Talk:Ninth planet (disambiguation)

Neptune

Was Neptune ever considered the ninth plant in the Pluto days? I was in school at the listed time period & in my memory Pluto was always the 9th planet. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 17:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, if Neptune was discovered in 1801 right after Ceres when still a planet. By geophysical order, it is the ninth round object to directly central circular orbit our Sun. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Novel

I propose we add this entry to the page; The Secret of the Ninth Planet, science fiction novel by Donald A. Wollheim. More than just a partial match since title is the same, notable as not many books contain "ninth planet" in their description and for this story its said term refers directly to Pluto before it was reclassified like page itself says. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are for articles we have on Wikipedia that are about the title term, not for every article that might discuss it, let alone books outside Wikipedia. The proposed page is exactly what is meant by a partial match. The book is not called Ninth Planet. It has a title that contains the term Ninth Planet and is thus excluded. SpinningSpark 11:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have seen many disambiguation pages were only the title and or topic vaguely matches. The question is not that the book "might" discuss the title and its meaning(s), it does match both. The books' title has 'of' and two 'the's which as it does not mean anything can be counted as three words and hence is more than partial, so one can also read it as Ninth Planet Secret. The ninth planet described in the story is not some fictional planet but exactly Pluto, it literally calls Pluto the ninth planet in the book as does this page as its former name. It is a fictional story about Pluto. That is the same subject on the page. As seen on other pages and talks, the titles may not exactly match, but if the subject does is it okay to add? Just asking if multiple matches, how is it partial? Totally understand if I am wrong, can respond whenever best. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that's just wrong. The page is not a list of articles about Pluto, it is a list of things called "ninth planet". That's how disambiguation pages work. Problems on other disambiguation pages is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which holds no water here. However much you play around rearranging the title (which in any case is your own WP:OR) it still remains a partial match. You might have a case if the title was The Ninth Planet or you had a source in the article saying it was known as Ninth Planet for short, but neither of those apply. I could compromise on putting it in the see also section, but not in the main list. SpinningSpark 13:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. You say the page is not a list of articles about Pluto, it is a list of things called "ninth planet." Okay well, in the story Pluto is called the "ninth planet." If the book and page both refer to the same object as our solar systems (now former) ninth planet, what is the issue? Also, I mentioned the other stuff not as a one off but commonly seen on other disambiguation pages if correct in my description. Not sure why the added content policy pages whenever I suggest something like a near match as in a one word difference. I said 'can' be read as implies not exactly as explicitly read does not make it OR. In literature, sometimes when critics refer to a title, they avoid 'of' in title for example Story of Cat can be called Cat Story. You are right I might have a more than better case if I find a source for that inference. See also sounds like a good idea, but if one can respond to the above first I promise to look into See also as a possible solution. Greatly appreciate the discussion. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I really can't explain it to you any better than I already have. Playing with semantics will make no difference. Request a third opinion if you want more input. SpinningSpark 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name." (MOS:DABNOENTRY). Clear as day - Spinningspark is correct. While it is true not every disambiguation page conforms to the rules exactly, you have not shown a compelling argument why "The Secret of the Ninth Planet" should be disambiguated here, 134.79.160.199. In contrast, readers that instead google something like "ninth planet novel" will find the desired page. That's okay - our "disambiguation service" is manually maintained and should not compete with automated web search. As WP:PARTIAL states, "A disambiguation page is not a search index." CapnZapp (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. I must add that due to the subject issue that Spinning did not fully address, I reiterated it in my last post. I like to acknowledge that we are both right since in terms of the title matter Spinning pointed out there is only a partial match, but in terms of the subject matter the book and page agree it is another name for Pluto which is a full match. In addition to the fact that there is likely no other book title like on Wikipedia that has those two words, it is unique. Last, let us go over the facts; the books title partially matches, its subject matter fully matches and policy page says even if it has ninth planet in the title, but is a name for some random planet that has no relation to former ninth planet Pluto that is referenced here you may not add it correct? The problem is the planet that the book calls ninth planet happens to be the same planet mentioned on the page, so mathematically if the two criteria were 50% each, then partial means half or 25% and full would equal 50%, my point is overall the book is 75% of the way there. So this is a special case, though I agree with him that because of the similarities and as said on the MOS policy page the best place it would fit if someone reading the page wanted to find a book with ninth planet in the title on this encyclopaedia might be in the See also section. I know, just reading my own post makes me dizzy. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Real quick, Cap if you like to just have a one sentence reply to my too long post that is totally okay. Again, I think the See also section is our best bet for the book per agreement with Spinning. By the way, thank you for re-adding my common knowledge Neptune line on the page, just needed sources for that and glad it was easily found. You are right unclassified is the wrong word, meant formerly classified as it was a planet and then changed to dwarf planet. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If the user was after Pluto, that is already linked. The Secret of the Ninth Planet is not about Pluto, it is a fictional work that involves Pluto. It is not a synonym for either Pluto or ninth planet. Even if the book was entirely just about Pluto (and there are many non-fiction books that are just that), it would still not belong on the dab page. SpinningSpark 15:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So no longer consider See also? I think you are right without knowing it. Yes it involves a fictional Pluto so what, the disambiguation pages of many if not all solar system planets have a book and science fiction section about its topic. Yes the title is not a synonym of itself, but it is used in synonymous with Pluto cause the plot and reviews section of the books article says so, "After a dizzying tour of all the planets, they realize that the trouble springs from Pluto, a belligerent planet which is trying to usurp the life-giving power which the sun gives earth." Hence, the secret of the ninth planet is revealed. You are right again, but it is not just about Pluto but the way it refers to Pluto by using it interchangeably with ninth planet. I promise I am not after Pluto, just context. I guess if it is already linked in some way that was my goal all along. So, I am okay with See also, separate page mention or no action. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

With respect, 134.79.160.199, you're coming uncomfortably close to sealioning with responses such as "Thank you all for the replies." and "I like to acknowledge that we are both right..." To be clear: I opposed your suggestion. Normally I don't get thanked when I shut down suggestions. I would therefore like to clarify that courteousness or persistence isn't what will decide this matter. At some point in the near future editors will stop responding to your entreats and this discussion will then be over, no matter how many polite attempts you make to restate your position. When this happens you are expected to gracefully accept that you did not get your way - repeated attempts at keeping the discussion alive will only risk you getting blocked. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

First, I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Last, the discussion already ended before your baited comment. I will not apologize for saying thank you for the replies. You restored a part of one of my edits. So, I am only being grateful. I reject the insinuation of sea lion-ing that means to pretend to be ignorant of the subject matter and troll. I have not even a created an account, actually considers myself an expert and simply tried to clear up the matter. That is why this term does not apply. No doubts, you opposed my suggestion past tense, but edit history of the page proves our debate finalized in a resolution that met the criteria and is favorable to all. It is amusing that someone who is in middle of a revert war accuses me of not being forefront without merit. Frankly, I saw a better way and accepted it. If one professes to be the more mature here, I advise you to show some humility as the so-called "winner." How do I know this is not a chat robot? MIT had an article about the ever-growing replacement of administrators with artificial intelligence and how it may drive new users away. Since we are still in the digital feudalism age of the internet, I understand the need to treat others like this. Similar to lords who oversaw towns. If one thinks an insult is the best way to thank me for giving my precious time to improve the page. You are welcome. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Deciding Name

I think that Planet Nine exists, and i think the Name should be Hades or Nox. 131.108.229.63 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sinope was sometimes called Hades (Roman Pluto), a moon of Jupiter and Nix (Roman Nox) is Pluto's satellite - plus asteroid Nyx also taken. 134.79.160.199 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)