Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)

864:

emails trying to get Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà corrected, and although they appreciated the help, in the end they only got it half right. (They were even reluctant to approve the name Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà because they knew they wouldn't be able to accommodate it properly, and asked the discoverers/proposers if they couldn't spell the name a different way to make it easier on them. That was a conflict with their stated aim of being culturally inclusive.) Currently, JPL lists its moon as ⟨(229762) G!kun||'homdima I Gǃòʼé ǃHú⟩ – that is, half ASCII-ified and have Unicodified. That obviously is a formatting issue, not an authority for using those specific characters. (Besides, WP can't accept "G!kun||'homdima" as an article title.) It's not uncommon for the MPC, JPL and the USGS to use different Unicode characters in a non-ASCII name, so the characters themselves are not authoritative.

552:, which is exactly what Luhman uses in the original discovery paper ("2MASS J11011926-7732383 (hereafter 2M 1101-7732)"). The recent Faherty paper also introduces it with the full name before defining a different abbreviation ("binary brown dwarf 2MASS J11011926-7732383AB (2M1101AB) found in the Chameleon star-forming region") . I've not dug into every mention in the literature, but from my quick search the dominant usage is the full designation, with various forms of abbreviation in use but only after quoting the full 2MASS J11011926-7732383. 1346:. Any debate over which object(s) to include as dwarf planets would hinge on our interpretations of the astronomical consensus, not our own verdict on what should and should not qualify as a dwarf planet. Though this in of itself can be unclear due to the potential for varying interpretations of literature, it nevertheless provides a relatively stable point of reference: the general list of "consensus" dwarf planets has not changed for roughly a decade by now, and likely will not change until another large TNO is discovered. 2037:

the issue, and brought up the same arguments multiple times, and I'm not sure you have actually listened to the counter-arguments. All the relevant sources are conservative and quite strict with their criteria, and none of the additional objects you bring up make it on their lists (even though, as you noted, Grundy and Stern have coauthored papers on the subject, and Stern is known to not be impartial about the matter). We have been cautious about this, I think, so I fail to see a problem.

131: 168: 1037:

that we should strictly follow IAU spelling in a case like Namaka, nor that we should 'correct' their spelling, merely describing what's been our practice so far, which is to retain all the elements of the IAU name, while choosing Unicode characters for them according to the MOS. (For the examples above, it's quite common to omit the macron in Hawaiian names even when retaining the okina, just as it's common to use <oe: -->

77: 53: 22: 536:

nor rounded, nor shortened)". In practice that only really applies to the first mention in a publication - it's allowed to then specify an abbreviation for use thereafter, provided the first mention is the full, unabbreviated designation. If the designation is based on coordinates, the J, B or G indicate which coordinate system is being used, so should never be omitted - even in abbreviations. I think

1781:. As I said, I am not particularly familiar with the mythology side of this (I believe this is a topic that Kwami knows much more about than I do), but I'm sure this is one thing that could actually be handled on a case-by-case basis. Why Quaoar is currently handled the way it is, I do not know, but I don't believe that to be a pressing issue. Would you disagree? 1539:" -- that was my own doing. Since the alternative proposal is about a change to the policy, not the requested move, the discussion has been moved to the appropriate policy talk page. I'll copy your votes to comments there if you don't mind. I have linked the second discussion, so hopefully any further discussion about it will take place in the appropriate place. 87: 1586:, it would be ground for demotion from that status (and thus removal from the list) if any of them were found to not reflect current consensus. That is quite a strong incentive for keeping them up to date, so this is unlikely to ever happen. For the topic itself to lose FT status for such a reason, something would have to go very wrong... 2371:), because that object was the entire reason the IAU voted on a planet definition in the first place. Haumea and Makemake were assigned numbers together with Eris; it's possible that they were delayed even when their orbits were well-known because of the classification problem, but I'm not sure (would need to do some research). 2289:. I don't think the MPC designation is useful for the few (nine?) dwarf planets we have. Those are much better known by their names. The numbers are helpful for identifying the much more numerous asteroids. The MPC designation is anyway always included in the infobox in the rare cases it is of interest. 2032:

More weight is generally given to the latter two of these sources (Grundy and Emery), because they are less old, and because they apply stricter criteria. The fact that all three of them essentially agree on the objects that are currently on Knowledge (XXG)'s dwarf planet featured topics list is what

2028:

article (Tangredi et al., 2010; Grundy et al., 2019; Emery et al., 2023) were sufficiently addressed. If my interpretation of the consensus building there is wrong then surely I'll be told off by someone else for claiming a false consensus. In any case, that discussion will go its due course, and its

1195:

list. Inclusion to (and removal from) that list adds quite a high bar for articles to pass (similar to what the IAU list does). More importantly, this would be a bar that is in Knowledge (XXG)'s own hands, and that would be easy to communicate. The subject's status will have been discussed during the

863:

We're to preserve diacritics, and also "if the name contains an ʻokina it should be preserved." Does that mean we should even if the MPC substitutes the ʻokina with an ASCII hyphen in its online DB? I know they have technical problems with the non-ASCII blocks of Unicode; I was involved in a round of

744:

The only unambiguous form is the unabbreviated one. Pretty much all possible two- or three- letter abbreviations are already in use for other catalogues. The number of digits in the designation is deliberately chosen to be just enough to avoid ambiguity between multiple sources in the same catalogue.

2051:

My point was that if the only sources we have that address the matter call some minor body a DP, then the scientific consensus (as near as we can determine it from RSs) could be argued to be that it's a DP, and thus subject to the naming conventions you outline. The bodies subject to this convention

2036:

I understand your concerns. It is important to be careful, and to make consensus for DP status a high bar, and the voice of caution is appreciated. I myself have opposed moves in the past (like in the 2022 discussion at Sedna) for similar reasons. But you have repeatedly expressed your opinion about

1990:

You can argue that dozens of objects are dwarf planets based on sources like Sterns (multiple sources by him or colleagues), and for many of these there is no debate because no-one else really cares. Among named objects, there are Varda, Ixion, Varuna, Chaos, Dziewanna and Huya. I don't know that we

1646:

For the vast majority of minor planet articles, there is consensus to keep the MPN, and I am completely in line with that. Those thousands of minor planet articles are unaffected by the proposed change, which only affects those objects that current scientific consensus actually handles as a separate

1319:

IAU dwarf planets differently), and there's a good chance that the ongoing move request will be successful, further extending the list. Since those articles already say that these are dwarf planets, we may as well handle them as such, and on our (Knowledge (XXG)'s) own terms. For the record, I voted

2442:

I would like to see an alternative proposal, and am opposed to its outright removal. I definitely think that the minor-planet designation should be mentioned in the lede. Whether it belongs in the first sentence is another matter. As kwami has noted, not all dwarf planets are equal, and giving more

1036:

I gave examples of where we omit a diacritic or other orthographic element because the IAU does, in Schöner vs Schroeter and in Namaka (moon). However, if communities complain that their personages are misformated, e.g. that it should be Nāmaka, we might wish to revisit this. I'm neither advocating

535:

which are supposed to be followed by all professional astronomers. Unfortunately not all of them do, there's no effective enforcement mechanism, and nicknames are often used for press releases or in the popular media. The IAU rules say designations "should never be altered (e.g., neither truncated,

2362:

Ceres, Pluto, and Eris are rather unusual cases. Ceres spent quite a while as simply an asteroid / minor planet, before "dwarf planet" was coined, and its MPC number 1 is hard to forget. Pluto spent a long time as a major planet without an MPC number, and that not-very-round number 134340 was only

559:

which explains the differences between WISE, WISEP, WISEA etc. For your example, it's in multiple WISE catalogues so has several valid prefixes. If we look at the Kilpatrick discovery paper, they introduce this object as WISEPA J182831.08+265037.8 then later abbreviate it WISE 1828+2650 (which is

2012:

I would suggest to keep the general discussion limited to the section above. This section here was created specifically to work on the guideline, and I don't see anything in your comment that addresses ArkHyena's proposal. You have my go-ahead to also move my comment to there, to ensure that the

897:

This seems a topic to resolve at the MOS level, not within WP:AST. The official names of comets and asteroids are those listed in the IAU bulletins (of the WGSBN), not JPL or MPC. Similarly, official names of moons and surface features are those in the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. Note

543:

Those are of course IAU rules, not Knowledge (XXG) rules. The NCASTRO guideline is to follow whatever the dominant name is in reliable sources, but to favour professional literature over popular media in the case of disagreement. If the professional literature predominantly uses a nickname or

429:

has several different abbreviations used in scientific literature, including 2M 1101-7732AB (Luhman 2004), 2M 1101 AB (Steltzer and Micela 2007), and 2M1101AB (Faherty et al. 2020). Another dilemma is whether to truncate the letter 'J' preceding the numbers in an object's designation. There's

1185:

for all other minor planets. There is no reason why Knowledge (XXG) should follow the IAU definition, explicitly or implicitly, and I'd argue that the current approach isn't very sensible (indicated by the repeated failed attempts to reach a consensus, and the inconsistency between different

1975:

following a discussion of its inclusion. To be included, scientific consensus must be demonstrated by multiple reliable academic sources explicitly labelling or arguing for its dwarf planet status, and there must be minimal or no academic opposition against its dwarf planet status.

180: 563:

So to summarise a very long reply: this needs to be handled case by case, depending on dominant usage in the professional literature. In most cases, that will be the full unabbreviated designation following the IAU rules, with possible abbreviation thereafter, but not always.

2052:

would then not be a natural category, but depend on haphazard sources. IMO that should be dealt with up front, rather than waiting for it to be a problem. I'm not sure the proposed wording does so. Maybe it does -- I just thought this was a potential spanner I should mention.

1085:. Spaces in asteroid names are rare, and only used when deemed necessary (for example, the space between first and last names is almost always left out). If one needed an example that the IAU does not always follow its own guidelines (a.k.a. its unwritten rules), here it is. 2385:

Nice round 100000 was even proposed for Pluto, but the IAU wasn't ready yet. Might be different if they'd gone with that number. For a while they saved round numbers for large object (20000, 50000); too bad they gave that practice up before they got to the really big ones.

1061:

was spelled "van 't Hoff" in our article, like the person. The IAU name only has one space. I "fixed" it to one space per the IAU, but thought I should mention it here in case others disagree. (The title was as per the IAU, but in the text an extra space had been added.) —

2318:

At a minimum, Pluto should be an exception because the MPC des is almost never used to identify the object. It should of course be mentioned in the section on naming, and perhaps further down in the lead where it mentions that Pluto lost its status as a full planet.

1170:. This is the second time in two years that these moves are proposed (which resulted in "no consensus" in 2016 and 2022). I have suggested there, as an alternative to the requested move, that we make a change to how minor planet and dwarf planet articles are named. 2487: 786:

I think that abbreviated designations should be used whether possible. We should stop accepting everything that IAU says as "an unquestionable and inviolable truth". Our objective is to make useful articles to readers, not to serve the interests of some people.

1608:

of minor planets with unambiguous names, like Mikebrown, but consensus has always been that we title them with the MPN anyway because so many of them are so obscure, and it would be a huge waste of time to argue COMMONNAME for 100,000 articles. Besides, Quaoar

935:

AFAICT none of them address which Unicode character to use when there are options, but the precedent of using a proper okina for Hawaiian names (rather than a quotation mark, which may look identical) suggests that we should do the same for other languages. —

2209:

There are currently no examples of this, but I don't agree with applying this convention to unnamed dwarf planets. If the title of a minor planet article is only a provisional designation with no number in front, that implies the object hasn't been numbered.

1210:. Should an article be demoted from FA/GA status, the default would be to rename it to the "MPC number+name" format, unless it is decided that an exception is warranted (this should be treated more as a stable reference rather than an absolute policy). 1600:

Ceres was given a MPN in the 19th century, soon after the system was devised. "1 Ceres" is as baked in as "5 Astraea" (rather than the earlier "1 Astraea"). Pluto wasn't given a MPN despite having them available, and is grandfathered in that

1099:

I brought some cases to their attention where the diacritics were wrong (a macron for s.t. else, perhaps due to a low-res copy of the source doc), or where one diacritic was dropped and another kept. We'll see if they clean them up. —

584:

So someone has to review every abbreviated 2MASS/WISE object article to check whether the abbreviation is more widely used in the scientific literature? I wouldn't mind if all of these page titles get moved to their full designations.

1554:

My position is basically what's in the copied vote, with emphasis on the fact that the featured topic should follow the current consensus of astronomers and be updated to reflect it (even if that means temporarily losing FT status).

1021:

I moved the section on diacritics and apostrophes, which was under 'minor planets', up to its own section, as it's also relevant for moon and star names. Added examples, including 3 distinct cases where we do want an ASCII hyphen. —

1506:(which somehow got hatted), provided that both the list and the naming convention try to stay consistent with, well, reliable sources. Every line that can be drawn is arbitrary, but we should reflect the one that the sources draw. 1285:

Opposed. We don't know which bodies are DPs, even within the "official" five (which aren't actually official). We could have endless arguments over whether a body is or is not a DP. I think all should be named with the MPN, e.g.

957:

The WGSBN Bulletin only dates from May this year. What's our ref for objects named before then? I'm curious if the okina was actually used for the Hawaiian names our guidelines say we should maintain the okinas for. —

192: 187: 2347:

I've seen 1 Ceres quite frequently, at least in historical sources. If our naming conventions didn't require the MPC number, we could still include it where it would be beneficial, as IMO in the case of Ceres.

1836:

The articles have now been moved as proposed. I believe we should go ahead and make the change to the naming convention, to make clear what line Knowledge (XXG) is using to distinguish articles that follow the

871:, where the MPC substitutes ASCII punctuation marks for the glottal stops.) To clarify, I amended the wording to "if the name contains an ʻokina or other non-ASCII character, it should be preserved." 640:

from 2012. There was no consensus, but it seems that all of them were moved during 2014-2016. I'm torn; I need additional input from everyone involved before I resume (or revert) the WISE page moves.

457:, but I don't see any apparent standard for abbreviating or using full designations. Should all full designations be abbreviated for the sake of searchability, or by notability and press coverage? 2477: 2055:

As for "the stable scientific consensus", I'm not sure there is one. We use the preponderance of sources, but I don't think we have any good reason to think that reflects a broad consensus.

2229:

the article title should contain both the object's minor-planet number (if applicable), in parentheses; and provisional designation; e.g. (225088) 2007 OR10 (now Gonggong (dwarf planet)).

2163:

I have edited the article, using the version above (with some minor typographical edits). Of course we may rephrase it still further, but I think this reflects the decision made at the

2315:

Agreed. That is needed for the SSSB's, but not for these. More useful would be the temporary designation, which is what is used in the early references. (Apart from Pluto, of course.)

531:

Some designations are indeed 'excruciatingly long', but that's because the catalogues they're taken from are excruciatingly comprehensive, containing billions of sources. The IAU has

1891: 1216: 899: 2428:

I'm personally ambivalent as to whether or not DPs should have their MPC designations in the introducing sentence, so it's probably best to seek the consensus of other editors.

2482: 1467:'s exclusion at present), and, as any change will require discussion, it can be expected to remain as a reasonably good reflection of astronomical consensus in the future. 915: 801:

How does whether the article title is abbreviated affect how useful it is to readers? The designation can still be abbreviated in the article text where necessary.

1043:

while dropping the "ṣ" in the last syllable: it's common enough to strip all diacritics from Sanskrit names, but a copy-editor would see "Aśvaghosa" as a typo.) —

906:. How we should turn non-English characters in those sources into article titles (or mentions in the text) is a matter of Romanisation, not specific to astronomy. 2192:

If the object is accepted as a dwarf planet by astronomical consensus but has yet to receive an official name, the article title should contain only the object's

1954:

If the object is accepted as a dwarf planet by astronomical consensus but has yet to receive an official name, the article title should contain only the object's

422: 1245: 140: 63: 1972: 1778: 1460: 1192: 2472: 2467: 837:

Surely that depends on what name is used by sources? If a source uses the unabbreviated form that's what a reader seeing that source will search for.

914:

is the closest guideline I could find, but that unhelpfully says the use of special characters is 'neither encouraged nor discouraged'. Maybe ask on

353:

Late reply here, but yeah sure; go ahead and add it to the page. Somehow the conventions for planetary moons don't have their own section here yet.

1198:

The featured topics list currently includes the five official dwarf planets, together with the three objects from the requested move, but not

1422:

For that matter, Ceres wasn't named with a MPN either (and, like Pluto, was originally classified as a planet). Regarding COMMONNAME status,

540:

is a good example of correct usage, giving the full form in the article title and defining an abbreviation in the first sentence of the lead.

2193: 1955: 867:

I take it from the statement that ʻokinas should be preserved, that other non-ASCII letters should be preserved as well. (Specifically, at

1711:? If so then that may actually be a good idea, although I admit I am not familiar with how articles about deities are generally handled. 1638:

to Chinigchinix. At the very least, this here is the wrong place for that discussion, but it also doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

418: 2363:

given when "dwarf planet" became a term. Eris is yet another case: the number 136199 was assigned only a few days before the name was (

1809: 1757: 1683: 1569: 1520: 1444: 1241: 100: 58: 555:

As for the initial letters, those come from the abbreviation of the catalogue. The definitive listing of those abbreviations is the

745:

If you abbreviate the designation of an astronomical object, it almost always becomes ambiguous with another astronomical source.

2164: 2368: 33: 2025: 1320:"oppose" to the ongoing move request (or "conditional support" if we do it under the conditions of my alternative proposal). 1000:

Thanks. Do they have an index, either of named bodies or just of MPCs? I don't know how to look up the bodies in question. —

2270:

designation should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article's lead section, preferably incorporating a link to the

1932:

designation should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article's lead section, preferably incorporating a link to the

1971:

An object's dwarf planet status is considered to have demonstrable scientific consensus should it suffice for inclusion in

868: 2452: 2437: 2413: 2395: 2380: 2357: 2342: 2328: 2309: 2253: 2239: 2219: 2176: 2148: 2134: 2120: 2106: 2064: 2046: 2000: 1985: 1874: 1854: 1813: 1790: 1761: 1738: 1720: 1687: 1656: 1622: 1595: 1573: 1548: 1497: 1476: 1448: 1411: 1397: 1379: 1355: 1329: 1303: 1277: 1231: 1123: 1109: 1094: 1071: 1052: 1031: 1009: 988: 967: 945: 926: 891: 846: 832: 810: 796: 767: 753: 739: 725: 718: 666: 659: 624: 611: 604: 572: 525: 518: 483: 476: 400: 379: 372: 340: 287: 273: 537: 446: 616:

That's the guideline, though it doesn't seem worth the effort of checking unless there's a specific issue or dispute.

2024:), where you brought up similar points. In my opinion, the issues you raised about the main sources discussed in the 208: 298:

This seems to be the standard, but I am not aware of it having been written up anywhere. So maybe we could add it?

1795:

I definitely agree with you, and would be happy to defer to the opinion of someone more well-versed in mythology!

1173:

The question is when the MPC number should be included in the title. While it isn't written policy, right now we

2111:

Good catches; "to be in demonstrable consensus" should be reworded as "to have demonstrable consensus", perhaps

1898: 1774: 1463:

reflects the current list of what objects astronomical consensus considers dwarf planets (with the exception of

303: 204: 2280: 1942: 1206:, so there is no reason why it couldn't be included in the FT. Under my proposal, it should then be renamed to 269: 1773:

Don't worry, that probably was entirely due to the late hour on my side... I'm all for consistency! Of course

39: 2364: 1665:

already points to the (possible) dwarf planet, so either it should be moved there, or Quaoar should point to

820: 438:

1828+2650 in the discovery publication by Kirkpatrick et al. 2011 (not to mention that it is also called WISE

279:

This is covered in the Capitalisation section of the guideline - capitalise if it's part of the proper noun.

2201: 1963: 1865:

You have an idea how to actually phrase the new policy/guideline? Let us know, or start working on it here!

1159: 986: 924: 828: 792: 751: 622: 570: 549: 285: 911: 903: 758:

In the same catalogue I mean, don't understand your answer. The name always includes a catalogue name, no?

442:

J1828+2650 by Cushing et al. 2011). Should there be some kind of preference for which abbreviation to use?

2409: 2376: 2215: 1805: 1753: 1679: 1565: 1516: 1440: 1119: 842: 806: 450: 396: 336: 241: 2333:

Ceres is also almost never referred to by its MPC designation, and also lacks a provisional designation.

977: 2391: 2353: 2324: 2060: 1996: 1618: 1299: 1105: 1067: 1048: 1027: 1005: 963: 941: 887: 454: 1779:

Knowledge (XXG):Consistency in article titles#Inconsistency resulting from primary topic determinations

1040: 973: 1058: 637: 1532: 1528: 1178: 1151: 449:. There's plenty of excruciatingly long designations mixed in with the eight-digit abbreviations in 413:

I've noticed that there's a bit of inconsistency with abbreviations for catalogue designations like

2271: 2267: 2084: 1933: 1929: 1915: 1426:

should also be moved to the non-disambiguated title either way (as it isn't the deity's main name,

445:

Similarly there's also some vagueness surrounding the usage of full catalogue designations such as

265: 145: 1743:

I'm saying it should either do one or the other, for consistency. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

1315:

Okay, but that doesn't seem to be the current consensus (which at the very least handles the five

324:

If the moon is neither numbered nor named, the default title is the provisional designation, e.g.

248:). This makes sense to me as it distinguishes a specific cluster from a more generic term such as 2448: 2433: 2249: 2235: 2172: 2144: 2130: 2116: 2102: 2042: 1981: 1870: 1850: 1786: 1734: 1716: 1652: 1591: 1544: 1493: 1472: 1407: 1393: 1375: 1351: 1325: 1273: 1261: 1227: 1090: 995: 981: 952: 919: 824: 788: 746: 631: 617: 579: 565: 495: 317:

If the moon is numbered, but not named, the default title is the Roman-numeral designation, e.g.

280: 261: 210: 1294:, due to the fact that Pluto wasn't named with a MPN and it also wins that spot per COMMONNAME. 907: 130: 2405: 2372: 2211: 1796: 1768: 1744: 1694: 1670: 1629: 1556: 1507: 1431: 1249: 1115: 838: 802: 763: 735: 392: 348: 332: 1191:

move our "arbitrary line" from the IAU list to whatever articles are on the recently created

2387: 2349: 2338: 2320: 2305: 2056: 2021: 2017: 2007: 1992: 1641: 1614: 1456: 1385: 1335: 1310: 1295: 1253: 1203: 1139: 1101: 1063: 1044: 1023: 1001: 959: 937: 883: 712: 653: 598: 512: 470: 366: 253: 225: 206: 167: 92: 1880:

Just throwing this out, but perhaps this could be affixed to the Dwarf planets subsection:

1155: 875: 431: 257: 1583: 1579: 815:

because the shortened name is more likely to be searched by readers. That's why we have

1578:

I think that's a standard that applies to any FT/FA, right? Since the list consists of

1265: 245: 2461: 2444: 2429: 2293: 2245: 2231: 2168: 2140: 2126: 2112: 2098: 2075: 2038: 1977: 1866: 1846: 1782: 1730: 1712: 1648: 1587: 1540: 1489: 1468: 1455:

Supporting this proposal, per my reasoning given in the aforementioned move request (

1403: 1389: 1371: 1362: 1347: 1321: 1269: 1223: 1143: 1086: 491: 1704: 1703:

should no longer redirect to the dwarf planet, but to the article about the deity (

1666: 1427: 1182: 1163: 759: 731: 695: 688: 311: 249: 2090:"to be in consensus" is a wording I have not come across. Is this correct English? 2275: 2228: 2033:

constitutes the stable scientific consensus necessary for inclusion in that list.

1937: 310:. But due to mythology it usually isn't, so we disambiguate using "(moon)", e.g. 2488:

Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)

2334: 2301: 1922: 1725:

The move request, as ongoing, is for it the dwarf planet article to be moved to

1464: 1257: 1199: 1147: 700: 641: 586: 500: 458: 386: 354: 325: 318: 532: 1196:

FA/GA nomination, which would ensure self-consistency within the encyclopedia.

82: 1883:

All objects agreed to be dwarf planets by demonstrable scientific consensus (

2225:

Good point that I somehow managed to completely missed; I've amended this as

2197: 1959: 1367:

I am surprised, since you have indicated before that you liked the proposal.

307: 105: 76: 52: 2013:

discussion is actually heard, and so that work down here isn't cluttered.

1708: 556: 545: 426: 2016:

Regarding your arguments: I have read the recent discussions at Orcus (

1342:

to decide what objects are dwarf planets, it is up to the consensus of

1287: 972:

Prior to the new bulletin, names with diacritics were published in the

2093:

Either way, "astronomical consensus" should be "scientific consensus".

900:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Common names

859:

When non-ASCII characters are not preserved online at the MPC/JPL/USGS

302:

If the moon is named, the default title is just the name if it is the

2401: 2264:

I'd suggest removing the following paragraph from the new guideline:

1991:

have the sources to argue that they are not DPs, except by omission.

1726: 1700: 1699:

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your comment. Are you suggesting that

1662: 1635: 1423: 1167: 910:

has guidelines for some languages, but not the ones you're querying.

816: 1527:

of both the original proposal and Renerpho's alternative proposal.

1222:

Would you agree if we adopt a version of this as policy/guideline?

2297: 1902: 1291: 976:(not MPECs). They're very large files though. For example, in the 414: 1777:

has to be considered, and it beats any consistency argument, per

1613:

the deity's name. That's like saying Pluto isn't the god's name.

544:

abbreviation, that's what we should follow, despite the IAU. For

2139:

Fair; I've modified my suggestion above to address your points

1430:, and the base title already redirects to the space snowball). 211: 161: 15: 2029:

results aren't really relevant to what we're working on here.

636:

While moving all those abbreviated pages, I came across this

129: 2404:

now has the number removed from its WP-article title, too.

1914:

include the objects' respective minor planet numbers; e.g.

1634:

I have to agree with kwami about your suggestion to rename

1181:

for the five official dwarf planets, versus something like

1134:

Proposed change to minor planet / dwarf planet page titles

874:

Might never come up, but potentially a similar issue with

1384:

Error/unclear wording on my part, I intended to reply to

1219:

wouldn't include the rationale, and can be more concise.

1202:. Orcus is rated a good article, and there appears to be 878:. If the MPC number were used in the title, it should be 1897:

a. No disambiguation is required if the dwarf planet is

1177:

follow the official IAU definition. We have titles like

1039:

in German, but it's distinctly odd to retain the "ś" in

560:

technically not a valid abbreviation as it omits the J).

1894:. Disambiguation should be marked with (dwarf planet). 1535:) 22:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC) ::Thanks for your support. " 1486: 1483: 1368: 730:

I support the shortest unambiguous abbreviation style.

409:

Abbreviating catalogue designations (2MASS, WISE, etc.)

1215:

Consider this a first draft. The final change to our

1114:

Ugh, without the space it just looks like a typo. :(

916:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (use English)

1729:, which seems to be what you're suggesting as well? 2443:leeway for how to handle them could be beneficial. 1887:) should be titled under the following guidelines: 1661:I never suggested renaming Quaoar to Chinigchinix? 548:, the 'correct' name according to the IAU rules is 2478:Project-Class Astronomy articles of NA-importance 902:favours the official name only if it is also the 1268:, as participants in the 2022 move discussion. 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2300:, where I think it is particularly unhelpful. 2244:I have no objection to changing this section. 2083:I think point 2 is intended to read "... e.g. 533:rules on how to designate astronomical sources 264:. What is the naming convention for clusters? 244:) are generally named with a capital C (e.g. ( 2125:I leave that to a native English speaker. :) 1973:Knowledge (XXG):Featured topics/Dwarf planets 1482:Copied from the move request discussion, per 1461:Knowledge (XXG):Featured topics/Dwarf planets 1193:Knowledge (XXG):Featured topics/Dwarf planets 219:This page has archives. Sections older than 8: 144:, which collaborates on articles related to 104:, which collaborates on articles related to 2483:Project-Class Astronomical objects articles 1841:convention from those with the more common 1457:Talk:90377 Sedna#Requested move 6 June 2024 1140:Talk:90377 Sedna#Requested move 6 June 2024 1338:here, on the grounds that it is not up to 882:with a proper minus sign, not a hyphen. — 47: 980:new names are listed from pages 990-994. 2296:undid my edit removing the number from 1910:All dwarf planet article titles should 1604:I oppose the move of Quaoar. There are 1204:consensus about its dwarf planet status 240:It appears that specific clusters (see 49: 2265: 2191: 1536: 1190: 294:Naming conventions for planetary moons 229:when more than 5 sections are present. 256:. However, there are exceptions e.g. 114:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astronomy 7: 1892:the guidelines on common names above 1077:Funny that the IAU named the crater 236:Naming conventions for open clusters 21: 19: 2187:This text is now in the guideline: 2087:...", without the broken wiki-link. 2080:Thanks for the start! Some points: 1186:articles). The proposal is that we 38:It is of interest to the following 14: 1081:, but the corresponding asteroid 391:Added (a bit less colloquially). 223:may be automatically archived by 98:This page is within the scope of 2473:NA-importance Astronomy articles 2468:Project-Class Astronomy articles 1861:Formulating the policy/guideline 1246:WikiProject Astronomical objects 1146:has recently proposed to rename 166: 141:WikiProject Astronomical objects 85: 75: 51: 20: 1290:, with the single exception of 2026:List of possible dwarf planets 1707:), to make it consistent with 557:CDS Dictionary of Nomenclature 117:Template:WikiProject Astronomy 1: 1110:02:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC) 1095:00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC) 1072:04:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC) 1053:23:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) 1032:20:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC) 989:12:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC) 968:22:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC) 946:19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC) 927:14:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC) 892:04:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC) 401:19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1523:) 21:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) * 1504:support alternative proposal 341:09:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) 2453:20:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 2438:12:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 2414:14:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 2396:13:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 2381:08:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 2358:14:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 2343:14:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 2329:12:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 2310:12:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 1124:15:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC) 1010:21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC) 692:and the original requestor 2504: 2165:Requested move 6 June 2024 847:16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 833:13:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 811:17:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 797:16:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 726:17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 667:17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 625:10:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC) 612:17:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 573:10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 526:00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 484:00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 380:00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 288:15:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 138:This page is supported by 2365:numbered 7 September 2006 2254:16:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 2240:15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 2220:14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 2177:09:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 1855:08:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 638:requested move discussion 137: 70: 46: 2281:minor-planet designation 2149:05:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 2135:05:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 2121:05:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 2107:04:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 2065:06:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 2047:04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 2001:03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 1986:03:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 1943:minor-planet designation 1875:22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1814:01:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 1791:00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 1762:00:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 1739:23:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1721:23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1688:23:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1657:23:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1623:23:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1596:22:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1574:22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1549:22:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1537:Which somehow got hatted 1498:22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1477:22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1449:22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1412:22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1398:22:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1380:21:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1370:Why the change of mind? 1356:21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1330:21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1304:21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1278:21:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1232:21:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 974:PDF versions of the MPCs 768:08:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 754:10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC) 740:14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC) 434:, but it is called WISE 2369:named 13 September 2006 2292:I've landed here after 2202:Gonggong (dwarf planet) 2194:provisional designation 1964:Gonggong (dwarf planet) 1956:provisional designation 1160:Gonggong (dwarf planet) 821:2MASS J12073346–3932539 550:2MASS J11011926-7732383 538:2MASS J03480772−6022270 447:2MASS J03480772−6022270 274:09:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) 1057:BTW, the lunar crater 699:for additional input. 499:for additional input. 451:Category:2MASS objects 242:Category:Open_clusters 134: 2183:Unnamed dwarf planets 1334:I also disagree with 1242:WikiProject Astronomy 455:Category:WISE objects 133: 101:WikiProject Astronomy 1208:Orcus (dwarf planet) 1179:Ceres (dwarf planet) 1152:Sedna (dwarf planet) 869:594913 ʼAylóʼchaxnim 146:astronomical objects 64:Astronomical objects 2272:minor planet number 2085:Eris (dwarf planet) 1934:minor planet number 1916:Eris (dwarf planet) 108:on Knowledge (XXG). 1217:naming conventions 1041:Aśvaghosa (crater) 262:Quintuplet cluster 135: 120:Astronomy articles 34:content assessment 1839:XX (dwarf planet) 1280: 1240:Notified/tagged: 233: 232: 198: 197: 160: 159: 156: 155: 152: 151: 2495: 2287: 2230: 2079: 2011: 1949: 1802: 1801: 1772: 1750: 1749: 1698: 1676: 1675: 1645: 1633: 1562: 1561: 1513: 1512: 1437: 1436: 1366: 1314: 1239: 999: 956: 881: 724: 723: 722: 706: 703: 698: 691: 665: 664: 663: 647: 644: 635: 610: 609: 608: 592: 589: 583: 524: 523: 522: 506: 503: 498: 482: 481: 480: 464: 461: 390: 378: 377: 376: 360: 357: 352: 254:Embedded cluster 228: 212: 184: 183: 170: 162: 122: 121: 118: 115: 112: 95: 93:Astronomy portal 90: 89: 88: 79: 72: 71: 66: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2458: 2457: 2262: 2260:MPC designation 2185: 2073: 2005: 1899:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 1885:specified below 1863: 1799: 1797: 1775:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 1766: 1747: 1745: 1692: 1673: 1671: 1639: 1627: 1559: 1557: 1551: 1510: 1508: 1434: 1432: 1360: 1308: 1156:225088 Gonggong 1136: 993: 950: 879: 861: 710: 709: 708: 704: 701: 693: 686: 651: 650: 649: 645: 642: 629: 596: 595: 594: 590: 587: 577: 510: 509: 508: 504: 501: 489: 468: 467: 466: 462: 459: 425:. For example, 411: 384: 364: 363: 362: 358: 355: 346: 304:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 296: 258:Coronet cluster 238: 224: 213: 207: 175: 119: 116: 113: 110: 109: 91: 86: 84: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2501: 2499: 2491: 2490: 2485: 2480: 2475: 2470: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2440: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2400:Well, (50000) 2316: 2274:article; e.g. 2261: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2242: 2226: 2207: 2206: 2184: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2053: 2034: 2030: 2014: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1936:article; e.g. 1921: 1913: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1881: 1862: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1723: 1602: 1501: 1480: 1479: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1402:Hah, alright. 1345: 1341: 1332: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1213: 1212: 1197: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1038:for <ö: --> 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 948: 930: 929: 876:Caesar's comet 860: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 561: 553: 541: 432:WISE 1828+2650 410: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 330: 329: 322: 315: 295: 292: 291: 290: 266:Colonies Chris 246:Arches Cluster 237: 234: 231: 230: 218: 215: 214: 209: 205: 203: 200: 199: 196: 195: 190: 177: 176: 171: 165: 158: 157: 154: 153: 150: 149: 136: 126: 125: 123: 97: 96: 80: 68: 67: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2500: 2489: 2486: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2476: 2474: 2471: 2469: 2466: 2465: 2463: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2441: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2278: 2273: 2269: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2205: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2097: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2072: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1970: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1947: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1924: 1919: 1917: 1911: 1909: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1696: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1643: 1637: 1631: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1553: 1552: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1343: 1339: 1337: 1333: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1318: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1262:Fyunck(click) 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1220: 1218: 1211: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1171: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1133: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1011: 1007: 1003: 997: 996:Modest Genius 992: 991: 990: 987: 985: 984: 983:Modest Genius 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 965: 961: 954: 953:Modest Genius 949: 947: 943: 939: 934: 933: 932: 931: 928: 925: 923: 922: 921:Modest Genius 917: 913: 912:WP:DIACRITICS 909: 905: 904:WP:COMMONNAME 901: 896: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 877: 872: 870: 865: 858: 848: 844: 840: 836: 835: 834: 830: 826: 825:21 Andromedae 822: 818: 814: 813: 812: 808: 804: 800: 799: 798: 794: 790: 789:21 Andromedae 785: 784: 769: 765: 761: 757: 756: 755: 752: 750: 749: 748:Modest Genius 743: 742: 741: 737: 733: 729: 728: 727: 720: 717: 714: 707: 697: 690: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 668: 661: 658: 655: 648: 639: 633: 632:Modest Genius 628: 627: 626: 623: 621: 620: 619:Modest Genius 615: 614: 613: 606: 603: 600: 593: 581: 580:Modest Genius 576: 575: 574: 571: 569: 568: 567:Modest Genius 562: 558: 554: 551: 547: 542: 539: 534: 530: 529: 528: 527: 520: 517: 514: 507: 497: 496:Modest Genius 493: 486: 485: 478: 475: 472: 465: 456: 452: 448: 443: 441: 437: 433: 428: 424: 420: 416: 408: 402: 398: 394: 388: 383: 382: 381: 374: 371: 368: 361: 350: 345: 344: 343: 342: 338: 334: 327: 323: 320: 316: 313: 309: 305: 301: 300: 299: 293: 289: 286: 284: 283: 282:Modest Genius 278: 277: 276: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 235: 227: 222: 217: 216: 202: 201: 194: 191: 189: 186: 185: 182: 179: 178: 174: 169: 164: 163: 147: 143: 142: 132: 128: 127: 124: 107: 103: 102: 94: 83: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 2406:Double sharp 2373:Double sharp 2291: 2283: 2276: 2263: 2212:SevenSpheres 2208: 2186: 1945: 1938: 1884: 1864: 1842: 1838: 1769:Chaotic Enby 1705:Chinigchinix 1695:Chaotic Enby 1667:Chinigchinix 1630:Chaotic Enby 1610: 1605: 1524: 1503: 1481: 1428:Chinigchinix 1316: 1250:Double sharp 1248:, and users 1221: 1214: 1207: 1183:324 Bamberga 1174: 1172: 1164:50000 Quaoar 1137: 1116:Double sharp 1082: 1078: 1056: 1035: 1020: 982: 978:Nov 2019 MPC 920: 873: 866: 862: 839:SevenSpheres 803:SevenSpheres 747: 715: 656: 618: 601: 566: 515: 487: 473: 444: 439: 435: 412: 393:Double sharp 369: 349:Double sharp 333:Double sharp 331: 312:Titan (moon) 297: 281: 250:Open cluster 239: 220: 172: 139: 99: 40:WikiProjects 30:project page 29: 2284:136199 Eris 2008:Kwamikagami 1946:136199 Eris 1923:136199 Eris 1642:Kwamikagami 1465:90482 Orcus 1386:Kwamikagami 1344:astronomers 1336:Kwamikagami 1311:Kwamikagami 1254:Kwamikagami 1200:90482 Orcus 1148:90377 Sedna 1083:van 't Hoff 326:S/2003 J 10 319:Jupiter LIV 226:ClueBot III 2462:Categories 1529:AstroChara 1079:van't Hoff 1059:van't Hoff 880:⟨C/−43 K1⟩ 2198:2007 OR10 1960:2007 OR10 1606:thousands 1266:Paintspot 308:Enceladus 193:Archive 2 188:Archive 1 111:Astronomy 106:Astronomy 59:Astronomy 2445:Renerpho 2430:ArkHyena 2294:ArkHyena 2286:) is ... 2246:Renerpho 2232:ArkHyena 2169:Renerpho 2141:ArkHyena 2127:Renerpho 2113:ArkHyena 2099:Renerpho 2076:ArkHyena 2039:Renerpho 1978:ArkHyena 1948:) is ... 1867:Renerpho 1847:Renerpho 1810:contribs 1798:Chaotic 1783:Renerpho 1758:contribs 1746:Chaotic 1731:Renerpho 1713:Renerpho 1709:Gonggong 1684:contribs 1672:Chaotic 1649:Renerpho 1588:Renerpho 1570:contribs 1558:Chaotic 1541:Renerpho 1521:contribs 1509:Chaotic 1502:*:Also, 1490:Renerpho 1469:ArkHyena 1445:contribs 1433:Chaotic 1404:Renerpho 1390:ArkHyena 1372:Renerpho 1363:ArkHyena 1348:ArkHyena 1322:Renerpho 1317:official 1270:Renerpho 1224:Renerpho 1175:de facto 1144:ArkHyena 1087:Renerpho 908:WP:ROMAN 819:and not 719:contribs 685:Pinging 660:contribs 605:contribs 546:2M1101AB 519:contribs 492:Renerpho 488:Pinging 477:contribs 427:2M1101AB 373:contribs 221:365 days 173:Archives 2388:— kwami 2350:— kwami 2321:— kwami 2266:a. The 2196:; e.g. 2057:— kwami 1993:— kwami 1958:; e.g. 1928:a. The 1901:; e.g. 1890:Follow 1845:names. 1647:class. 1615:— kwami 1525:Support 1296:— kwami 1288:1 Ceres 760:Hekerui 732:Hekerui 696:Hekerui 689:JorisvS 306:, e.g. 2402:Quaoar 2335:Tercer 2302:Tercer 1727:Quaoar 1701:Quaoar 1663:Quaoar 1636:Quaoar 1584:WP:GAs 1580:WP:FAs 1424:Quaoar 1258:Vpab15 1168:Quaoar 1162:, and 817:2M1207 421:, and 387:Nrco0e 36:scale. 2298:Pluto 2200:(now 1962:(now 1903:Pluto 1292:Pluto 1102:kwami 1064:kwami 1045:kwami 1024:kwami 1002:kwami 960:kwami 938:kwami 884:kwami 705:rco0e 646:rco0e 591:rco0e 505:rco0e 463:rco0e 423:DENIS 415:2MASS 359:rco0e 181:Index 28:This 2449:talk 2434:talk 2410:talk 2392:talk 2377:talk 2354:talk 2339:talk 2325:talk 2306:talk 2277:Eris 2250:talk 2236:talk 2216:talk 2173:talk 2145:talk 2131:talk 2117:talk 2103:talk 2061:talk 2043:talk 2022:here 2020:and 2018:here 1997:talk 1982:talk 1939:Eris 1871:talk 1851:talk 1806:talk 1800:Enby 1787:talk 1754:talk 1748:Enby 1735:talk 1717:talk 1680:talk 1674:Enby 1653:talk 1619:talk 1601:way. 1592:talk 1582:and 1566:talk 1560:Enby 1545:talk 1533:talk 1517:talk 1511:Enby 1494:talk 1485:and 1473:talk 1441:talk 1435:Enby 1408:talk 1394:talk 1376:talk 1352:talk 1326:talk 1300:talk 1274:talk 1228:talk 1120:talk 1106:talk 1091:talk 1068:talk 1049:talk 1028:talk 1006:talk 964:talk 942:talk 888:talk 843:talk 829:talk 807:talk 793:talk 764:talk 736:talk 713:talk 654:talk 599:talk 513:talk 494:and 471:talk 453:and 419:WISE 397:talk 367:talk 337:talk 270:talk 2268:MPC 1930:MPC 1920:not 1912:not 1459:). 1138:On 252:or 2464:: 2451:) 2436:) 2412:) 2394:) 2379:) 2367:, 2356:) 2341:) 2327:) 2308:) 2252:) 2238:) 2218:) 2204:). 2175:) 2167:. 2147:) 2133:) 2119:) 2105:) 2063:) 2045:) 1999:) 1984:) 1966:). 1925:. 1918:, 1873:) 1853:) 1843:XX 1812:) 1808:· 1789:) 1760:) 1756:· 1737:) 1719:) 1686:) 1682:· 1669:. 1655:) 1621:) 1611:is 1594:) 1572:) 1568:· 1547:) 1519:· 1496:) 1488:: 1475:) 1447:) 1443:· 1410:) 1396:) 1388:. 1378:) 1354:) 1340:us 1328:) 1302:) 1276:) 1264:, 1260:, 1256:, 1252:, 1244:, 1230:) 1166:→ 1158:→ 1154:, 1150:→ 1142:, 1122:) 1108:) 1093:) 1070:) 1051:) 1030:) 1008:) 966:) 944:) 918:? 890:) 845:) 831:) 823:. 809:) 795:) 766:) 738:) 417:, 399:) 339:) 272:) 260:, 62:: 2447:( 2432:( 2408:( 2390:( 2375:( 2352:( 2337:( 2323:( 2304:( 2279:( 2248:( 2234:( 2214:( 2171:( 2143:( 2129:( 2115:( 2101:( 2078:: 2074:@ 2059:( 2041:( 2010:: 2006:@ 1995:( 1980:( 1941:( 1905:. 1869:( 1849:( 1804:( 1785:( 1771:: 1767:@ 1752:( 1733:( 1715:( 1697:: 1693:@ 1678:( 1651:( 1644:: 1640:@ 1632:: 1628:@ 1617:( 1590:( 1564:( 1543:( 1531:( 1515:( 1492:( 1471:( 1439:( 1406:( 1392:( 1374:( 1365:: 1361:@ 1350:( 1324:( 1313:: 1309:@ 1298:( 1272:( 1226:( 1118:( 1104:( 1089:( 1066:( 1047:( 1026:( 1004:( 998:: 994:@ 962:( 955:: 951:@ 940:( 886:( 841:( 827:( 805:( 791:( 762:( 734:( 721:) 716:· 711:( 702:N 694:@ 687:@ 662:) 657:· 652:( 643:N 634:: 630:@ 607:) 602:· 597:( 588:N 582:: 578:@ 521:) 516:· 511:( 502:N 490:@ 479:) 474:· 469:( 460:N 440:P 436:J 395:( 389:: 385:@ 375:) 370:· 365:( 356:N 351:: 347:@ 335:( 328:. 321:. 314:. 268:( 148:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.