Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dwarf planets

The definition is "Dwarf planets" - Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

None for now. Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The GAs could become FAs - Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Cleared the neighbourhood
• Hydrostatic equilibrium
• List of plutoid candidates

Nergaal (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

90377 Sedna is a dwarf planet candidate and is FA. Also Planets beyond Neptune is at FA. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, consensus dwarfs Quaoar, Gonggong, and Orcus are all GA's already, and Sedna is an FA. Double sharp (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The retention period for this topic expires on 14 December (three months after the 14 September delisting). Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@ZergTwo: Our short descriptions for the articles below are quite similar to that of Sedna (dwarf planet), which you changed to "none" today, stating that There's WP:SDNONE. The title fulfills all the purposes of a short description and is self-explanatory to English speakers, a short description would not be helpful unless you're willing to explain the definition of a dwarf planet:

• Ceres (dwarf planet): "Dwarf planet in the asteroid belt"
• Eris (dwarf planet): "Dwarf planet"
• Gonggong (dwarf planet): "Dwarf planet in the scattered-disc"
• Haumea: "Dwarf planet"
• Makemake: "Dwarf planet" (changed yesterday from "Dwarf planet in the Solar System" by InterstellarInterloper)
• Orcus (dwarf planet): "Trans-Neptunian dwarf planet"
• Pluto: "Dwarf planet"
• Quaoar: "Ringed dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt"

The short description for many of these have been quite contentious over the years. For example, Sedna's was "Dwarf planet" for a long time, until this edit by 21.Andromedae in January 2025 changed it to "Distant, small body in the Solar System", with the justification that the short description shouldn't duplicate the article title. Before that, it was "Dwarf planet in the Solar System" and "Large minor planet in the outer reaches of the Solar System" at various points. For some notable arguments, see this edit by Kwamikagami ("keep 'outer reaches', as all DP's are in the SS"), and this one by Patar knight ("If it is useless without "outer reaches", then it is better to not have it at all to keep it under 40 characters per WP:SDLENGTH").

Following the example set by ZergTwo, I am considering to remove the short descriptions from all of these, since their argument really applies to them all. What do you think? Renerpho (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

if we put some thought into them, they might be worthwhile, e.g.

Ceres (dwarf planet): only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt

Pluto: dwarf planet once counted as the ninth planet

Eris (dwarf planet): dwarf planet more massive than Pluto

Haumea: ringed dwarf planet with two moons

etc. I don't write or use short descriptions, so I'm not clear on what would be appropriate, but certainly we want to indicate that Pluto is the DP, not the dog. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use "only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt" for Ceres, and "Trans-Neptunian dwarf planet" for all the others. I am not really using short descriptions either so I have a hard time telling what works and what doesn't. What I don't like is that these are changing every few months. I suspect that none of the regular editors of any of these articles (and that includes myself) do short descriptions a lot, which is why they/we like to argue about them so much. Renerpho (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If all dwarf planets except for Ceres use the same SD, then there it takes away from the utility of having an expanded SD in the first place that could potentially help readers differentiate the dwarf planets from each other. I think region is probably the most useful descriptor for most of them except for a few exceptions like Pluto and Eris which known for their size/history. Unless Trans Neptunian Objects is a much more well known term than say the Kuiper belt or the scattered disk, using the more specific terminology would be preferable. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Having the short description as merely "Dwarf planet" when the title already contains such words is a pretty poor and sloppy choice, while SDNONE applies mostly for lists. There is a lot more we can write about such objects:

Sedna is notable for its long orbit that reaches a maximum of 1000 AU from the Sun (hence "distant");

Eris is notable for being the most massive dwarf planet;

Ceres might be treated as "Asteroid and dwarf planet" or the suggestion of "only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt";

Haumea is notable for its elongated shape and rings;

Quaoar is notable for its rings;

Pluto is notable for being the largest dwarf planet. 21 Andromedae (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

At the time of my edit in 2022, the page had not yet been moved from "90377 Sedna" to "Sedna (dwarf planet)" , so having a short description of just "Dwarf planet" would not violate WP:SDDUPLICATE. I've done a lot more SDs since 2022 and my thinking around WP:SD40 has become a lot less doctrinaire, so I think something like "Distant body in the Solar System's outer reaches" at 48 characters would be perfectly fine since the core information is in the first 40 while not being substantially over.

I do not think WP:SDNONE should be applied to any of these. For the ones without "dwarf planet" in their title, they are all named after mythological figures, so a SD is required for differentiation per the second bullet at WP:SDPURPOSE. Even for those with "(dwarf planet)" in its title, I think it would still be helpful to note that it is a real thing as opposed to something in another field. For example, Niðavellir is arguably a dwarf planet in Norse mythological cosmology and the MCU depiction could easily be confused for a planet . There are also sci-fi IPs with fictional dwarf planets. . SDs are not based on the knowledge base of those who are knowledgeable about the topic area and also familiar with Wikipedia's naming and notability conventions, but the general English readership.

Furthermore, besides their use in search, having a brief description would help their use as annotated links and as 21 Andromedea has noted, there are useful points of differentiation that can be conveyed via a SD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

how do we display SDs? if i saw them, it would be easier to judge what was helpful and what was just silly. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The easiest way is to use the Wikipedia:Short description helper gadget, which can be enabled in your preferences under "editing". User:SD0001/shortdescs-in-category can also be used to quickly get an overview of SDs in a category. User:GhostInTheMachine/SDlinkBuilder does something similar for the SDs of all links in an article, but is clunkier to use. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

much better. thanks. — kwami (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I did Pluto per the above - it had been only a dab, which I understand is not the role of SDs. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback and the improvements. Looking at the articles in Category:Dwarf planets, here's what we currently have:

• Dwarf planet – Small planetary-mass object
• Mesoplanet – Planetary objects that have a mass smaller than Mercury but larger than Ceres
• Orcus (dwarf planet) – Trans-Neptunian dwarf planet
• Ceres (dwarf planet) – Only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt
• Eris (dwarf planet) – Most massive dwarf planet
• Exploration of dwarf planets – <intentionally none>
• Gonggong (dwarf planet) – Dwarf planet in the scattered-disc
• Haumea – Dwarf planet with a ring and two moons
• IAU definition of planet – 2006 International Astronomical Union definition
• Makemake – Dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt
• Pluto – Largest dwarf planet
• Quaoar – Ringed dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt
• Sedna (dwarf planet) – Distant body in the outer Solar System

Compared to before, many of these are a lot more... descriptive. I have questions about Mesoplanet (which is very long at 78 characters -- Patar knight?) and Exploration of dwarf planets (which is left empty), and maybe the SD for IAU definition of planet can be improved as well? I'm not sure. Renerpho (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I would think that descriptive titles such as 'Exploration of dwarf planets' are already effectively SD's and so don't need another, unless as with 'IAU definition of planet' some disambiguation of the context would be helpful. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any actual usage of the term mesoplanet beyond Asimov's coinages? And as cool as Asimov is, is it really notable enough for an article? Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

i think maybe that article should be about the term itself, as 'mesoplanet' isn't a thing in the lit — kwami (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It does appear to be a term for planet habitability, but in the context of medium temperature. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

if that has any presence in the lit, it would be the primary topic. if not notable enough for its own article [which i would think it isn´t], we might cover both. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)