<p>The cited answer is correct insofar as the IAU is not the body that makes names of celestial bodies official. However, it's authority is implicit because it is recognized by the astronomical community and the public as the foremost authority on astronomical naming, and thus the names the IAU adopts are the ones most commonly used in the scientific community (excluding objects referred to by their catalog numbers).</p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one of their information pdfs</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The IAU has been the official arbiter of planetary and satellite naming since its inception in 1919. The IAU’s decisions are officially adopted by the nearly 11 000 professional astronomers who are its members, coming from more than 90 countries.</p>
<p>. . .</p>
<p>The IAU does not consider itself as having a monopoly on the naming of celestial objects — anyone can in theory adopt names the way they choose. However, given the publicity and emotional investment associated with these discoveries, worldwide recognition is important and the IAU offers its unique experience for the benefit of a successful public naming process (which must remain distinct, as in the past, from the scientific designation issues).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The IAU may reach out to the public for naming suggestions, or it may taken case-by-case suggestions by individuals. So while Batygin and Brown can call the ninth planet whatever they want - <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/evidence-grows-for-giant-planet-on-fringes-of-solar-system-1.19182" rel="nofollow noreferrer">they've informally referred to it as &quot;Phattie&quot;</a> - public consensus will largely rest on the results of the IAU's decision, which could, of course, end up taking a suggestion of the pair.</p>
<p>Anyone can come up with a suggestion, although <a href="http://xkcd.com/1253/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sometimes that's a terrible idea</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T01:57:37.630Z
That it is called Phattie is sweet, but that it was mistaken by the NY Times as "Fatty," also makes me laugh <- but not in a mean-spirited way.
Mikey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-05T17:00:34.963Z
"Fattie" is my nickname  :)
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-03T21:45:29.783Z
2016-03-04T01:06:29.890Z
2020-06-17T09:47:40.653Z
HDE 226868
<p>This would probably be a unique situation. Never in the era of the IAU has the existence of a space body been predicted prior to discovery.</p>

<p>The standard rule is that priority in naming goes to the team that discovers an object. In the scenario you describe, discovery would mean locating the object and determining its orbit. The statistical evidence for a planet nine is interesting, but far from overwhelming, and the team cannot be said to have discovered a planet. </p>

<p>However as this would be a unique situation, the IAU may choose to ignore its own protocols, and to consult more widely than normal, to seek a consensus among astronomers on the name. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T03:21:18.043Z
"Never in the era of the IAU has the existence of a space body been predicted prior to discovery." The IAU was founded before the discovery of Pluto. All kinds of people had predicted that Pluto should exist -- perhaps not precisely enough?
David Richerby
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-05T17:15:42.197Z
I would disagree. There was a prediction of a "planet X" that was causing perturbations of the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. But this was not a prediction of the existence of Pluto, which is much to small to have been planet X, and more accurate analysis of the orbit of Uranus shows that there is no anomaly.
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-05T17:19:37.063Z
That's what I meant by "perhaps not precisely enough?"
David Richerby
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-03T21:54:24.447Z
2016-03-03T21:54:24.447Z
James K
<p>There will be a complex system of voting to decide on the best name, and the suggestions will come from worldwide sources amidst a media frenzy for a while, the media will sensationalize the naming of the planet. </p>

<p>It may be a 9 year old girl from a school than names a new planet if it is found.</p>

<p>Planet nine will probably be the place holder name for a while because it sounds ok, unless the media quotes another famous source who suggests a good name. The media will play a large part on publicising all the suggested names and the naming competition, so it's very much an astronomy PR game.</p>

<p>Probably the name of another planet would not become official for a good many years after it's discovery.</p>

<p>the story will perhaps be similar to the naming of Pluto:</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Name" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Name</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-05T14:35:27.863Z
"Boaty McBoatface" is not taken: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/boaty-mcboatface/
Wayfaring Stranger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-05T11:03:49.860Z
2016-11-05T11:03:49.860Z
bandybabboon
<p>According to Wikipedia, "On 20 January 2016, researchers Konstantin Batygin and Michael E. Brown at Caltech announced calculation-based evidence of a massive ninth planet in the Solar System."</p>

<p>If visual evidence or another researcher <strong>confirms</strong> the existence of Planet Nine, does the <em>actual</em> discovery warrant naming rights, or would this go to our Caltech friends?</p>

<p>I know from <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10213/naming-of-the-planets-of-the-solar-system">this question's answer</a>, that: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Since the beginning of the 20th century the IAU is setting the standards for naming celestial bodies including planets. However, the <strong>IAU doesn't set the names</strong>, it only sets the standards."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Does the 'discoverer,' or the 'confirmer' get to name (theoretical) Planet Nine?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T03:04:36.867Z
But can there even be a ninth "planet"?  It's not going to have cleared it's orbital.
Loren Pechtel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T04:41:09.873Z
@LorenPechtel - I don't know; I am only going from what I can find.  It appears to have an enormous orbit, and dimensions about the size of 2x Earth - speculatively.
Mikey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T04:45:31.997Z
@LorenPechtel - I just don't know what "it's not going to have cleared it's orbital," means.  What I'm reading is that this calculation-based possible planet orbits, although mostly beyond the Kuiper belt.  Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see what you mean
Mikey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T04:53:59.043Z
Planets are bodies massive enough to be round, orbit the sun and have cleared the other material from their orbit.  (This is why Pluto got demoted--it's orbit isn't cleared, it's really just one of the bigger bodies in the orbit.)  Something far beyond Pluto can't possibly have cleared it's orbit even if it's far more massive than Pluto--and hence can't be a planet.
Loren Pechtel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-04T20:16:01.040Z
The discovery of something like a super earth in the outer Solar System that has not cleared its orbit will reopen the planet definition argument. There will be a strong case that a substantial body qualifies as something other than a dwarf planet. So it will have to be in a new category of its own or the definition of planet will have to change again.
Conrad Turner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-09T15:59:30.990Z
Just an FYI. For anybody that doesn't know, the name Pluto was suggested by an eleven year old girl. Of course, it had to be recommended to members of the astronomy community and gain universal acceptance (ie. planets named after appropriate characters in Greek and Roman mythology). Somehow, I'm afraid Phattie won't fit the bill. That being said, it was the staff of Lowell Observatory (where Tombaugh made the discovery) who had naming rights and opened it up for worldwide suggestions.
Jack R. Woods
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-05T11:43:16.420Z
@LorenPechtel The definition of "cleared its orbit" isn't really set in stone, and all proposals for it depend on the object's mass.  Therefore Pluto might not qualify as clearing its orbit at its current mass, but if it were 10x the mass of Earth it might--even if everything else was the same.  Indeed, by Soter's criterion Pluto currently has a "planetary discriminant" on the order of .1, and earth is ~450 times heavier than Pluto.  So a 10 earth mass Pluto would have a discriminant of ~450, which exceeds Soter's proposal of 100 as the minimum for a planet.
zibadawa timmy
<planet><naming>
Who gets to name Planet Nine if it is confirmed?
Mikey
# Who gets to name Planet Nine if it is confirmed?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-03)

According to Wikipedia, "On 20 January 2016, researchers Konstantin Batygin and Michael E. Brown at Caltech announced calculation-based evidence of a massive ninth planet in the Solar System."

If visual evidence or another researcher **confirms** the existence of Planet Nine, does the *actual* discovery warrant naming rights, or would this go to our Caltech friends?

I know from [this question's answer](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10213/naming-of-the-planets-of-the-solar-system), that:

> "Since the beginning of the 20th century the IAU is setting the standards for naming celestial bodies including planets. However, the **IAU doesn't set the names**, it only sets the standards."

**Does the 'discoverer,' or the 'confirmer' get to name (theoretical) Planet Nine?**

**Tags:** planet, naming

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: But can there even be a ninth "planet"?  It's not going to have cleared it's orbital.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - I don't know; I am only going from what I can find.  It appears to have an enormous orbit, and dimensions about the size of 2x Earth - speculatively.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - I just don't know what "it's not going to have cleared it's orbital," means.  What I'm reading is that this calculation-based possible planet orbits, although mostly beyond the Kuiper belt.  Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see what you mean  
> **username_1**: Planets are bodies massive enough to be round, orbit the sun and have cleared the other material from their orbit.  (This is why Pluto got demoted--it's orbit isn't cleared, it's really just one of the bigger bodies in the orbit.)  Something far beyond Pluto can't possibly have cleared it's orbit even if it's far more massive than Pluto--and hence can't be a planet.  
> **username_2**: The discovery of something like a super earth in the outer Solar System that has not cleared its orbit will reopen the planet definition argument. There will be a strong case that a substantial body qualifies as something other than a dwarf planet. So it will have to be in a new category of its own or the definition of planet will have to change again.  
> **username_3**: Just an FYI. For anybody that doesn't know, the name Pluto was suggested by an eleven year old girl. Of course, it had to be recommended to members of the astronomy community and gain universal acceptance (ie. planets named after appropriate characters in Greek and Roman mythology). Somehow, I'm afraid Phattie won't fit the bill. That being said, it was the staff of Lowell Observatory (where Tombaugh made the discovery) who had naming rights and opened it up for worldwide suggestions.  
> **username_4**: @username_1 The definition of "cleared its orbit" isn't really set in stone, and all proposals for it depend on the object's mass.  Therefore Pluto might not qualify as clearing its orbit at its current mass, but if it were 10x the mass of Earth it might--even if everything else was the same.  Indeed, by Soter's criterion Pluto currently has a "planetary discriminant" on the order of .1, and earth is ~450 times heavier than Pluto.  So a 10 earth mass Pluto would have a discriminant of ~450, which exceeds Soter's proposal of 100 as the minimum for a planet.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-03-03. Score: 4

The cited answer is correct insofar as the IAU is not the body that makes names of celestial bodies official. However, it's authority is implicit because it is recognized by the astronomical community and the public as the foremost authority on astronomical naming, and thus the names the IAU adopts are the ones most commonly used in the scientific community (excluding objects referred to by their catalog numbers).

From [one of their information pdfs](http://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/):

> The IAU has been the official arbiter of planetary and satellite naming since its inception in 1919. The IAU’s decisions are officially adopted by the nearly 11 000 professional astronomers who are its members, coming from more than 90 countries.
>
> . . .
>
> The IAU does not consider itself as having a monopoly on the naming of celestial objects — anyone can in theory adopt names the way they choose. However, given the publicity and emotional investment associated with these discoveries, worldwide recognition is important and the IAU offers its unique experience for the benefit of a successful public naming process (which must remain distinct, as in the past, from the scientific designation issues).

The IAU may reach out to the public for naming suggestions, or it may taken case-by-case suggestions by individuals. So while Batygin and Brown can call the ninth planet whatever they want - [they've informally referred to it as "Phattie"](http://www.nature.com/news/evidence-grows-for-giant-planet-on-fringes-of-solar-system-1.19182) - public consensus will largely rest on the results of the IAU's decision, which could, of course, end up taking a suggestion of the pair.

Anyone can come up with a suggestion, although [sometimes that's a terrible idea](http://xkcd.com/1253/).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That it is called Phattie is sweet, but that it was mistaken by the NY Times as "Fatty," also makes me laugh <- but not in a mean-spirited way.  
> **username_6**: "username_6" is my nickname  :)  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2016-03-03. Score: 3

This would probably be a unique situation. Never in the era of the IAU has the existence of a space body been predicted prior to discovery.

The standard rule is that priority in naming goes to the team that discovers an object. In the scenario you describe, discovery would mean locating the object and determining its orbit. The statistical evidence for a planet nine is interesting, but far from overwhelming, and the team cannot be said to have discovered a planet.

However as this would be a unique situation, the IAU may choose to ignore its own protocols, and to consult more widely than normal, to seek a consensus among astronomers on the name.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: "Never in the era of the IAU has the existence of a space body been predicted prior to discovery." The IAU was founded before the discovery of Pluto. All kinds of people had predicted that Pluto should exist -- perhaps not precisely enough?  
> **username_7**: I would disagree. There was a prediction of a "planet X" that was causing perturbations of the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. But this was not a prediction of the existence of Pluto, which is much to small to have been planet X, and more accurate analysis of the orbit of Uranus shows that there is no anomaly.  
> **username_8**: That's what I meant by "perhaps not precisely enough?"  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2016-11-05. Score: 2

There will be a complex system of voting to decide on the best name, and the suggestions will come from worldwide sources amidst a media frenzy for a while, the media will sensationalize the naming of the planet.

It may be a 9 year old girl from a school than names a new planet if it is found.

Planet nine will probably be the place holder name for a while because it sounds ok, unless the media quotes another famous source who suggests a good name. The media will play a large part on publicising all the suggested names and the naming competition, so it's very much an astronomy PR game.

Probably the name of another planet would not become official for a good many years after it's discovery.

the story will perhaps be similar to the naming of Pluto:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Name>

> **Comments:**
> **username_10**: "Boaty McBoatface" is not taken: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/boaty-mcboatface/  

---

