really bother me) than I am suggesting to the average reader that astronomers do not have confidence in the status of Makemake and Haumea as dwarf planets. -- Kheider (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mote - I've twice now had to revert Kwami's undiscussed change from April (which I've just noticed) per the above discussions. I'd ask that he please avoid restarting this issue without consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Had to"? I've "had to" twice revert you. I'd ask that you not restart the issue without consensus. Yes, it should parallel other DP articles. But it should also parallel other asteroid articles. It's both, and it is therefore appropriate that it parallel both. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, *your* changes were both undiscussed and contrary to the above discussion, as you well know. Unless you establish a consensus here, you need to stop this behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I implemented the proposal and it was accepted. Then you decided that you didn't like it. But you also need to establish consensus, and there are no objections but yours. Tbayboy says there's a fair case, Graeme prefers it, Jorisv and Kheider don't seem to care. So it's you objecting to an implementation of a proposal that was otherwise accepted. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Kwami, it was not accepted the first series on times you put it in and it was never "accepted" when you tried again in April. You just went ahead and did it. Again. The discussion(s) do not endorse your changes; in fact, you didn't even discuss it when you arbitrarily changed it again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I've no objection to calling Ceres an asteroid, even in the lead, I think it should be secondary to its DP classification, because DP is a more significant category and (more significantly) because DP is a formal category whereas "asteroid" is an undefined, colloquial designation. I do not like calling it the largest asteroid (with no further qualification), since I've seen papers referring to TNOs (including Pluto) as asteroids, and, more significantly, talking about asteroid belts around other stars. Tbayboy (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We could say "largest asteroid in the Solar System" (I definitely like that) and add a note that occasionally KBOs are also called asteroids, akin to the way Pluto is called the largest Kuiper-belt object with a note about Eris in the scattered disc. --JorisvS (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will also note that centaurs where also called asteroids when 2060 Chiron was discovered in 1977. -- Kheider (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had to revert Kwami's undiscussed changes from April yet again, to the long-standing format that apparently meets with approval here. Kwami should note that the long-standing version does in fact describe Ceres both as an asteroid and a dwarf planet, and (as discussed many times here) does not marginalize the asteroid description. If there is consensus to change the lede paragraph, then so be it, nut I would ask Kwami to stop edit warring here and elsewhere. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrt the lede, we could always rearrange

"It is a rock–ice body some 950 km (590 mi) in diameter, comprising about a third of the mass of the asteroid belt, and by far the largest and most massive asteroid."

to

"It is a rock–ice body some 950 km (590 mi) in diameter, by far the largest and most massive asteroid, comprising about a third of the total mass of the asteroid belt."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That trivial edit doesn't even try to address the issue. The problem is that a dual identity should be presented together.

Re. Tbayboy's concern, about DP being a formal category and therefore deserving to come first, we could say,

Ceres, formally 1 Ceres, is the only dwarf planet—and the largest asteroid—in the inner Solar System. It is a rock–ice body some 950 km (590 mi) in diameter, and though the smallest identified dwarf planet, it constitutes about a third of the mass of the asteroid belt.

Or something like that—we could polish up the wording. That would put its dual identity in the first line, where it belongs, keep its DP identity primary, and sidestep the issue of whether Pluto is an asteroid. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that. Especially how it captures the ambiguity of the term: you can read it as either "the largest asteroid" or "the largest asteroid in the inner Solar System", according to your prejudice. Tbayboy (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)