Template talk:Moons of dwarf planets

Which bodies to include

From WP:RS: "when reliable sources disagree, we document the dispute without taking sides"; "if there is a dispute between experts in the field ... then you must adequately show both sides of the dispute without being biased toward one side or the other." We have 3 bodies accepted as DPs by Sheppard, 5 by the IAU, and 9 by Brown. All are experts, and thus all need to be respected. The current version clearly distinguishes the IAU from Brown, though not from Sheppard. Failure to do so is violation of WP sourcing policy. — kwami (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You can lie about sources as much as you want, but that does not mean that any real dispute exists. Ruslik_Zero

If the two of you want outside opinions about what is and is not in the sources, you might want to either include links to the sources in question or an indication about exactly which statement in the article (which should have citations) you are referring to. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Quaoar as a DP:

• Braga-Ribas et al. 2011, "Stellar Occultations by TNOs: the January 08, 2011 by (208996) 2003 AZ84 and the May 04, 2011 by (50000) Quaoar", EPSC Abstracts, vol. 6

(50000) Quaoar is a dwarf planet, discovered in 2002, that orbits the Sun at an average distance of 43.4AU.

Quaoar and Orcus as DPs:

• Michael E. Brown (Sep 23 2011). "How many dwarf planets are there in the outer solar system? (updates daily)". California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2011-09-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

We are confident enough in the size estimate to know that each one of these must be a dwarf planet even if predominantly rocky.

• Tancredi, G. (2010). "Physical and dynamical characteristics of icy "dwarf planets" (plutoids)". Icy Bodies of the Solar System: Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 263, 2009.

accepted as a “dwarf planet”

Brown, BTW, discovered these bodies, and is one of the foremost experts on dwarf planets. Tancredi has advised the IAU on this issue. The IAU hasn't made any announcements for several years now. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Should this template include moons of bodies that reliable sources describe as dwarf planets? Specifically, the two moons of Orcus and Quaoar, as here or here? [sources added per Guy's suggestion] — kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds awfully familiar. If this issue is unresolved at dwarf planet, rekindling it here seems inappropriate. siafu (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm too tired of the bad-faith editors and ad hominem attacks to deal with the main page. But here we avoid the whole issue of proper wording, and are reduced to a simple question: should a template reflect WP:RS, or don't we care about that anymore? — kwami (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

False dilemma --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Template:Plutoids already includes candidates. So why couldn't this template? --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This RFC is just a forum shopping, a bad faith attempt to wear down the opponents. Ruslik_Zero 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is a RfC -- a Request for Comments. As such, it is and invitation for uninvolved editors to try to help you resolve your dispute. Consider what the above looks like to someone wanting to offer an outside view; I see an accusation with no evidence and no details. You need to provide evidence for any claims you make so we can evaluate them. In this case, you need to provide links to any of the previous forums where you say this was shopped. Please note that at this point I am withholding judgement on the underlying issue. First I want to get everyone's story straight so I can consider any assertions that are based upon logic and evidence. So please, whenever you make a claim, imagine an outsider saying "how do I know this is true?" and include the evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Added sources above per Guy's suggestion. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you also add something like "based upon these sources, I believe this template should include bodies X and Y in section Z, while user Q believes that they should not be included (or whatever the actual dispute is). I will be asking user Q whether this is a fair description of his position to make sure I am getting everyone's story straight.

Another thing for everyone to keep in mind is that Wikipedia's policies sometimes say that material must be or must not be included in an article, but often the rules say that something can be included without saying it must be included. It is important to specify which kind of policy you are invoking. In those "allowed but not required" cases we will be referring to the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Other times we don't need consensus; for example WP:V says that certain unsourced claims cannot be included no matter how many editors want them included. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, please review Talk:Dwarf planet (and its archives) at your convenience. That will, I feel, clearly demonstrate how frequently and tendentiously Kwami has been trying to push through his ideas on the main article and related sub-articles, and the aggressive manner in which he has attacked editors who disagree with him. You may also wish to review his edits on those articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I want them included because we have RS's that they are DPs. Not all RSs accept them as such, so there should be some way of distinguishing them from the DPs accepted by the IAU. I linked to two possible ways of doing that, but am open to others.

Ruslik_Zero does not want them included, apparently due to a misunderstanding of what a DP is (he has said that a dwarf planet is defined by its having been accepted by the IAU, contrary to the IAU's own definition, and also does not understand hydrostatic equilibrium, one of the defining features of a dwarf planet).

JorisvS appears to want them included, per his comment above. Ckatz does not want them included, for reasons I am not clear on. He has previously indicated that his opposition is primarily do to his dislike of my edits.

Per WP:DEMOCRACY, I feel we should follow WP:RS and include them, with a suitable warning that not all RS's accept them. — kwami (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, nonsense yet again. You're completely misrepresenting Ruslik and my extensive contributions to the repeated discussions about your tendentious editing. Please stick to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Kwami, when posting to the RfC section, please do not speculate about motives. Right now I just need the facts about who holds what position.

Ckatz, please speak for yourself only. If Ruslik Zero thinks he is being mischaracterized he is capable of saying so himself. Also, you are making it hard for outside editors to evaluate this RfC, in the above you indicate that you believe your position was mischaracterized, but you didn't indicate whether everything said was wrong or just part of it, or what your actual position is. I have every intention of looking closely at everyone's claims, but right now I am just trying to get a handle on who the players are and what they want to do with the article.

It would be helpful if everyone turned off their flamethrowers while I try to sort this out. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate your attempt to bring calm to this. You are right in that I shouldn't speak for Ruslik. However, I said what I said above because of Kwami's judgmental claims about him ("apparently due to a misunderstanding of what a DP is" and "does not understand hydrostatic equilibrium") and because of the ongoing frustration involved with being caught up in this debacle. Again, I strongly urge you to read through the extensive discussions regarding this matter at Talk:Dwarf planet as it will clearly demonstrate exactly why we are saying this is "forum shopping". --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in trying to resolve a fair number of Wikipedia dustups, and I have found that it often happens that there is a feedback loop (I am being a jerk because he acted like a tool because I was rude because he was insulting...). If everybody just calms down we can take this one step at a time. First I want to figure out who everybody is and what positions they hold. Then I am going to take a close look at the sources. Only then do I plan on looking at user behavior.

So the "forum shopping" has been at Talk:Dwarf planet and Template talk:Moons of dwarf planets only?

Template:Plutoids, Haumea, Makemake, Orcus, Sedna, Quaoar, (225088) 2007 OR10 and others.

From the current DP talk page:

"However, much as I respect Kwami as an editor (and I do, very much) I think he has overstepped himself in his obsession with pushing his POV in this dispute, which is not only esoteric and virtually incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been studying the topic for the last 6 years, but would place Wikipedia in the position of taking a stand in a still-unresolved argument among astronomers, which it should not do." (Serendipodous)

"Kwamikagami, the consensus is that the dp articles have been adequately modified to reflect the sources, even if YOU do not like how they read. Please quit beating a dead horse." (Kheider)

"Kwami, please, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." (Ruslik)

--Ckatz^chat_spy 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz's quotes above support my requested change to this template: "the consensus is that the dp articles have been adequately modified to reflect the sources". Yes, those articles have been modified, after months of debate, to reflect the fact that we have RS's which call them DPs. Now I would like this template to reflect that fact. The Orcus article notes that Brown et al. believe it to be a DP. Therefore Orcus's moon should be included in a template of 'moons of dwarf planets' (with the proviso that the IAU is not yet on board—they don't object, they simply haven't addressed the issue). Similarly, the Quaoar article notes that Brown et al. believe it to be a DP, so its moon should also be on this template. {{Plutoids}} includes Orcus and Quaoar, so it would be consistent if this one did as well. (That was JorisvS's point.)

This is so obviously appropriate that I have a very difficult time understanding what the fuss is. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Again I say, I prefer to define exactly what the conflict is, who is involved, and what their positions are before jumping into the actual dispute. I think I may be able to help here but if you want my help you all need to cooperate with me in reaching that initial goal. The above argument does not help at this time. If it is an attempt to convince the editors who oppose you, you have tried that before (and have they with you) If it is an attempt to convince me, I am not ready to look at the actual dispute, and the longer you spend talking about the dispute and not helping me to figure out who is involved and what their positions are, the longer all of this will take.

Even if I was ready to evaluate the actual dispute, the above quotes would not be helpful because they don't contain diffs. See Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide and Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. The reason folks like me want to see diffs is because diffs make it easy to see the context at the time the comment was made, and because diffs make it impossible to misquote or quote out of context. Also, please don't use the phrase "Forum Shopping" unless you have diffs showing the behavior and you have checked WP:FORUMSHOP and confirmed that you are using Wikipedia's definition of that term. Arguing about the same issue on different pages where it applies is not Forum Shopping. It is just inefficient and confusing. Let's resolve this here, and once we all know what the right answer is, you can all go out and update those other pages as needed.

The following is for everybody, not any one particular person. I am not asking for these things without having a good reason. Clearly you folks have been arguing for a while already about this. How has that been working out for you? Are you tired of going around in circles yet? Are you ready to try something new - resolving this the Wikipedia way? Please pay attention to the questions I ask, ask for clarification if needed, and answer them instead of going off on a tangent. We will get to the issues you want to bring up soon. Please help me to sort this out and distil it to a brief description of the core issues. Remember, I have no special authority, and I know less about dwarf planets than any of you. All I can do is to help you to reach agreement, or if I run into someone who refuses to follow Wikipedia policy (I haven't seen that here so far), hand that off to an admin. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, again, I don't envy you for taking this on. However, I still feel that in order to properly address the disagreement, one really must look at the original issue as outlined at dwarf planet. This cannot realistically be treated as a stand-alone issue simply because it is directly related (and spun off of) the dwarf planet dispute. (The quotes above are from this past February at Talk:Dwarf planet#Moving on, by the way.) There were two RfCs on the DP talk page, both initiated by Kwami. When the first one did not give the desired result, he opened another one. Both are in the DP talk page archives. There are a series of DP-related articles where - against protests from several regular editors - Kwami repeatedly added POV tags because his text was not endorsed. (I know you need diffs, I'll try to round them up later today when I'm at a faster terminal.) Kwami himself has even acknowledged (at the top of this talk page) the disagreement elsewhere. I feel quite strongly that if we only look at this template, we will be missing the bigger picture with respect to the dispute. I also think that you will find that many of the editors who have had to deal with this for a very long time now - myself included - have grown very weary of trying to reason with Kwami. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the DP page is related, it's not the same issue. And I did, eventually, get most of what I wanted on the individual pages, as Kheider was willing to edit them based on sources rather than local politics. But regardless, this template can stand on its own. The question, which only applies here, is whether bodies we now acknowledge are accepted as DPs in RSs should be included in this nav template for DPs. I'm not aware of another article that would be affected by any decision made here, because the relevant articles have already been changed to support my request here. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus on Dwarf planet talks page was that these bodies should not be called dwarf planets. Therefore they should not be included in this template, which is only for unequivocal dwarf planets. You are just trying to re-argue what has been argued in the last year on the above mentioned pages. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want, you can create {{Moons of dwarf planets candidates}} where you can add both Orcus and Quaoar (and others). Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere fast. Let us try something different, OK?

I agree that all of the above needs to be looked at, and I will be looking at all of it in excruciating detail. I am starting here, not finishing here.

Here is my plan of attack:

First I am going to make a list that looks like this: "Ferd insists that Jupiter is a Dwarf planet. Zippy will only accept objects that have "DWARF PLANET" written on them on 10,000 point Comic Sans. BillyBob wants to list certain Sumo wrestlers as Dwarf planets." -- with Ferd, Zippy. and BillyBob all agreeing that my list accurately lists all positions.

Second, I am going to take a close look at the sources, asking questions like "OK, BillyBob, other than the wino you talked to and "I remembered reading about this but cannot remember where", what sources say list sumo wrestlers among the list of dwarf Planets?" At this point I can say things like "OK, the Sumos are out by consensus (nobody agrees with billybob, not even his wino) and by WP:V (no reliable sources support that view).

Third, I am going to slog through all of these pages and, in all likelihood, end up telling some of you that some of your behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. "Zippy, shouting 'EAT MY SHORTS YOU RAT BASTARD!' every time someone disagrees with you is not allowed. Knock it off." Hopefully this will result in them straightening out, but if they don't, we have ways to handle that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful for everyone involved to that a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley, especially the "Wiley Protocol: Who are the players and what are their interests?" and "Evidence supporting / refuting alleged bias" sections. See what I am doing there? As you can see, I am systematically going down the list of issues and resolving them one at a time.

Contrast this with this RfC, where I am getting very little cooperation on the first issue I am working on and a bunch of requests that I just jump in and solve the whole thing at once (which of course will be followed by one side rejecting my findings).

I am beginning to think that I cannot offer any help here and that I should withdraw and move on the other RfCs that have asked for an outside opinion. Taking one issue at a time is the only way I know to resolve disputes, and thus it might be that some other mediator will be better able to deal with this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? Based on the sources I gave in the previous section, that some astronomers accept Quaoar and Orcus as dwarf planets, and given that no-one has come up with a source which disputes this position, I support adding Quaoar and Orcus to this template, suitably noted as not accepted by the IAU, as in the differences I provided above. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have asked four different ways for a list of who is involved in this conflict and their positions. I even gave an example using the made up names Ferd, Zippy. and BillyBob in an attempt to ake this clear. According to the above, I now know that User Kwamikagami says Quaoar and Orcus are moons of Drarf Planets, but I do not know who disagrees with that position, and I do not know whether User Kwamikagami has any other positions that anyone else disagrees with. Shall I assume that Siafu, JorisvS, Ruslik and Ckatz have no opinion on anything and that everyone else who is involved agrees with Kwamikagami on everything except Quaoar and Orcus? It's really not that hard for a half dozen people to clearly state their positions and to clearly state where they disagree with the others positions. I don't know why that isn't happening here, but I see no way to resolve a conflict without first defining what the conflict is. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I support Kwami's position of adding Quaoar and Orcus to this template with the appropriate note and prefer the second option: [1]. --JorisvS (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The problems is that it is a lie—nobody "accepts" them. It is only your "esoteric and virtually incomprehensible" fantasies. Ruslik_Zero 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You did not react on the personal attacks above in the same way. Is it a bias? Ruslik_Zero 12:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair question. I don't think I have any bias on this, and when I look at the user names in this thread I don't have any particular positive or negative feelings towards anyone, but it could be that I have an unconscious bias and don't realize it. I did give Kwami and Ckatz some mild criticism, but frankly, nothing they wrote was as uncivil as what you wrote above. I am assuming that we all agree that "he was uncivil and got away with it so it is OK for me to be uncivil" is wrong thinking, so part of my answer is that you need to follow WP:CIVIL even if I am biased, and to deal with the bias separately. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Having completely failed to figure out who is involved in this dispute and what their positions are, I am withdrawing from this conversation and unwatching this page. I am taking no position on any issue of article content or user behavior, and you can quote this to anyone who claims that I have done so. I wish you all the best of luck. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Must say, I feel much the same about getting a coherent impression of this show. As an abstract exercise it might be an interesting project to create a totally content-free article with a totally content free, completely and combatively controversial, talk page, but I begin to suspect that, as an existence proof, the exercise would be redundant. Be that as it may, I'll leave it to livelier talents. Bye now. JonRichfield (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (unwilling!) Guys, I am only here because of the RFC notification. Having scanned the material so far, I am unable to sort it out, and a great heaviness of the spirit descends upon me at the very thought of slogging through the background to the errr... dispute. I decline to add to the weary exchange of ad- and abmonitions. The nearest I can come to a constructive remark is that: the newness of the field and the costs and achievable speed of definitive observations and interpretations mean that short-term diagnoses and definitions of DPs, wanderers and similar fauna will be rare and expensive luxuries for some time yet. It seems to me that the very number of functionally distinct classes and populations remains an open question for the foreseeable future. If you want the template to be stable, remember such things, and stick to such as are already definitive. If someone wants to list possibles and doubtful cases, then fine, but possibly there should be another category or another article dealing with them. Mutual links are cheap, easy and easier to correct than articles. Have fun. Cheers. JonRichfield (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We do have a separate article for doubtful cases. The question here is for cases which have been accepted by experts in the field. — kwami (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Who could doubt it? But then why is there a question about it? Is everyone stupid or malicious, or are there rival experts who disagree with the experts who accepted them? Don't look at me; I have no fish to fry. Ask yourself/ves why there is a need for an RFC plus a ream of errmm... mutually frank exchanges of views. JonRichfield (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To make it simple, there are five widely recognized dwarf planets, recognized by IAU, NASA, USGS, etc and widely reported in the popular press as such. They are also frequently called "dwarf planets" in the peer reviewed astronomical literature. Then there are, of course, other bodies that with varying degree of probability may be dwarf planets as well. But they are not recognized by the above mentioned organizations, and rarely if at all referred to as dwarf planets.

Ok, then there is a personal internet blog of one prominent astronomer (who actually discovered many of them), where he posts his private thoughts about the matter. In one of his posts about a year ago he said that some bodies are "likely to be dwarf planets" and some even "must be" dwarf planets referring to a higher than usual degree of probability. Then there is an editor named Kwamikagami who thinks that "must be" from the personal blog of Michael Brown means actually that "they are" and that the Wikipedia must update all its articles to say "there are nine dwarf planets in the Solar System" (not five as almost everyone else thinks). So, you should ask yourself whether one vague comment from a personal blog of one prominent astronomer is sufficient for the proposed change? Regards. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and 2007 OR10 have been called simply 'dwarf planets' in articles by several astronomers (not just Brown), as well as in the press. --JorisvS (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a article where, say, Orcus is simply called a dwarf planet? Ruslik_Zero 05:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@John: I think the philosophical difference lies in the opinion that a scientific discipline should be treated as science, which is messy, vs. the idea that a reference work should pick an authoritative source and stick to it, which is clean. We can't seem to be able to get past that.

As for Ruslik's characterization of me, I never have and never would say such a thing, as he knows full well.

According to RS's, including the IAU and NASA, there are likely to be hundreds if not thousands of dwarf planets (DPs) in the Solar System. The question comes in which specific bodies qualify.

The IAU has not addressed the issue for years. Brown's point is that the nature of reality does not depend on whether some committee has addressed it recently. He argues that is not how science works, and he is of course correct. The IAU has established a definition for DP, but they are not in the business of deciding whether any particular body fits that definition. That is for people like Brown, Stern, Tancredi, etc.—the researchers who work on them—to decide.

The IAU hasn't rejected these bodies, they simply haven't bothered to address them. They accepted three bodies as DPs as part of their establishment of the definition of DP in 2006, and two more in 2008 because a decision had to be made in order to name them: Dwarf planets were to be named by different committees than other bodies, but we didn't know which bodies were DPs, so the IAU chose a cut-off point in their brightness—brighter than a certain limit, they'll be named by one committee, dimmer and they'll be named by another. But that's a bureaucratic decision, not a scientific claim about the nature of the bodies, other than a calculation that, brighter than a certain limit, they couldn't possibly not be DPs. Since then other researchers, like Brown and Tancredi, have established other criteria for which bodies are DPs.

Brown, who discovered Eris, Haumea, Orcus, and Quaoar (that is, all of the relevant bodies except Pluto), is of the opinion that all five of them "must" be dwarf planets. (And not in a blog, as Ruslik keeps insisting, though he discusses it in his blog.) Alan Stern, who's in charge of the Pluto mission, has doubts about Haumea, which the IAU has accepted. Tancredi, whose advice the IAU said they were waiting for but then never did anything with, accepts several other bodies, but none of them are known to have moons, and so are irrelevant here.

So, Eris and Pluto are AFAIK accepted by everyone. Haumea is accepted by most, with some reservation by Stern. Orcus and Quaoar are accepted by the foremost authority in the field, by an adviser to the IAU, and by various others, such as Braga-Ribas above.

Ruslik however is correct, in that most pubs follow the IAU: what the IAU has said is a DP, they call a DP, and what the IAU has not said is a DP, they do not call a DP. Because of that influence, I think we all agree that IAU recognition need to be acknowledged. However, IMO we should also acknowledge the opinions of the experts in the field. This is no different than any other field: The APA may define psychological illnesses, but when researchers disagree—say, when a definition is out of date—we do not restrict ourselves to the APA alone. In scientific disciplines, we base our articles on science, and that means considering the experts in that discipline.

Another concern that Ruslik has raised is that the experts may be wrong. Well, yes, sure. And the IAU may be wrong too. But that's the nature of science. If we call a body a DP, and that turns out to be wrong, then we correct ourselves, just as in any other field. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I should, so help me, have my head read. But I'll come back tomorrow and think over what you guys have just explained. Just now I'll just talk worse nonsnense than usual if I don't get some sleep. Nighty night! JonRichfield (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

John, not to put more on your plate, but I'll again state that any discussions here are pretty much meaningless unless one also reviews the extensive and disruptive behaviour Of Kwami's surrounding this same topic at dwarf planet and elsewhere. The RfCs (yes, plural) there clearly demonstrate what the issue is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, an ad hominem argument. Is JorisvS's opinion to be dismissed, because you don't like mine? If you have a relevant argument, about the actual question, you can make it here. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, John. If opponents aren't willing to even address the question, then your efforts may indeed be a waste of time. I thought I might be able to clean up what I was hoping would be a relatively straightforward point, that we can accommodate more than one POV, but perhaps it all needs to go to dispute resolution. But if you have any insights into where we're going wrong, policy that we're missing, or how we're talking past each other, they would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument has been addressed multiple times with the same result. And, please, do not try to don a mantle of science defender. Writing Wikipedia science articles is not about science at all, it is about reporting majority points of views. In addition, if it were a truly scientific article you would be never allowed to use a blog as a source. Also, please, keep your writings shorter. If you really have an argument, it should be easy for you to explain it in a few sentences. What you doing now looks like an attempt to hide the genuine issues behind the wall of text. Ruslik_Zero 05:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Majority points of view" is correct. That's what I'm advocating. Not "single point of view". The point of view of the foremost expert is relevant.

Once again, it's not a blog, and it won't become a blog just because you keep saying it is.

I can keep it short, though you simply deny reality when I do. Here it is short: We have RS's that Orcus and Quaoar are DPs. Therefore their moons belong in a nav template of moons of DPs.

Now, the "therefore" part is opinion, and the reason for this RfC. However, if you deny the facts it is based on, unless you have evidence in support of your denial, you are not editing in good faith. — kwami (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

From our own article: A blog ... is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. It is quite obvious that it is blog, nothing else. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not looking at the same page. Here's the link we've used in the articles: [2] It's not a journal, and it does not consist of discrete entries. It is therefore not a blog by the definition of our article. Instead, it is a short self-publication on a personal website, like numerous others we accept as sources when they come from respected researchers in a field. — kwami (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That page is pretty clearly a blog (if it looks like duck...). I think you might be better off by focusing on the fact that it's published by a recognized expert, rather than trying to nitpick over the precise name for this type of publication. siafu (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it a blog? (That's an honest question: it doesn't fit the definition in our article or my understanding of what a blog is. To me, this[3] is a blog (from the same author).) — kwami (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad luck Ruslik! Obviously you have read some of my essays elsewhere. Feel welcome to skip to the last few paras (or skip the whole caboodle), but then don't blame me if they don't make sense without the preamble. As for the mantles I don, they depend on my views in context. The present context involves both science and WP, but never fear, not in ways that favour anyone's views so far as far as I can tell.

Okay, I am now about as awake as I get. If I thought that I could solve your problems, I would attempt to leave everyone happy and the articles in question in apple pie order (Dream on!) In practice I feel that I am being overoptimistic in that I hope to contribute to a situation in which we can start with articles that are acceptably in line with Wikipedia standards for the present, plus prospects for expansion and improvement in the near future. However, a fear of overoptimism is no excuse for shirking the attempt, so here goes.

Firstly, I practically guarantee that within a few paragraphs a lot of you will say: "This guy is missing the point!" And maybe you will be right. But remember that the guys with the point(s) are the ones who got us into this situation in the first place; maybe we need a bit of abstraction and point loss to establish a basis for action. What we are dealing with is a problem of taxonomy. I am a biologist, not an astronomer, and biological taxonomy is in various ways different from other fields of taxonomy, decidedly including astronomy. However, certain aspects are common. Among the aspects, major examples deal with concepts, continence, and circumscription. In some ways the concepts are both the easiest and hardest to deal with. Everyone is entitled to his own concepts and his supporting opinions, but for the purposes of Wikipedia that is not enough; the concepts must be acceptably internally coherent as well as consistent with ascertainable or probable realities. In Wikipedia (mercy on our souls!) we have the additional constraints of so-called original research and other four letter words.

Now, even if we did not have some of those arbitrary constraints, the very fact that what we are writing is not a dissertation, but an encyclopaedic article, means that we must, for purposes of our composition, concentrate on material and formulations that have some semblance of respectability and stability. This constrains us to often frustratingly conservative, mainline sources, views, and arguments. The adventurous stuff is not for encyclopaedias, but for journals and for barrooms after work. So, even if we can agree that the IAU, NASA, USGS and all their evil cronies are a lot of anal retentive idiots, we necessarily have a strong bias in favour of basing our conceptual structure on their current views and classifications. If similarly authoritative agglomerations in the alphabet soup disagree and present rival conceptual structures, okay, we deal with those in different ways. But for now no one is being held hostage (to coin a phrase) and we need not hurry to present the truth as it will eventually be brought down from the mountain. Wikipedia is frustrating all right, but at least the constraints simplify our choices.

So far so boring, but it certainly leaves us with a clear standard that demands that we stick to a currently predominant view, even if it is clear that change is in the air. This is not as great a tragedy as it might seem in the light of our frustrations. If our concepts are sufficiently ripe for change, it will not be long before we can in good conscience bring our articles up to date, and with fewer pratfalls than if we had jumped the gun.

What is more, already there certainly is plenty of material, rapidly growing in volume, that could well form the basis of separate articles that foreshadow the new advances. But from the encyclopaedic point of view, as I understand the situation, the place for such material would be in the text of articles, not in templates or other infrastructural elements.

In evaluating our concepts we also must ask ourselves, not merely whether our own deep insights or those of our opponents are the sounder, but which are most useful to readers of encyclopaedias. In taxonomic questions circumscription is crucial and continence is a luxury. In astronomy in Tombaugh's time there was very little problem. We had seen Pluto and had a pretty good idea of his orbit: new planet! Simple circumscription, clear continence. It took decades of new data and new thought for us to get a sufficiently coherent idea of solar system dynamics and evolution, to move us to split the genus planet to accommodate dwarf planets et cetera. Even when Asimov was writing in the 70s and 80s it was pretty clear, and it did not need Asimov to tell anyone with a grain of sense, that we were, or would be, dealing with a continuum. And anyone who has tried to establish circumscriptions for subsets in a continuum, will recognise that they involve whole dimensions of problems -- thresholds, scale effects etc. There is no point being picky about such things, either classifying every rock as its own class, or trying to erase every class boundary just because there clearly will be transitional examples. Likely enough we will find new circumscriptions soon enough, together with clear explanations of the significance of the transition zones.

Just you wait until humanity is civilised enough to launch a few thousand Kuiper and Oort cloud explorers! You guys think you have problems? For biologists the problems go back about three centuries and some of them are still getting worse! But the train approaching us in the tunnel has its light on, so that is OK, I guess.

So what already? So I recommend one of two things:

• Let the chips fall where they may; accept the most conservative options with the most support from the predominant authorities. These are wrong and temporary? Big deal! In those respects they soon will change and as they change we can change our articles to match. Painful? Not really; certainly not in comparison to the quagmire I see here, where intelligent people and intelligent arguments combine to produce a stupid mess. That is what I call painful!

or:

• Alternatively, get together (ha!) and construct a list, or better yet, a concept mapping of relevant points and ideas. Shuffle them in brainstorm mode until a structure of article titles emerges into which you then can cooperate to fit a civilised and useful outline of the field. Final solution? Don't be silly! But if we think we are scientists and we demand final solutions or absolute proofs, especially in a hurry, then we aren't anything like real scientists' backsides.

Sorry to be so long about it, but it could have been worse; at least I have named no names and wrung no withers. But sorting this out will take more patience than you have used up reading this screed. If I have got to the point where we can start haggling over details, that will be something.

Good luck, JonRichfield (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I largely agree with what you said, especially with parallels that you drew between classification of the astronomical bodies and the biological taxonomy. In fact, the option 1 above (conservative approach) is what I have been arguing for, for more than seven months. As I read somewhere, if in times of Galileo the Wikipedia had existed, it would have reported that the Sun orbits the Earth, not vise verse, regardless of what an expert in the field Galilee Galileo had said. So, thanks for your very insightful opinion. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If it were conservative opinion you were arguing for, I would agree. If the IAU had said that these were not dwarf planets, and Brown said no, they're wrong, then we would have a dispute over classification, and the IAU would be a RS that they are not dwarf planets. But the IAU has never said that. They've never said anything. The biological parallel would be refusing to accept that a newly discovered species is a primate, despite the opinion of the experts, because it is not yet listed in a catalogue of primates. That's a very different situation than a debate, where people are arguing over whether to reclassify it. In this case, we have several people who have said that Orcus and Quaoar are dwarf planets. We do not have a single source which says that they are not dwarf planets. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I have carefully avoided getting into technical details because I probably would have delivered views that all of you would have read as irritating nonsense. Accordingly I treat your analogy with reserve. It sounds to me more as though the "discovery" of the putative primate is based on a few blurry photos of an understandably shy cryptid; probably assignable to the primates, but... etc etc. After all, if it is as clear as all that, why is anyone hesitating? Now, you folks with telescopes have some immense challenges compared to zoologists, but you also have certain luxuries, such as a reasonable assurance of being able to find a body at some specified future time and place, and to do so all the more reliably after a large number of decent sightings. Orcus sounds to me rather like a dwarf planet, and I bet that a lot of your dissenting colleagues agree, but someone seems to feel that we are not yet able to achieve a comfortable consensus on which bodies to include or for that matter how to classify such bodies at all -- yet. That already is a major strike against the view that the claim is ready for WP editor scrutiny or for WP users.

As I see it, that leaves us with two major options.

The simplest is to wait for the problem to go away. That might happen any year now, or any decade, or it could happen any time that anyone comes up with a new body of theory about how to classify what. For the more philosophical among us, the delay would be a minor, routine nuisance; one of those things that practitioners in any field encounter. For the rest of us it would be a fine opportunity for exercising our powers of forbearance.

The other option is to make a virtue of a necessity, (or, to coin a metaphor, lemonade of a lemon). Since certain persons of deficient largeness of mind and toleration of novelty (no one among us of course!) refuse to acknowledge what positive-spirited persons see as already cogent, and since they take mean advantage of entrenched WP positions, it might be best to leave the existing articles as they stand, and write a totally new and different WP article on the nature of scientific advance in the field of solar system dynamics and evolution (or whatever one sees as the appropriate field(s) in this connection) citing real and documented examples. It would take a bit of sensitivity to avoid variations of Scylla and Charybdis waiting to pounce on any hint of OR or NPOV, or non-notability etc, but it would be a far freer field of exercise of one's talents, and as the original drama plays out according to one's prognostications and reasoning in the background, much kudos would accrue. It decidedly would be a more rewarding exercise of everyone's talents and time than the current exchange. Remember that we have several qualified people in a difficult field spending a lot of time on an impasse. I don't know about the rest of the exchange, but we already are running at about 7000 words in this RFC alone, and we have not yet been at it for a fortnight yet. That might not seem like a stiff programme to hard workers like us, but translated into time off the things we could have been doing instead...

It's up to you I reckon. Go well, JonRichfield (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

With a blurry photo of a cryptid, we might have some people saying it's a primate, and others saying, how can you tell? This is a bit different. We have blurry photos of quite a few cryptids, and several people have come up with ways of telling whether they're primates. For most of them we can't tell what they are, but a couple of them are definite primates in their view, and the only person who isn't sure is also not sure about species the rest of biology unreservedly call primates and that are in the catalogues. For those who agree that the primates in the catalog are actually primates, no-one disputes that those new species are primates as well.

Most of the dwarf planet candidates are just that—possibilities, with no way to be sure. But in a few cases, included Quaoar and Orcus, the experts who have looked at them have pronounced them to be dwarf planets. The only ref that has been presented in this debate that says we can't be sure (Stern) also says that we can't be sure about Haumea, but Haumea is included in this template without reservation, and Ruslik and others have vociferously opposed including that POV. The argument against including Quaoar and Orcus would be like refusing to accept those new species as primates simply because most biologists haven't bothered to address the issue. If we have 3 RSs that they're primates, and 20 PSs that don't evaluate them, should they be excluded from a primate nav template, even with a note that they are not universally accepted? — kwami (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, suppose you are right in every detail; so what? I never denied nor affirmed that. The operative question is not whether you are right, it is whether the current usage as you see it (and current usage by its nature always is shifting) is so stable as well as so consensual, that the current Wikipedia view is that it is time to make it the basis for the present, for the form of definitive article you desire. That might happen tomorrow. It seems to me not to have happened yet; not as far as I can tell from this discussion. That is why I mentioned the possibility of a meta-article on the subject. Meanwhile, as a gedanken exercise, ask yourself where the current discussion is going, and why you should want it to go there. Then consider whether alternative destinations might not be more desirable. A change of route often can be more profitable even if it leads to a new destination -- for a while. JonRichfield (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you're saying that what editors want is more important than what the sources say? My impression is the opposite: articles should follow our sources, not our opinions. — kwami (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You continue misrepresent the situation with dwarf planets. There is no journal article that unambiguously claims that these bodies are dwarf planets. All what you have been able to dig out are a few unclear through away sentences in several articles plus a decision tree that even its author does not known what to do about. All your claims are based just on one blog (though again misrepresented), where one scientist expresses his subjective opinion. I am sure that in the biological taxonomy no species can be said to be classified in any particular way if no peer review source is available.

So, there are no sources that can in principle be followed. Ruslik_Zero 18:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, in spite of what Ruslik says, I don't think it matters a damn what you say or said about Dwarf Planets. Nor do I mind how you represent my statements about what matters, even though I said nothing of the type. Nice try though.

Kwami, I put it to you:

• You could not write WP alone
• Given that you could not write it alone, and that you can at best write part of it as a member of a team, and that you can do that only if you play as part of the team, it follows that if you go beyond what you can persuade the team to accept, you cannot achieve anything in WP, and the same goes for your sources. If it matters whether anything gets published at all, then it is better that you play along rather than if you go on consuming effort and energy in applying brakes and steering either after or before any intersection.
• As for what is more important, apart from what I have just (I hope!) said, importance in such a context is a value judgment. It is no good getting righteous about it before you get it all sorted out properly; that is a vital component in any ethical philosophy. In my VJ, yes, it is more important to get something useful out there for as many people as possible, than to publish what one of us thinks is the best possible thing... for now... That is why I have been using expressions like "So what?" so freely. Would I like pure, cogent, permanent truth? Sure! Will I get it? Don't try to be funny!!! So do I go and cry in a corner? Only when no one can see or hear me. You don't like that approach? Bad luck! Let me know when you find a better one. Pardon my not holding my breath. Now, if you will excuse me, I have some hundreds of thousands of far more abstruse, if more accessible, taxonomic problems to contemplate in fields in which I can make more sense. Cheers for now. JonRichfield (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jon, that's the whole point of a RfC: to get outside views when the people involved can't resolve s.t. Your comment is that we should resolve it ourselves, and if we can't, then we should abandon it. That's not a useful approach; we've now spent 7,000 (or whatever) words to say nothing. You say that we write WP as part of a team. Indeed. That's why we have things like RfC to expand the team when it's dysfunctional. I suppose then that the only recourse is DR; I was hoping that a request for outside comment would bring in a new POV on the actual topic that might help resolve the issue before doing that. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, you must of course suit yourself. However, the point is that one can RFC and DR till CCH (cows come home) but there is not much point if the difference concerns a matter of fact rather than a matter of opinion. The fact you are at odds with, but as far as I can see, failing to confront, is a structure of WP standards. As long as your view contradicts those standards, then your rational recourse is not to a repetition of the same weary slanging match, but to a forum other than WP. Changing the audience you appeal to will not change that, as I should have expected you to observe before now. Alternatively, as I now have mentioned at least twice before, you could try writing another article (or more) within WP, on what seems to be a theme near to your heart, namely the disputed subject, not the disputed subject matter. It would be a lot more constructive as well as more realistic. JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a different article will do any good, when we have an editor who will edit war over denying that the references even exist, when a cut & paste quotation is a "lie". The dispute will simply continue at the new article.

What are the standards my view contradicts? You say that DR won't help with a matter of fact, but that's exactly when it should help: our articles should be based on what the facts are according to RSs. That's the basis of WP. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the suggested article, suit yourself and make your prognostications as you please. Not my line, you know! As for the facts, I already said: "The fact you are at odds with, but as far as I can see, failing to confront, is a structure of WP standards." If you don't comply, you will not be accepted; what is so obscure about that? JonRichfield (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What's obscure is the phrase "a structure of WP standards". Which standards? Can you point me to which policy or guideline I'm at odds with? I can't accommodate your advice if I don't understand what you're referring to. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had thought I had made that clear. There are of course the pillars and Wikipedia:List of policies and all that, but more immediately you need to deal with the de facto standards of what sort of thing your WP colleagues will put up with. Both classes of constraint are pretty flexible of course, but somewhere in there you will find the occasional brick wall, and brick walls are better dealt with sensitively than by force, brute or otherwise. JonRichfield (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So, when we come up against editors who refuse to follow policy and play stupid, such as denying that sources exist, or that direct quotes of sources are "lies", the solution is to abandon policy and follow the whims of the obstructionist editors? That's fine as politics, but I thought the whole point of the DP process was to get past such things. — kwami (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This "dilemma" is no less false when posed this way as it was before. Also, I have a hard time seeing the benefit in calling your fellow editors stupid. siafu (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone stupid. They're clearly not. But one of the editors plays stupid: he says stupid things, over and over, despite being repeatedly debunked. Like saying a source does not exist despite a link being provided, calling quotations "lies" even when they are clipped from the link, etc. Basically, his attitude is to stick his fingers in his ears and say "la la la! I can't hear you!". Another editor refuses to give any reason for his objection. That's the dilemma: how do we deal with obstructionist editors, if the RfC response is that we need to accommodate their obstructionism? — kwami (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The irony of this comment is astounding. siafu (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I give my reasons and provide sources to support them. I do not accept edits from people who refuse to do that. This is appropriate if we're going to try to be a serious encyclopedia. If I'm wrong, let them provide their reasons and their sources, and the community can evaluate our claims. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Every single wikipedia dispute that I've ever witnessed (and there have been many) has been formed by two sides, both equally convinced that they are right, that their sources and their interpretation of sources are the correct ones that are in line with policy, and that those on the other side are simply being obstructionist. Saying this yourself is merely demonstrating your unwillingness (or inability?) to recognize the nature of the dispute. And, as an aside, if you have to split hairs about whether or not something is a personal attack, it's a good indicator that it will be taken as one and probably should not have been made in the first place. siafu (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, can you show me where they've presented their sources and arguments as I've presented mine? Another responder was frustrated by their refusal to participate. A debate is one thing. This is a non-debate. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering how often your name appears in Talk:Dwarf planet, it is surprising that you would claim ignorance of the discussions that took place there. siafu (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I know the discussion there, and some of the reasonable as well as ludicrous arguments made. We're we're talking about this discussion here. People responding to the RfC expressed frustration at those who refused to explain their positions, and I'm sure they didn't want to wade through the archives to puzzle them out. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey kwami, your score for this section alone is now over 9500 words. Are you going to throw a party when we pass 10000? (Did I hear someone mutter DFTT?) JonRichfield (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being rude. If you have nothing constructive to say, why say anything? This is a RfC to try to resolve an impasse. We've been pretty much the same two against two for a year, and need outside input about the actual topic at hand, about what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this is the third RfC that you have started in the past year to address the exact same issue. When the first one at Talk:Dwarf planet didn't work out to your satisfaction, you began another one, and when that failed to support your position, you came here to try once again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Really, DFTT seems to be the best solution. Ruslik_Zero 13:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mirror {{Plutoids}}

Since the subjects of the templates are so closely related, why couldn't we mirror {{Plutoids}}? We would include the moons of the strongest candidates and simply call all non-IAU-listed objects 'candidates'. This would increase functionality to the same level as {{Plutoids}}, while still retaining a conservative POV (as discussed above). --JorisvS (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never objected to calling them candidates and including them into the template. (They have been always called candidates.) However, only "candidates" and nothing more. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Haumea and Makemake are also only candidates, according to Stern. Your objection is not that they're candidates, but that they haven't been recognized by the IAU, and that, as you've said before, a dwarf planet is not defined by its physical attributes, but by its acceptance by the IAU. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

When did Stern said that Haumea and Makemake were only candidates? Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this ad nauseum. It's just another example of you playing games. — kwami (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I'll ask you a simple question and I'd like a simple, straightforward answer: Which do you prefer, having Quaoar and Orcus included in the template and called 'candidates' (A) or not having them included at all (B)? --JorisvS (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How's that? — kwami (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So do you prefer A or B? --JorisvS (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean how's that for the template? — kwami (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So what part of my question don't you understand? --JorisvS (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet it's apparently everybody else who is being "obstructionist". siafu (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could review the case before making pronouncements? Two of us want to follow the range of sources we have. Two want to follow a single source; one of them refused to participate above (though he's started a bit below), and one just makes stuff up. The two who weren't cooperating and refusing to compromise were being obstructionist. There's a fifth editor who isn't here but who has been willing to compromise. That's two out of five who have been obstructionist. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been following and reviewing the case since the long-ago RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet, and you may note I was merely repeating your pronouncement and not my own. Is there some reason you are unable or unwilling to answer JorsvS's question? You characterization of the state of opinion is also quite far from reality, as many contributors have been willing to deal with the range of existing sources, but you seem to be unable to understand that it is possible to hold differing interpretations of these sources from those you hold. siafu (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be specific, the RfC on this page is a good example. Other contributors have been perfectly willing to discuss the sources with you, but you still make statements like the one in the above section: "should a template reflect WP:RS, or don't we care about that anymore?" as if we're all just being obstructionist idiots. So, here's a real dilemma: either you can accept that what you need to do is actually convince other contributors that your POV on this is better for the encyclopedia, or you can simply believe that everyone else is just being stupid and thereby not accomplish anything at all (as has been happening for almost a year). It's not enough to believe that you are right and that we are wrong. siafu (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

*Some* editors have been willing to discuss in good faith. One in particular has not. It's not a matter of everyone else being "obstructionist idiots", it's a question of whether we cater to obstructionists (I don't think they're idiots, even if one says idiotic things). And I have convinced other editors, and they have convinced me—the problem has been needing to convince every single one before anything is done, when one of them is not participating in good faith.

As for JorsvS's question, I did answer it, by putting the suggestion into the template and asking if it was acceptable. By and large it was; the only sticking point now, as on other articles, is whether we treat the IAU as the only source, when they are not addressing the issue, or whether we should include other sources which do address the issue. That is, do we go with Ckatz's NASA source which describe them as "the first five recognized dwarf planets", or do we simply state that there are five dwarf planets, which the IAU, NASA, and all researchers in the field says is not the case. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is, and has always been, whether or not wikipedia should hold that there are more dwarf planets than those currently accepted by the IAU. This has been resolved previously in two RfCs, and the answer was both times no. Why are we rehashing it again, exactly? There is no reason that wikipedia has to hurry or be ahead of the curve here. Many editors have been willing to discuss this in good faith, and have done so, and you are ignoring the result of those discussions. Again, calling those who disagree with you "obstructionists" is ludicrous in the light of this reality; the consensus has been established, not just once, but multiple times over a very long period. Either present some new argument or evidence that will change the situation, or accept it. siafu (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's never been the question, and is not what the RfCs said. (Last time I don't think we even got an outside response to the RfC!) And there has never been any consensus.

The IAU accepts that there are many many more DPs. They never claimed that there were only five. As NASA puts it in Ckatz's ref, those were the first five to be *recognized* as DPs. That's all Jorisv and I are saying (if I may speak for him here). — kwami (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, in the light of what I last wrote in the previous section (and I absolutely promise that there has been no collusion!) I think that what JorisvS says here is a perfect illustration of what I said about de facto regulations. If you don't work along with the team, you are wasting your time as well as theirs. Don't look at me; I am only passing through. JonRichfield (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Two against two is not not working on a team, it's a conflict that needs external help for resolution. — kwami (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, please stop this nonsense. You are repeatedly demonstrating that you are simply transferring your tendentious and disruptive edit behaviour from dwarf planet to this template. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We're actually getting somewhere, Ckatz. I was hoping that if we broke off a small, more manageable chunk, and got enough outside input, we might be able to resolve it. If we can resolve this small piece, like we were able to do with the individual DP articles, we might be able to resolve the larger issue. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to sugar-coat it. You refuse to drop this issue and continue to insult anyone who disagrees with your methodology. That is all that is at play here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A misrepresentation, again. I don't insult people because they disagree with me. But your insistence that your POV is "consensus", while refusing to provide any support for it, is mere obstruction. And the other guy's claims that sources are "imaginary" or "don't exist" is just playing stupid, and I'm not going to sugar-coat that. (Unless he's not playing, and actually believes it? It would be far more insulting to suggest he's being honest.) — kwami (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier, these quotes are from the current DP talk page:

"However, much as I respect Kwami as an editor (and I do, very much) I think he has overstepped himself in his obsession with pushing his POV in this dispute, which is not only esoteric and virtually incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been studying the topic for the last 6 years, but would place Wikipedia in the position of taking a stand in a still-unresolved argument among astronomers, which it should not do." (Serendipodous)

"Kwamikagami, the consensus is that the dp articles have been adequately modified to reflect the sources, even if YOU do not like how they read. Please quit beating a dead horse." (Kheider)

"Kwami, please, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." (Ruslik)

If you don't care for my opinion, perhaps you'll listen to those. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the same non-points. As I said the last time, I agree with Kheider that the individual articles now address the issue adequately. I'm not sure what Serendipodous was referring to, since you've removed all context, but I'm not asking WP to take a stand, which I agree would be inappropriate, but merely to report what the experts in the field have said. Esoteric is not reason to be inaccurate. Ruslik is of course Ruslik; enough said. I do not understand why you are opposed to accurately representing the opinions of experts in the field. I really don't. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also from that talk page:

"at heart here is Kwami's inistance that his point of view be heard above all others." (Serendipodous)

"Kwamikagami, you are going to find the "Joe Q. Wikipedia" does not care for the needless POV editing. We do reflect our sources and I am sorry that you feel that so many dwarf planet / planet articles are biased. Since August 2011, you have FAILED to get a consensus to make major changes to the dp articles." (Kheider)

Should I look for more? --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet, we eventually got the articles fixed up so they were not biased. Remarkable what happens when people are willing to address the issues. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DP vs candidate

Having a list labeled "dwarf planets" that excludes likely dwarf planets is misleading. Candidates aren't not DPs, they are suspected DPs. Some of them are accepted as DPs by some of our sources. Therefore it is appropriate for us to clarify whose list of DPs we're using. In this case, we're using the IAU list (as opposed to Stern's, Brown's, or Tancredi's), so it is only professional to indicate that it is the IAU list. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ludicrous. The IAU list is the official list as the body that governs such things. There is no need at all for any additional text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the definition of 'dwarf planet' were "those objects listed as such by the IAU", then it would've been that simple... --JorisvS (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, there is an official definition. There are official names. There is no official list. Unless you can provide a source for one? We've been asking for a year. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

[Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature] from the IAU. Of course, you already know about this list because you've been told about it in the past. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NASA has some thoughts as well, if you'll accept them... --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NASA: "There could be hundreds more of these small worlds far out there waiting to be discovered".

Ref cited by USGS: "The total number of dwarf planets to be found in the coming months and years could reach to over 100."

Yes, and we have RS's that believe they have identified some of them. Nowhere does it say that a DP is defined by being on a list.

IAU: "Q: How many dwarf planets are there? A: Currently there are three known dwarf planets."

Not "there are three DPs", but there are three *known* DPs. A DP is not defined by being on their list, the list is defined by recognition as a DP. But they've not continued to do that, to update the list. They are no longer a reference for current knowledge in the field. And *they* reference *Brown*!

From the "Known Dwarf Planets" link on your NASA page:[4] "The first five recognized dwarf planets are Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea."

Again, these aren't "the five DPs", they're the first five *recognized* DPs. Since then, other researchers have recognized other DPs. Science moves on.

— kwami (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Science moves on. ... and yet this discussion does not. No one is suggesting that more DPs may be added as time goes on (indeed, I'm quite sure everyone believes that there will be), but merely pointing that they have not been. When they are, we will update the encyclopedia to reflect that. The IAU created the concept of dwarf planet, and all the sources that you have presented so far have bowed to their authority in the matter, merely presenting likely candidates. Note how they refer to what "could" happen, and how many DPs "might" exist, or what bodies "should" be considered for inclusion. The IAU is also a rather conservative and slow-moving body (and this is not by accident) so it is not surprising that the various lists of candidates have not been accepted as yet. The planetoids under discussion are not going anywhere, so there's no reason to rush, especially when it would be going beyond the sources. siafu (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it would *reflect* our sources. Did you not read the sources above which say there "are" more than the first five? Stern says that 3 are known to be DPs. The IAU says 5. Brown says 9. Tancredi gives another number (12?), with recommendations for the IAU, but his findings are not limited to that. Now, the IAU is first among equals, so I agree it gets top billing. But in an encyclopedia we reflect all significant views, and do not limit ourselves to a single authority. All I'm asking is that we reflect our sources. As NASA puts it, these are the "recognized" DPs. There are hundreds of others, and we need to say who is doing the recognizing. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The IAU is not "first among equals" in this case. Firstly, the various other sources you cite are merely members of the IAU (NASA being slightly different but still only national, instead of international as the IAU is). Secondly, and more importantly, the dwarf planet designation was created by the IAU in the first place. The IAU thereby is the body that specifies what the definition of a dwarf planet is, and which bodies qualify under their definition, so any other source that even uses the term "dwarf planet" is referencing this. It is entirely possible, if not likely, that the IAU will revise its definition as needed, and doing so would invalidate some of the candidates, validate others, and not effect some as well. The sources you quote, again, all put forward bodies that are known, or believed to be, within the current working IAU definition, but it is still the IAU that decides if objects fit its own definition, because it is an IAU designation in the first place. siafu (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear not to understand how such things work. It seems like an inappropriate appeal to authority. The IAU has laid out the definition, but they don't own it, which would be quite ridiculous. You make it sound like they get to choose which bodies 'fit', again ridiculous because it is a definition, not an arbitrary category. Because it is a definition, anyone can, in principle, determine whether a body fits it or not. --JorisvS (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can suggest, if they want, but you are basically saying that "in principle" we can still call Pluto a planet if we want to. These are, in fact, arbitrary categories, and they can be revised as was done with the creation of the "dwarf planet" category specifically to separate bodies like Pluto from other bodies like Jupiter and Earth. siafu (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, we all agree that the IAU is the authority for the definition of DP. They created the definition, and everyone uses it when talking about DPs. Stern refuses to accept that Pluto is not a planet, yet even he uses the IAU definition for DP. However, they have not set themselves up as the arbiter of which bodies fit that definition. I've asked those pushing for this POV to provide evidence supporting it, and they've failed. In fact, the IAU deferred to Brown for whether Eris fit the definition! The IAU used 3 bodies as exemplars of what a DP is when they set up the definition. They made a decision on another two in order to decide which committee would name them. However, they only took on those two because they were forced to in order for their names to be approved. If it hasn't been for the naming issue, we would still have only 3 IAU-recognized DPs. They said they would set up criteria for deciding other cases, but they haven't (yet) done that. Until they do, they are simply not an authority on which other bodies may be DPs. Maybe next week they'll issue a proclamation that X is and Y is not. But until they do, we're left with non-IAU sources for which other bodies fit the IAU definition.

In other words, an IAU-recognized DP is not the same as a DP, even according to the IAU. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the IAU can and does revise definitions as they see fit (as was done with planet and dwarf planet) is the reason that they are the arbiters of said definitions. If they were to revise or eliminate the dwarf planet designation at the next meeting, then this could invalidate a number of candidate bodies. I can't another way of interpretting this situation other than to say that they have set themselves up as the arbiter of the definition. There really is no "natural typology" that would group main belt asteroids with plutinos, or associate bodies like Mercury and Jupiter into the same category, so we're basically stuck with the arbitrariness of the definition. This means that candidates can only be called candidates, and the arbitrating body is the authority and what officially fits. siafu (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'natural typology' is that for asteroids and plutinos there are many similarly sized bodies in more or less similar orbits, whereas for the eight (dominant) planets there are not. This is because the dominant eight have sufficient mass to gravitationally scatter nearby objects away, i.e. 'clear their neighborhood', whereas the other objects do not. The only reason that there are still things like near-Earth asteroids is because they are constantly being replenished (planets aren't!). The Solar System has not reached equilibrium yet. --JorisvS (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of inaccuracies here. for asteroids and plutinos there are many similarly sized bodies in more or less similar orbits The only overall similarity in the orbits of the main belt asteroids and the plutinos is that they orbit the same central body; plutinos are characterized by having highly elliptical and inclined orbits, main belt asteroids are generally in in-plane and relatively circular (compared to the Plutinos, KBOs, or other SDOs) orbits. They may be "similar" in size (debatable, really, I would wager that a complete size distribution comparison would show little similarity), but their composition, distribution, and origins have essentially nothing in common. the dominant eight have sufficient mass to gravitationally scatter nearby objects away Also not exactly true; Jupiter has done most of the clearing for the entire solar system, according to current models of planetary formation. You would have a very difficult time justifying the claim that Mercury's mass is responsible for clearing its orbit of other objects; this is more accurately described as a result of interactions (gravitational/tidal resonance and drag-related) with the Sun. The only reason that there are still things like near-Earth asteroids is because they are constantly being replenished Actually, most of the bodies in the inner solar system are believed to be remnants of the primordial population, and not replenished from the outer solar system. It is likely that they would, all else being equal, eventually disappear due to collisions or scattering. The Solar System has not reached equilibrium yet Certainly it appears to be true that the solar system is not in equilibrium, though it is an open question for research in astrodynamics as to whether there is an equilibrium state that can and will be reached, and furthermore whether or not even the eight recognized planets are in equilibrium with each other now or will be in the future. The truth is that these categories are shoe-horns attempting to reconcile what are often pre-scientific notions (e.g., the pre-astronomical definition of "planet") with modern understanding. In reality, there are no such natural categories, and attempting to act like there are is going to create much confusion and difficulty for us wikipedia contributors. siafu (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that most astronomers have accepted them as workable definitions, whether or not they like them. Even Stern accepts DP and IAU-planet as natural categories, though he considers both to be subcategories of 'planet'. But although the IAU may have set itself up as the arbiter of the definition, they have never said they are the arbiter of which bodies fit that definition. That's not how science works: a standards board may set up definitions, even arbitrary ones, so we're all on the same track, but it's still up to individual researchers to apply those definitions, and that's just as true with DPs as with anything else. At least, those claiming the IAU has put itself in this role have failed to provide any evidence that the IAU thinks so. — kwami (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, let me spell out for you what 'similarly sized' means: It does not mean composition, origins, or the ellipticity or inclination of orbits (I'd say that should be obvious). Nor does it mean 'similar size distributions'. Simply compare, for example, the size of Ceres with Vesta and the size of Pluto with Orcus. And then compare the size of Mars or Earth with the largest near-Earth or Mars-crossing asteroid 1036 Ganymed and note the huge difference. Compare also the orbital cleanliness parameters (µ) for the planets and dwarf planets and note the huge gap. If that isn't a 'natural typology', I don't know what is. Jupiter helped scatter bodies, as it is the only planet capable of fully ejecting bodies from the Solar System, but if the other seven planets did not scatter (as opposed to perturb) other bodies onto Jupiter-crossing orbits, they would have been part of a belt, just like Ceres is part of the asteroid belt or Pluto part of the Kuiper belt. Note that Jupiter cannot scatter these bodies on its own, otherwise there would be no asteroid belt. --JorisvS (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

All you've done here is spell out the IAU definition for us again, but there is, once more, nothing truly inherent about the grouping. It is really a shoehorn, unless you want to explain what motivation there would be to place Jupiter and Mercury into the same category other than a pre-existing belief that they "should" be the same type of object. The "clearing the neighborhood" argument is all well and good, but as noted it did not happen by the same mechanisms for all these bodies. As I also pointed out, they have little in common at all other than that. This isn't meant to be a grand manifesto of solar system formation, but merely pointing out that the "planet" category was invented to fit a definition that already existed, and was based primarily on observability from Earth using early technologies (like the Mark 1 eyeball). These are shoehorn categories, and don't resemble more natural typologies, like biological species taxonomy, for example, which is based (nowadays) on genetic similarities and differences. All of the sources put forward to show DP candidates as well merely shore up this point simply inasmuch as there is a great deal of disagreement as to what should or not should qualify as a dwarf planet. As for the similarly sized discussion, don't dodge the point-- you claimed specifically that these objects were in "more or less similar orbits", which is quite obviously untrue. I meant the compositions and origins just to highlight the fact that size is hardly the only choice we could make in grouping objects. Regarding the actual sizes, I think we can all agree that the spectrum objects in the solar system runs the gamut in size from microscopic dust particles to a star, with examplars that can be produced for almost any approximate size, excepting the very large size gap between Jupiter and the Sun, and the discovery of large KBOs is frankly just smoothing out the distribution curve. By delineating by size, we are drawing lines in the gray areas for our own convenience, and not because the solar system demands it. By the IAU's definition, a very large alien spacecraft could park itself between the orbits of Earth and Mars and be declared a planet if it were massive enough and spherical; though an absurd possibility, this should illustrate the point that the distinctions made by the IAU are purely arbitrary. siafu (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many more groupings can be made (and I think should be made), but I'm arguing why one of these can be orbital cleanliness. Mercury and Jupiter may not have much in common, but there is one thing (denying this does not make this untrue): They constitute nearly all mass in their (non-resonant) orbital zone, as indicated by the orbital cleanliness parameter μ. Orbital cleanliness is not a delineation by size: An Earth-size object several hundred AU from the Sun would be a dwarf planet, not a planet. All the objects in the asteroid belt are on similar orbits and all the objects in the classical Kuiper belt are on similar orbits. The situation with the plutinos is less straightforward, but at the very least do their orbits overlap with those of the CKB. Obviously, an asteroid is not on an orbit similar to that of a CKBO.

As for your alien spacecraft, although it would probably have to be much like the spaceships Earth, Mars etc., it illustrates that origin is not part of the definition. For example, many have proposed to use origin as the distinguishable factor between brown dwarfs and 'rogue planets' (or whatever you'd like to call them; personally I don't like using 'planet' for these). A rogue object several times the mass of Jupiter may have formed in orbit around a star and may have formed like stars, but how would you distinguish between these? And maybe Mars is such an alien spaceship but we simply haven't identified it as such? This is why observables, i.e. the current state, are usually preferred and not origins. --JorisvS (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Include only if officially listed by IAU - [From uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] - WP should respect the terminology & conclusions of IAU (or a comparable organization). Thus, my recommendation is that this template only include dwarf planets listed by IAU or similar. But, to give more information to readers, it is okay for this template to list "candidate" bodies that Reliable Sources so identify; but only candidates that multiple, secondary sources identify as candidates. That is in the spirit of WP:SECONDARY: thus, two sources are required, and they do not include the original source that discovered the candidate. So if astronomer A proposes a candidate DP, it should be included as a candidate in WP only if two other astronomers echo the candidacy. PS: This RfC really should be in the Astronomy project Talk page, since it spans multiple articles/templates. --Noleander (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem finding multiple sources listing them as candidates. The question is what to do when 2ary sources list them not just as candidates, but as recognized dwarf planets. The IAU is not in the business of keeping track of such things. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You known there is no such sources. Ruslik_Zero 06:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop pretending things you don't like don't exist? Do you really think other editors are stupid enough to fall for that? No-one has yet, and you've been repeating it for a year. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You two are both doing equal amounts of pretending, and repeating the same bickering argument here. It is, in fact, possible for two editors to read the same source and come to different conclusions. The talk page archive I linked to (for those who are new to this debate, here) shows that that is exactly what happened. Just claiming that the other side is being willfully ignorant is making both of your voices weaker and does nothing to either resolve the debate or improve the encyclopedia. If you're not going to agree on this point, then move on-- it's necessary for you two to settle this for the community to do so. siafu (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Section titles

A minor point, really, but Kwami deleted the words "Dwarf planet" from the template a month ago without discussion, and is now repeatedly reverting his change in. I see no discussion, and no reason for the removal. Kwami, could you please explain why you feel the template would be clearer with only "Candidates" as opposed to "dwarf planets" and "candidates"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You changed it months ago without discussion,[5] and now are repeatedly restoring it. Everyone else has accepted the template without your wording.

The reason is a simple matter of logic. Try a Venn diagram. There are dwarf planets, and there are non-dwarf planets. That's circle A. Then there are bodies identified as or suspected of being dwarf planets. That's circle B. There is overlap—correctly ID'd DPs—and non-overlap: undiscovered DPs and incorrectly ID'd non-DPs. Now, all of the IAU five are presumably within the overlap. Some of the candidates are not. However, it's likely that the candidates we list here are within the overlap as well.

Since we cannot be sure, "candidate" is the proper wording. However, the rest of your wording implies that the IAU five are the only discovered bodies which belong in circle A, and that the candidates belong in circle B outside the overlap: that is, that they have been misidentified as DPs. That is contradicted by our sources, including the IAU itself. You have objected to wording to the effect that the top row are the IAU five, and we can accommodate that by not having any label. That does not push any POV, and is not at odds with our sources.

Here's the Venn diagram of what I hope everyone here agrees on. The grey in the middle are the DPs which have been ID'd as (candidate) DPs. The purple on the left are DPs which remain undiscovered. The blue on the right are false candidates. The small dark blue circle in the middle are the IAU five, which everyone but Sheppard agrees are correctly identified. (Sheppard would diagram it partly overlapping with the blue region, but remain agnostic as to whether any of the five are in that section.) By excluding "Candidates" from "Dwarf planets", you deny that the grey area in the middle exists, apart from the IAU five.

This is what I've objected to all along, and thought we'd finally resolved here: the idea that if a body has not been identified as a DP, then it is not a DP. We don't say that Pluto had 4 moons last year and 5 moons today, as if the 5th popped into existence when it was noticed; we say that the 5th moon was discovered, and that Pluto has 5 known moons. The Earth did not start going around the Sun once heliocentricity was accepted. Likewise, the number of DPs will not change if the IAU accepts or rejects Orcus as a DP; only our understanding will change. Thus we should not describe the candidates with wording that means "DP candidates which are not DPs". What you call a "minor point" I do not see as minor at all, but as a counter-factual statement of truth, no different than dividing the history of the Solar System (rather than astronomy) into geocentric and heliocentric eras. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, how can anyone hope to have a productive discussion with you - here or anywhere - if you repeatedly provide misleading statements? The link you gave above is not the same thing at all, but was instead an attempt to deal with more of your dwarf-planet-related edit warring here and elsewhere. This current matter is entirely about your arbitrary and undiscussed removal of the words "dwarf planet" from the template line listing dwarf planets with moons. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

By accepting the remote possibility that someone could disagree with you in good faith. It would also help if you provided links to what you're talking about, because I don't understand you. — kwami (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm referring to - your persistent and oft-rejected pattern of trying to modify articles related to dwarf planets to fit your perspective. This, despite your views having been rejected in three separate RCs (at least) and countless discussions. Furthermore, you are making misleading claims here (such as with the use of the link above) that do not relate to the issue at hand. Simply put, you chose to remove the term "dwarf planet" from the first line of the template without discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not know. What I see looking through the page history is that you introduced the wording that you're pushing for now, claiming that it's consensual, but that you're the only one pushing for it. If I'm wrong, please provide the links. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If one were to dissect the matter further, it would be accurate to say that your "BOLD" claim was inappropriate; the BRD change was your initial change on June 10, which I removed on July 11. You have since proceeded to revert your change back in four times, three in the past 24 hours... so you may wish to self-revert. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was stable for a month since the RfC, and during the revisions of several other editors. You've chosen to resurrect the edit war, over what you say is a minor point. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was not about this page; it was "stable" only because there were hardly any edits to the page in that time. You deleted it, and are the only one to be doing so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

By your logic, you should revert the words that you deleted[6] and restore the phrasing "Dwarf planets accepted by the IAU". — kwami (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is your wording, phrasing that has been rejected elsewhere. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hardly any edits, despite the fact that several people involved in the discussion are watching this template, because there were no objections. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

JorisvS's wording works for me. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)