Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)

	Archives
	Origin up to August 2006 ; Previous naming polls

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Template:V0.5 Template:FAOL An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

Ceres (dwarf planet) is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 30 September 2006

Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically.

This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Parts subject to change:

"Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), officially designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt." - As the Dwarf Planet category may well have further bodies added to it, the assertation that it is "smallest" and "only one in the asteroid belt" may change over the next few months. Check these are still correct after any additions to the group.

Symbols on 1 Ceres

Osgoodelawyer started this discussion on my talk page, but I thought it was more appropriate here. The question is should all variants of the symbol for 1 Ceres be listed in this article or should only the most commonly used symbol be listed. I reverted his removal of the alternate symbols because I felt they should all be listed in the interest of trying to be comprehensive. --Aranae 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The variants add no real information to the article (they're all very similar), and they look bad all together like that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree with moving them from the infobox to being discussed in the text, but I do think they belong in the article. Someone coming across an archaic reference to one of the variants should have some hope of tracking it down. --Aranae 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better image by hst (color too!)

Here is a much better image taken by hubble in 2005: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/27/image/d

The resolution of this image is no better than the one in the article now. It has merely been processed to smooth out the appearance of the surface.Michaelbusch 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I must admit it looks better.--JyriL ^talk 10:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is it copyrighted? -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doubt it... it would fall under nasa public domain stuff wouldnt it -- Nbound 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a NASA image and not copyrighted.--JyriL ^talk 10:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That pic makes it look like another picture of Mars. The coloring is similar.70.177.71.206 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY MUCH FOR that picture. That picture makes a much better case for Dwarf-planethood than the pixeliated asteroid pic we got right now. Hopquick 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:Bold! Hopquick 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and add it to commons, plz. --Pedro 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look - more nice colour pictures: http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005/27/images/e/formats/web_print.jpg http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/27/image/e I think black and white in the middle of the article should be updated - but not sure. TestPilot 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent nomenclature

Why does 1 Ceres, have it's minor planet number in its title and Pluto does not? Shouldn't the titling be consistent? Aren't they now equally dwarf planets? Hopquick 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres is in the numbered objects catalogue, Pluto isn't. Deuar 22:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Pluto's in it now; it just recieved number 134340. See Pluto. If people had gone along with it back when the Minor Planet people had first proposed it Pluto could have had the nice round number of 100000, but oh well. :) Bryan 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of moving the Pluto article has been discussed. Current consensus is to keep the simplest, most common name as per Wikipedia convention. Pluto's number, however, is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about that? Shame about the 1×10⁵. What an indignity − not only to get a number, but for it to be a monster like 134340 ;-). So, anyway, in this case, I am uncertain regarding the better name for the Ceres article. Deuar 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are assigned in sequence, so that there are no duplicates. A few months ago, there was a proposal to demote Pluto immediately, to give it the number 100000. Michaelbusch 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this sort of thing was already done for e.g. 50000 Quaoar. Wonder why they didn't wait a bit until a more round number came up this time. Deuar 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been cool for it to be 0 Pluto. Lol70.177.71.206 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I suspect it would have stuffed up all the database programs people have; and wouldn't have been in time order since Ceres and a whole pile were discovered earlier. :-) Deuar 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian G. Marsden, MPC offered a nice cool number for Pluto a long time ago; he was met with an outrage… Now Pluto is stuck with 134?, sorry, I forgot the entry for Pluto already... Eurocommuter 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this should drop the 1. It's generally called Ceres within the article. But let's wait and see what happens. -- Beardo 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article at Ceres. The 1 at the front usefully disambiguates the article from the goddess. Richard B 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say this article should lose the number and be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet). —Nightstallion (?) 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should have all the dwarf planets consistent. Let's see what eventuates over at Talk:Eris (hopefully rename to [[... (dwarf planet)]] in my opinion) and then whatever it is, be consistent. Deuar 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we should simply state that Ceres and Pluto will follow the nomenclature of Eris. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter and Ceres

Does anyone take a stand on Ceres' prospects of growing through accretion or getting shredded by Jupiter? I've been searching for this, but haven't found any research or reports. Hopquick 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres' orbit is stable over the age of the solar system. The timescale for accretionary growth is now many of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the solar system (it was much less ~4.56 Gyr ago).Michaelbusch 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it accreted the entire asteroid belt it would be much less massive than our moon (though would be classed a fully fledged planet as it would have cleared the neighbourhood.) -- Nbound 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jupiter already did most of the work for her...

Naming

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. As Ceres is ~~not~~ now classified as a "dwarf planet", some policy is needed for naming the articles of this new class of solar system objects as a whole. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction - Ceres is classified as a dwarf planet. It is on the minor planets list because of it's prior designation as an asteroid (dating back to the 1850's). --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All dwarf planets retain their previous classifications as well -- Nbound 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all--Nixer 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroids remain asteroids, and KBO's remain KBO's, and SDO's remain SDO's -- Nbound

Well, I think he's nitpicking at the fact that Pluto which was once a planet is no longer a planet. Ryūlóng 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Template for dwarf planet names

(from Talk:Dwarf planet)

You can now enter {{dp|Name}} and it will automatically bring up the correct minor planet number without you needing to look it up, but it will display only as the name. E.g. {{dp|Ceres}} will give Ceres i.e. [[1 Ceres|Ceres]].

These can be used mid-article to provide links to the correct article titles, without using redirects and saving time writing minor planet numbers in.

Only covers the dwarf planets - {{dp|Pluto}} will link to [[134340 Pluto|Pluto]] at the moment - just in case it ever changes - but you wouldn't need to currently use the template for links to the Pluto article - it's just at Pluto

The template can of course be amended if the naming convention changes e.g. if the IAU issues a new dwarf planet catalogue system - meaning that no links would have to be changed - just the template. Richard B 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

This is a total mess. The Ceres dab page tells you to go to "Ceres" to find the page about the goddess. Where is the page about the goddess now?

Look at the "what links here" page. All of the links that formerly connected to the goddess page are now going to the asteroid page. Where's the sense in that? RandomCritic 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

I've adjusted the references accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does it stay now 1 Pallas, 2 Juno, 3 Vesta ... ??--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 1 Ceres in the Minor Planets catalog. Ryūlóng 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, a new categorization scheme is currently being made due to Dwarf planets. --Pedro 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they're not going to make all 100k+ objects on their list jump up three spaces due to Ceres, Pluto, and Eris, are they? Ryūlóng 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The record will continue to be 1 Ceres, 2 Vesta, etc. This is why Pluto was assigned a number. If Ceres should be called an asteroid, Pluto a plutino, and Eris a scattered disc object instead of dwarf planets is a matter of predecence: do physical properties dominate over crossing a threshold of approximation to hydrostatic equilibrium. Michaelbusch 23:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I find irritating (and this is as a layperson) is the IAU's apparent lack of preparation for the ramifications of such a major change. Now, I'll state (just to be clear) that I have no problem with recategorizing Pluto et al. Our understanding of science is, and should be, ever-changing; I'm not married to the notion of calling Pluto a "planet", nor do I consider it any less significant just because it has been recategorized. What bothers me is that there doesn't seem to be a coherent plan for what to call everything in the "new" solar system. Using "minor planet" is OK - but "SSSB" is preferred. "Asteroid" is interchangeable with "minor planet" - or is it? Do we even use the term "asteroid" any more for anything? Pluto and Eris are on the minor planet list - but explanations as to "why" are vague at best. The circular about Pluto and Eris' numbering makes it sound as if they received numbers because Ceres already had one; we're left to wonder what would have happened if Ceres wasn't in that catalogue. I can only imagine how frustrating this situation is for Michael and others who are actually in the field. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planets and SSSB's are both minor planets, hence their being entered into the minor planet catalog (or in the case of Ceres being retained in it). I will agree with those who feel that the IAU was not prepared for the consequences of this move, but what to you expect of a compromise forged in the days before the vote was taken? For now, we need to deal with this as best we can. --EMS | Talk 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

our discussions in wikipedia are because of their ineptitude. At least Ceres is now seen as a different thing when compared to Eros or Ida. And that's good. IMO, "plutino" or "Cubewano" are just useless slang. -Pedro 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They describe certain orbital resonances after neptune -- Nbound 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I would prefer to describe those resonances. "Pluto is a plutino" - seems silly and empty. "Pluto has 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune" - much better; there's content -> it is useful. If Ceres is removed from that catalogue all asteroid/transneptunian numbers will change, that would create a colossal confusion. O.O they have a good knot in their hands. --Pedro 02:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whilst saying "Pluto is a plutino" seems silly, saying something like "Pluto is the prototype of a group of objects termed plutinos, which have 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune." is more useful. Richard B 08:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer richards method, it gets the info across and informs the reader of what a plutino is, if they see it elsewhere... -- Nbound 08:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were still Pluto prototypes. Ryūlóng 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope that is yet another category... plutino has been used for objects in 2:3 resonance for a while now

New poll on naming dispute

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mass

I have amended the mass estimate and given an uncertainty. The value 9.46±0.04×10¹⁹kg takes into account the two most recent mass determinations, which are based on different methods, and hence presumably an independent check. That of Pitjeva: 9.454±0.014×10¹⁹, based on perturbations by Ceres on the detailed motion of Mars; and those of Standish and Drummond: 9.472±0.030×10¹⁹, based on perturbations of smaller asteroids. Deuar 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

"Ceres (IPA /ˈsiːriz/, Latin: Cerēs), officially designated 1 Ceres, is the smallest dwarf planet in the Solar System and the only one located in the asteroid belt."

This is accurate, but is likely to change - Watch this line carefully if further IPA consensus comes out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem, but well worth noting anyways. I've added "known" to bring the text in line with Pluto and Eris. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wonder if it's worth making a box at the top of this page listing parts of this article that could change rapidly ove rthe next few months? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres is the smallest dwarf planet, we dont need the "designed" word. 1st) Dwarf planet is a category created by man 2nd) it is unlikely that smaller celestial bodies may be declared as such. Vesta has roundness issues 3rd) don't speculate in the lead section. Ceres the smallest; Eris the largest (the end).--Pedro 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says "recognized" at the moment, not "designed". That seems good enough for me. Not sure about Vesta, but apparently 2005 FY9, 2003 EL61 and Sedna are strong contenders to become dwarf planets sometime soon... SteveRwanda 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols

We're back to the debate on how many symbols should be included in the infobox. The page had included four alternate symbols that have been used for the object. Osgoodelawyer has deleted three of these. I stil feel that in the interest of making this a good reference, we should include the different possibilities that readers have potential to come across. In the past, it has only been the two of us disputing this so I was hoping other editors would weigh in. Note that this also pertains to 2 Pallas. --Aranae 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarity, there should only be one symbol - the primary astronomical one. This would be in sync with the other planets and dwarf planets. The other symbols can certainly be referenced in the "Name" (or similar) section where applicable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me now, with the symbols readded to the body. Thanks Osgoodelawyer. --Aranae 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the page comply with Option 3

Option 3 won on the naming page. It proposes a move to Ceres (dwarf planet) by a margin of 22:10 See: Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming User:Hopquick 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the move, and have indicated this on the naming talk page. I would have done this sooner, had I known this conversation was taking place. Michaelbusch 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text above is a misstatement of the terms of "option 3". (In fairness to the anon who posted it, the text was also truncated at the bottom of the "dwarf naming" discussion page.) The actual text of the decision was as follows:

"Dwarf planets should have their title as Name (dwarf planet) or just Name depending on how well known they are compared to other things with the same name. Should this option be endorsed the use of (dwarf planet) should be decided on individual pages."

The bold text is my addition, to illustrate the error. The link is also incorrect - it should be Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this move has already been opposed twice due to an undiscussed change and the above "poll". We should still wait a few months to decide on what to do here. Ryūlóng 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so the relevant discussion is now if this article should be at Ceres or Ceres (dwarf planet). 1 Ceres is out in any case. -- Jordi·✆ 07:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has only been a vote at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming, no consensus yet. Ryūlóng 07:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is just passive resistance. Option 3 is now 22:7 the option amongst those with an opinion. 3:1 is greater than the 2:1 threshold for consensus. The question was whether we wanted to move in agreement with that "consensus" which EMS said we had acheieved. 100% agreement is not equal to consensus. While supermajority is not considered a standard of judging consensus, at some point a small minority needs to be ignored. Hopquick 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, though, the poll was irrelevant, to some extent: Option 3 was Name , or, if disambiguation required/notability insufficient, name (dwarf planet). The other option of that type, Name , or, if disambiguation required/notability insufficient, number name, did not appear. As such, I think we can conculde that the poll showed that disambiguation should be used only if required, but not what form the disambiguation should take. That needs discussion and, I fear, a vote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

1 Ceres → Ceres (dwarf planet) – Rationale: The popular name for this body is just "Ceres" without the number, just as Pluto and Eris (dwarf planet) (similar bodies) are known with just name and disambiguator not "134340 Pluto" or "136199 Eris". Extensive discussion over this issue has taken place at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming#A New Proposal and a two-thirds majority (22:11) favour the Name or Name (dwarf planet) as disambiguator. Since this is not a primary topic (Ceres (mythology) is equally important) this page should be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet). SteveRwanda 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This poll is controversial: the option being voted on was changed after proposal Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support - per nomination. SteveRwanda 09:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and request to Speedy Close in favour of discussion. part of a series of four, and 1 is such a short, convenient disambiguation. Let's face it, 1 Ceres is easy and highly usable, and keeps it aligned with the three other former planets of that period (2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta (And possibly 5 Astraea - when did they stop considering asteroids planets exactly?)). I think that consistancy with them is more important than consistancy with Trans-Neptunians. Also, I really think we should discuss this for a bit before opening a vote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments SteveRwanda 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be voting at all without a discussion first. To kick things off:

Right. Here's how I see the rationale for each possibility:

Ceres: Presumes goddess less notable than dwarf planet. She appears to be slightly so: ghits for Ceres goddess (943,000) and Ceres planet (1,450,000) are near enough (Ceres asteroid is relatively tiny, adding a mere 100,000 unique additions (397,000 for it, of which 297,000 show up in Ceres asteroid planet)) that I'd suggest that a disambiguation page is more appropriate: It's just not overwhelmingly unique. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres (dwarf planet): Gives prominence to its new status. It's hard to see any further reason for it than this: It's certainly not easier to find.

1 Ceres: Traditional, in use name useful for disambiguation. Keeps it in line with other former planets discovered in that period (2 Pallas, 3 Juno, 4 Vesta) Since it has to be disambiguated if my arguement for not-Ceres is accepted, it seems more useful to me to use a name that might actually be searched for than a Wiki-creation, and that, well, is an actual name for it.

In short, in my opinion, if it can't be moved to Ceres, it is better in 1 Ceres. Certainly, wikilinks ALLOW us to shift people around, but the decision seems to me to come down to which is more in use, and "1 Ceres"'s 340,000 ghits is a lot more than "Ceres (dwarf planet)"'s 47. Can anyone make a better case for the other two options? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I hate myself, but: Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming One last poll. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent Nomenclature. Dwarf Planet is the new standard for defining objects such as 1 Ceres. There should be a consistant naming for Pluto, Eris, & Ceres. Saying that it has less in common with X is original research. "We don't make the news, we report it." By refusing to associate Ceres with its Dwarf Planet kin, we are saying that our opinion overrides the IAU's, which is incorrect, IMO. Hopquick 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, it was discussed on here (in the archive) and we conceded that we needed one place to discuss it, which was in the dwarf_planet/naming discussion. Read please!!!! Hopquick 13:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the major problem with the dwarf planet naming discussion was bringing in the very high-tension topic of Pluto, and note the polls were hardly exclusive: keeping Pluto where it was with Ceres and Eris to their numbers was not one of the options, I believe. This means that the results were skewed away from the possibility of numbering Ceres and Eris simply because Pluto is such a hot topic at present.

In short, Pluto was skewing the debate horribly, and whilst we should try to get consistancy between Eris and Ceres, the results of the Dwarf Planet naming page, a series of badly-done polls without significant discussion between them or even as to what should be on the polls, is largely irrelevant, in my opinion. May I suggest a liasement with Eris, with no polls allowed? I suspect that once we get away from the emotional Pluto, something satisfactory to all can be arranged.

And, if there is consensus for (dwarf planet) after discussion, I will, of course, give way. But please no more making a poll every two-three days. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify briefly: The reason I feel that poll is irrelevant is that it only gave the possibility of Pluto staying at pluto if the other dwarf planets were disambiguated by (dwarf planet). What I consider the more sensible disambiguation by notability, number, was not included as an option, and, as such, all it really shows is that Pluto should be left alone. The other option was not given. As such, given the intense feeling about Pluto, it can hardly be considered an unbiased poll. Should we have one more poll? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about Pluto. The community voted exclusively on the Eris issue at Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 3#Requsted Move and voted 56:21 in favour of Eris (dwarf planet). Likewise a majority of 22:11 voted in favour of a consistent naming scheme involving either Name or Name (dwarf planet) at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. The community is clearly in favour of this move, but it seems like the Option 5 people are trying to steam roller their way into no action being taken by wearing people out with discussion after discussion. SteveRwanda 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]