Talk:Pluto/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Archived

I'm not sure that archiving everything was necessary, but this talk page was far too large and new comments were being added all over the place. If anyone feels some of the topics should have stayed here, feel free to haul them out of Archive 3. --ajn (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Details

Perhaps I'm blind to finding differences between two identical pictures, but could anyone please draw arrows showing Pluto's movement between the two photographic plates? Thanks. GVidal 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not you going blind. :-) I had similar difficulties, too. My best guess is that the second picture may have been cropped. I know I've seen the original photographs, which had an arrow in both of them. That's why I think the second picture we use here is cropped. I'll see if perhaps I can locate a better copy of the original photographs that we can use. Dsf 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found what appears to be the original photos with clear arrows that I saw years ago. I found several sources for them. What's the problem? The photographs may be held by copyright (as part of a larger body of work) by the various textbook authors/publishers and possibly the Lowell Observatory. So, legally, I would guess that an official request made by someone from the Wikipedia Project might hold water if they were to ask copyright owners for permission to use the improved photographs here.

Alternatively, we can try asking the Lowell Observatory if a) they're willing to authorize its inclusion here, and b) willing to send someone a copy of the photos (or offer a download link). Had it been NASA, no problem there with redistribution of NASA photographs without prior permission. But the Lowell Observatory is a privately-funded institution, so...

For reference, here are the Pluto discovery photographs: http://cseligman.com/text/planets/plutodisc.jpg and http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Explore_figs_5/Chapter1/fig1_26.jpg Dsf 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet Status

Probably shouldn't be going with the dwarf planet status just yet as the controversy hasn't yet died down, despite what the IAU wants to think. For one, there is the definition that a planet has cleared it's stellar neighborhood of debris. If that is so, then there is not a single planet in this solar system as all still get struck by stellar debris on a regular basis. For another, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/sc_nm/space_pluto_dc

How was Pluto found? Even though Pluto is one of the furthest planets away from the Earth it can still be seen. The first shot of it was taken by the Hubba Space Telescope. This telescope is one of the worlds biggest and best for looking into space.

The first shots of it were taken by its discoverer, and there are MANY objects at pluto orbit (some MUCH smaller than pluto, and other about pluto size which can be seen), just coz u can see it doesnt mean its a planet, else every asteroid we see would be a planet :P -- Nbound 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the IAU, "orbital clearing" means domination in an object's neighborhood. For example, Jupiter has thousands of asteroids that share its orbit (Trojan asteroids), but it is several orders of magnitude more massive than them. The asteroids don't much move Jupiter, but the Trojans and in fact the whole main asteroid belt feel the gravity of Jupiter. The wording was selected to make it more understandable to a layman, a poor choice in my opinion. However, I don't think the IAU will soon change its definition even if there's a "mutiny". However, if nobody adopts the definition, it becomes a dead letter. Only time will tell, and until that we should stick on the IAU definition, because it's the only official one.--JyriL ^talk 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many comments on the Wiki to the effect that "no planet has cleared its orbit" and I find it silly in the extreme. Jyril makes the point that matters most in "clearing:" orders of magnitude. The asteroid belt in total is 1/1000 Earths. Ceres, by far the largest known asteroid, is around 1/6000th of Earth mass. Multiply Ceres by 2 million and you have Jupiter. Saying that Jupiter hasn't cleared its orbit because of Trojans is like saying I'm not the only person in an empty room because of mosquitos buzzing around the window screen. I actually think, despite it being the most debatable point, that the IAU was spot-on in their wording. If Alan Stern wants a quixotic quest to denounce the definition, good for him. The definition will stick. And, in its small way, Wikipedia (or at least Wiki-like sources) will make it stick. It's a dwarf planet until the IAU says otherwise :). Marskell 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason Jupiter's Trojans are there is BECAUSE of Jupiter's Gravity -- they occupy the Lagrangian points and are also thus locked 1:1 resonance with Jupiter. On clearing the neighbourhood it can be seen there is a several-order-of-magnitude difference between how well the planets have "cleared" and how well the minor planets have "cleared", none of the minor planets even make up more than a 1/3 of the mass in their entire orbit, and the one that does make up 1/3 is Ceres not Pluto or Xena -- Nbound 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Touche. Ceres is the only one that comes close, and even it doesn't come close. Marskell 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can Charon still be considered a moon now that Pluto's status is no longer that of a planet??? Wmgries 9:27 PM, September 3, 2006

Something doesn't have to be a planet to have moons, there are many asteroids which even have moons... the main problem with the charon = moon or double planet (with pluto) is the whole barycentre thing. The IAU will probably make Charon a dwarf planet candidate if it beleives in needs to be reclassifed -- Nbound 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason the rule about a planet clearing its orbit disqualifies Pluto is that it crosses Neptune's orbit. So if Pluto has not cleared its orbit, then neither has Neptune. I don't think Pluto can be considered a "mosquito" compared to Neptune, since I would guess a collision would destroy both of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.231.161 (talk)

Well, Neptune is about 8000 times more massive than Pluto. But from an orbital clearing point of few, the largest object Neptune has failed to clear is 8000 times lighter than Neptune (apart from the fact that Pluto is in orbital resonance with Neptune anyways), while the largest object Pluto has failed to clear is 8000 times heavier than itself... --Stephan Schulz 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro

I am very much opposed to the definition debate becoming the intro, or at least the first part of it (the lead of the LEDE). It's not a good thing IMO that we can have a thousand edits in two weeks and no one sees fit to mention composition. After a couple of edits, the lead now details: orbital distance, a comparative to the Moon on mass, composition, orbital details, comparison to satellites. This is a sound way to introduce an astronomical body I hope.

After that, the designation debate is discussed. Of course, it should be here and be given due weight, but it shouldn't be the only thing matters. Pluto is going to be a fifth the mass of the moon regardless of how we classify it. Info of that sort should be the first info we introduce. Marskell 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Protest over Pluto Demotion

I started the topic before, and I still think it needs to be included in the finished article. There is still anger over the demotion of Pluto to dwarf. There is a massive petition under way to the IAU and protests. For example: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep02/0,4670,PlutoProtest,00.html I think this should be reflected. The "Save" Pluto Movement is still strong.

Michel69.156.68.239 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Fox news reports "about" 50 people held a good-natured protest at the university where Tombaugh founded the astronomy department. This is trivia, and the word "demotion" is indicative of the problem - people are anthropomorphising lumps of rock. Petitions are about making people feel good, they aren't going to change the decisions of professional bodies. --ajn (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Accept the people in the article are themselves professionals. And it's less about a professional body and more about who can and can not discover a planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.146.215 (talk • contribs)

"Who can and can not discover a planet"? What on earth has the IAU decision got to do with that? --ajn (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Information like that should only be added if its "re-promoted", theres no point writing info on something that will be dead in a few months. -- Nbound 23:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

this is very important: Planetary scientists (the people who really study planets) and some other astronomers will continue to use the word planet. Not really a surprise, as these people are interested in the object itself and not really its orbit, unless it is useful for studying seasons. I really think this article is POV, not because of the dwarf thing but because it is really unbalanced, it always has been even when it was classified as a planet, now it is even worse. I know there is a very strong anti-Pluto bias in this wikipedia and a POV tag will be simply removed, and the issues not solved. Besides science is not voted. The issue is that they don't want so many planets, because the discoverers will be less important, see the 2003 UB313 article, it seems the Brown's personal page with useless discussion about Lila, etc... --Pedro 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced that documenting a protest (regardless of its merits) has a place in an encyclopedia unless it touches off subsequent significant events. Right now, protests against Pluto's reclassification has not caused a significant subsequent historical event to happen as a result. Will the fact that this was protested still have meaning in a century from now, when people reads over our work? When you look in old and modern encyclopedias, do you see a mention of protests over reclassification of Ceres from planetary status?

Protests do seem to be worth documenting if they cause or are part of a larger subsequent historical event, such as the Boston Tea Party being a precursor to the American Revolution. Keep in mind that it does not matter what I personally think of the decision to reclassify Pluto; just need to make sure things lives up to WP's editing standards. One has to be careful in honoring WP:NPOV, as well. Dsf 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And if anything every comes of the protests then document it... but if nothing does theres no point. And Pedro i doubt astronomers care abotu how important they are from discovering planets, the fact is there is a clear difference between these smaller "planet-like" objects, and the "true" planets. The debate has been raging for over a decade and it is good they have finally reached a non-arbitary consensus. -- Nbound 23:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe there were no protests oven Ceres reclassification in the 19th century, at least with a scientific ground as they could not see Ceres disk, in telescopes it was star-like not planet-like. But recently there were scientists that said that Ceres was really a planet, although Ceres has changed its status to a better one (leaving space rocks behind, I wasn't expecting that so soon... ), and rocks are now classified as rocks not as minor planets, Pluto is really a issue. The problem is not being a dwarf, but a dwarf planet not being a planet. I'm 100% sure that this article does not have a NPOV. But I won't put the POV tag, because that will be useless. But people should think twice or review the article. The first IAU definition cleared things; the last one blurred (they just wanted a definition because they saw that in different countries people would start calling planet to more/less objects, and sooner or later we would have countries recognizing 12 planets, other 8, other 3, others 30), besides voters did not want too many planets, but their desires do not change nature. But that's my opinion. I'm not asking my opinion to be added to the article, but an important section of scientists that study planets are against this definition, that is not merely a petition, remember we are talking about science not politics.--Pedro 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this resolution will stop study of the dwarf planets, its a reclassification, not a demotion to a lesser status, besides Pluto and Ceres will both have probes visiting within the next decade, and even the dwarf planet candidate Vesta will have a probe visit. And the ones to the bodies in the asteroid belt were decided before the IAU passed this resolution for Ceres to be reclassified -- Nbound 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The professional protest over the planet definition. There are several hundred astronomers who refuse to use the new definition. ^_^ http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060831_planet_definition.html ...and also,

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new definition in the next 3 years that not only keeps Pluto as a ice dwarf planet, but includes Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Ceres as "dwarf terrestrial planet" Earth has more in common with Ceres than it does Jupiter. But if Sedna is alone, yet round, we're going to have fun! All this to say that this article is being edited well. Cheers! Hopquick 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because a few hundred astronomers refuse to use the new definition, doesn't mean that study of dwarf planets will stop. First, it's only a few hundred astronomers. There are more than a few hundred students studying astronomy at the local University. A few hundred astronomers are replaceable. But even those few hundred shouldn't just stop studying something just because other people don't think they should be named the same thing. If they stop studying because of the IAU decision, then IMNSHO, they aren't Scientists. All this discussion reminds me of the discussions over Relational databases. The scientists had a great definition for "relational database", and the rest of the world started following this new definition by Larry Ellison et. al. But that hasn't stopped the study of so-called "Truly relational datbases", in fact, because of their dedication to the cause, it has actually increased it. But, if you think that the article is not NPOV, then be WP:BOLD, fix it. Personally, I think that the article doesn't need more referencing of the controversy, but I wouldn't revert a change that expounds on it more. McKay 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It probably belongs in definition of a planet, with a link on this page to the protest subheader of that.Hopquick 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my point. If we can't agree here. Imagine what it's like their out there beyond the "wiki". Ask most people and they think the IAU is crazy. Personally I think the new Pluto article should mention disagreement, regardless of how you feel, it's a fact that people disagree. It’s a controversial decision, and any encyclopaedia would mention it. You can see the divisons here. I know this is not an exhaustive list...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Is_Pluto_a_Planet_Astronomers_Vote_JHU_Takes_Straw_Poll_999.html http://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/scizone/brainz/hamilton/pluto_vote.asp http://scienceline.org/polls/ http://www.pollpub.com/do-you-believe-pluto-should-be-a-planet.aspx http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2006/aug/pluto/ http://www.dpolls.com/PollPage.aspx?PollID=9659 http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/science/article/0,1713,BDC_2432_4389495,00.html http://www.focusmag.co.uk/voteList.asp?item_ID=20031

Michel 69.156.70.56 11:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't understand at all why is there so many noise in US about the Pluto status? Science is "the state of the art" of the human comprehension of nature. And of course it can changes. Newton theory was the state of the art until Einstein. Pluto was considered as a planet. It is not now. The god of the hells remains in his kingdom.

That last point is good. Clearly Pluto has not been 'demoted', it's just had its category changed, the suggestion of 'demotion' is just media hype. This is no different from when horticultiuralists find new evidence and change the categorisation of a plant species - which happens quite often. In this case the new evidence has accumulated over the past several years that Pluto is one of many similar bodies, and also that it is much smaller than originally thought. Dwarfplanets.org.uk 06:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, 134340 Pluto was merely reclassified :) -- Nbound 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The fightback begins...

This is what this article says:

1. 300 astronomers have signed a "petition" (not actually a petition, as it is not petitioning anyone to do anything). The petition says that they disagree with the IAU decision, and will not use the new definition of "planet". It doesn't say anything about Pluto. Everyone has signed as an individual, not as a representative of any other organisation.
2. The petition organisers are "hoping to" organise a conference next year to come up with another definition of "planet". Not necessarily to reinclude Pluto, but to define the term by what they feel is a better method. The article says that although the astronomers quoted want to expand the number of objects considered planets, others disagree with them (obviously, or there'd be no point in having a discussion).
3. The IAU (the official body) cannot change the decision until 2009 when it has its next general assembly. The "petition" admits this.

How do we get from that to "parts of NASA" actively working to have the decision overturned? Wishful thinking. --ajn (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct Andrew. The IAU is the governing body here. It is internationally recognized by astronomers and nations as the official authority responsible for naming stars. Sure, 300 people think that the definition is wrong. The comment "equal to the number of IAU voters" is also wrong. The people who made the decision are the authorities. If 300 English professors get together and sign a petition saying that the letter 'y' should be considered a number, and not a letter, they would be wrong. Maybe it's notable, and should be included in wikipedia. (if the event gets significan't press coverage) But they are still wrong. In this case, the petition doesn't even mention Pluto in their petition. They don't even claim to object with the classification of pluto as a dwarf planet. What they do claim, is that the definition is not sufficient and that they won't use it. So, all such complaints should be logged in Definition of "planet", or 2006 redefinition of planet. Any further comments here are rightfully going to be removed. McKay 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. 300 people are objecting to the redefinition. 247 voted for the redefinition. Basic math does apply here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding the bit about NASA. Please peruse NASA's New Horizon's website. They repeatedly refer to Pluto as a planet and the ninth planet on the site. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA does not determine what is what. -- Nbound 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No but they do have a say in what is what. As do more then the 247 members of a 9400 member organization. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Nasa Horizon page Pluto is not a planet according to NASA. Sure, there may be old pages that call pluto a planet, but old pages don't mean that that's what they belive. I've got some old documents that claim that I'm 16 years old. Just because I haven't burned them, or crossed out the number 16, and replaced it with the correct number, doesn't mean that I think I'm still 16. Also, let me explain to you how the IAU works, because it appears as if you don't understand. The IAU is the International Astronomers Union. Certain countries become members, as well as certain individuals. These countries are members via their national astronomical organization. [lettre=U For the United States, this is the] National http://www.nas.edu/ Academies]. They consist of National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. When it is said that "The IAU also serves as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies and any surface features on them." That means that the United States as a government (and the UK, Japan, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada, China, France, Indonesia, Brazil and a plethora of others) call them the authority on this matter. 300 independent astronomers means nothing. 300 unified astronomers means nothing. When JohnnyBGood says "the 247 members of a 9400 member organization", that is a serious underrepresentation. Those 9400 members represent billions of people on the earth (just the countries I listed above represent over 3.3 billion people). Just like if your congressmen vote for (or against) something. It can become law, and because you live in a society that believes in representation. you should adhere to their decisions. Sure, "When in the course of human events..." you can protest if you feel necessary. But until those protests come through. You're going to have to deal with it. No, NASA does not have a say in what is what. They have relegated that privilage to the IAU. What does NASA DO? "In one sense, it's very simple: NASA explores. NASA discovers. NASA seeks to understand. To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for more than 45 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?" Not "What we will call what we find." NASA does not name and classify objects in space. McKay 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• McKay, stop fantasising, please remember, you and others: THIS IS NOT POLITICS! every scientist has something to say on this. And that is an important group of astronomers and planetary scientists, even if they were not so many, they would still be important. I received the info on NH and it is very clear that for them the new categorization of Pluto didn't occur. They said nothing about it, even if, they sent info when the IAU GA occurred and that Pluto would remain a planet under the original draft. Remain your discutions within science. It is obvious that the IAU definition is very important, but it is not the bible. Did you saw a later map of the interior of the solar system, or like many you just saw a classic version of it? you would be shocked with the "inner solar system scattered disk". --Pedro 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Pedro, you and others need to realize THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! In Science, you can't just vote on something. If a whole bunch of scientists, even all of them, got together, and agreed that the moon was made of cheese. They would be wrong. This is Language. In order for a group of people to communicate, it is important that they are all talking about the same thing. If I invent a new word, I can't expect that everyone will know what I mean. With regards to scientific nomenclature, certain things need very specific definitions for scientists to be able to communicate. When I use words like "Difference equation" in my research, I mean something very specific. When I use π in an equation, it is generally understood exactly what I mean, even though most people can't give me an exact value for it. Astronomy is in a little of a special case. Thousands of objects are discovered each year. We need a body to name and classify them. For this purpose the IAU was created. They are internationally recognized as the body for making decisions of astronomical nomenclature. When they say an object should be named 2003 UB₃₁₃, and not Xena. They are correct, and everyone needs to agree with it. Everyone can't choose their own names for things or it would get out of hand. That's why we have the IAU. When they make a decision, it is important that everyone adheres to it. Sure scientists can say "we need more clarification here", but at the end of the day, we need to agree on what words mean. Otherwise I could say something like "Americans are stupid", but when I say "stupid", I mean "intelligent", because I disagree with Oxford's definition of "stupid" it just isn't clear enough for me.
  • I don't really think you read the article on the new horizons page. It states clearly, "When it launched in January 2006 it was with all the prestige of the first spacecraft to study Pluto, the last unvisited planet in the solar system. That changed seven months later, when astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. For the time being, New Horizons is at least the first mission to a dwarf planet -- the new class of objects into which scientists dumped Pluto." They state rather plainly that "New Horizons is [a] mission to a dwarf planet". NASA conforms to the definition. They may not like it, but they conform. McKay

• Alan Stern has a new release on the Pluto-New Horizons website. PI Perspective Key quote: "The New Horizons project, like a growing number of the public, and many hundreds if not thousands of professional research astronomers and planetary scientists, will not recognize the IAU's planet definition resolution of Aug. 24, 2006." - Taka2007 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to note Alan Stern's bias here - it appears to me that (at least to an extent) the idea of the New Horizons mission was sold to the US administration by pointing out that it was the only unvisited planet. Dwarfplanets.org.uk 13:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy moved?

Yes, I acknowledge that there is controversy, and that it is notable, and that it should be mentioned in wikipedia, but I don't think it belongs here. Definition of Planet or 2006 redefinition of planet. Any real qualms if I move that content there? In any case, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and be extremely strict on the rules. McKay 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:IAU planet debate

I have added Category:IAU planet debate for what I hope is obvious reasons, but personally I consider Pluto's "demotion" to be based on pseudoscience which I hope is rectified very soon. The Fading Light 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet number

Looks like Pluto is going to get a minor planet numbering, see http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/MPDes.html . Write "(D4340)" into the text field (with parenthesis, without quotation marks). The code is a packed number meaning Pluto's minor planet number will be 136563 134340. Note that the provisional designation is wrong (Pluto does not have one). The code of 2003 UB313 is (D6199).--JyriL ^talk 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. But it says that (D4340) Pluto is just 5628 T-3 aka asteroid 134339. But it also says that for (D4339). Can anyone explain that? Derek Balsam 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably a glitch in the software — Pluto doesn't have a preliminary designation, so the previous designation is duplicated.--JyriL ^talk 15:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been updated. Just type Pluto and you get (134340) Pluto.--JyriL ^talk 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So I see, thanks. I see also that its alternative designation is "X". Now that is funny. Derek Balsam 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wish that it would be DP1 Ceres since it was first...then DP2 being whichever was discovered next...it might be one of the 3 big asteroids. The number thing means that "they're just pretending it's a dwarf planet" -- Dwarf Planet = Asteroid :( 70.177.71.206 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is (134340) Pluto official? If it is then someone should just be WP:BOLD and move it. :( 70.177.71.206 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is official and confirmed (I just wrote about it but you caused an edit conflict ;) ). Let's not move this page until the numbers are properly announced in an MPEC.--JyriL ^talk 16:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The page shouldn't be moved. Wikipedia convention is that the most common name is used for the article title - there is no point in moving pages around just for the sake of it (you'll be creating a few dozen double redirects, for starters), and nobody is going to be calling it "134340 Pluto". --ajn (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew - the page should remain at Pluto. By all means, have the number in the lead. However, renaming it needlessly complicates things, especially with regards to redirects. More importantly, it doesn't matter what Pluto is classified as - the history and cultural status alone would suggest that it remain here (along with an appropriate redirect, of course!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that Pluto got such a dial number it is unlikely it will become widely used (and why it should?)--JyriL ^talk 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I third that notion. Common names insists the article should remain where it is. No one will be calling it by some novel dwarf planet designation. The rock has been "Pluto" for 80 years and common usage will not change just because a few scientists have reclassified it's planetary status for the time being. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a few scientists? Face the fact, Pluto is not a planet. There was a voting and those who wanted to vote did so. I don't think that it was a conspiracy of some anti-Plutonists.--JyriL ^talk 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

247 scientists out of 9400 at the IAU hardly constitutes a large portion of planetary scientists. Over 300 have openly expressed dismay with the results. You can bet this issue will be revisited again in 2009 when the IAU meets again. In the meantime however WP policy dictates that Pluto should stay at Pluto. It may have been demoted, but the name is still dominant and will remain so. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm...so 300 out of 9400 have complained, leaving 9100 who are happy with the result (no, I'm not seriously claiming that, just pointing out that these numbers are useless). While the new definition may be revised, a definition that excludes Pluto is much more reasonable than one that includes it, but not the other KBOs. --Stephan Schulz 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue that point. But who is to say in 2009 those 9100 won't want to revisit the 12 planet concept? Frankly the new definition is too flawed to stand as is since no existing "planet" save marginally the 4 gas giants meet it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to write off the IAU's definition as flawed. There are ways to define "clearing the neighbourhood" that give clear and unambiguous results in line with the IAU's current planet/dwarf planet list, so until some additional clarification to the contrary comes along it's silly to assume they actually meant something that didn't give those results.

Yes, until you've read about Planetary discriminants don't bad mouth the IAU. McKay 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, though, I don't think it'd be appropriate to move the article at this time. There's no hurry to "finish" it, so might as well wait to see whether consensus develops out in the real world first. Bryan 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not really a "12 planet concept." There's an eight planet concept and a dozens-or-hundreds-of-planets concept. There's a debate whether it would be dozens or hundreds, but i doubt anybody is seriously claiming Ceres, Pluto and Xena are the only non-dominant round bodies in the solar system. 67.168.216.176 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the 9 planet concept. I think 90377 Sedna is a planet under the current IAU ruling. Sadly, we don't know whether it has hydrostatic equilibrium or clearing the neighborhod. But evidence shows that it probably does. It (probably) sits neatly between the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud. And anything beyond the Oort cloud is likely not within the sun's gravitational well. So my vote is 9. McKay 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling Sedna "the ninth planet" because it happens to be the first iceberg discovered in its particular zone would be repeating the Pluto mistake. No "evidence shows" that Sedna is "clearing its neighborhood." Sedna's Λ is tiny, less than 10^–4. 67.168.216.176 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

MPEC 2006-R19 : EDITORIAL NOTICE: It should be noted that, just as some of the numbered objects that have exhibited cometary activity also have designations in the catalogue of numbered periodic comets, the numbering of "dwarf planets" does not preclude their having dual designations in possible separate catalogues of such bodies. --JyriL ^talk 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a point to consider here, is 1 Ceres usually referred to as "1 Ceres" or just "Ceres"? We seem to have some kind of convention going that minor planet articles have titles in the form NUMBER NAME, so to go by the current convention this article should probably move to 134340 Pluto. Of course there is the issue about most commonly used name, but then surely we should move 1 Ceres and lots of the other minor planets as well? Chaos syndrome 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard people call it "1 Ceres", and "Ceres" interchangably. Richard B 09:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen 1 Ceres outside of a scientific context, but then very few people know about Ceres at all. Also note that Ceres exists as an article on the Roman godess, with a soft redirect to 1 Ceres for the celestial body.--Stephan Schulz 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been asking myself this question too. If you ask a mythologist, Ceres means a Greek god. If you ask an astronomer, Ceres means an asteroid. If you ask a layman, they don't know what you're talking about. I think the correct course of action in this case, is to create a disambiguation page, and find some way of disambiguating the two. Convenientally, the asteroid has an offficial designation of 1 Ceres, So the real question is whether Ceres should be a DAB page, or Ceres (disambiguation) should be the DAB page. I think it's fine either way. Pluto has a similar problem, but not with the greek god, instead, it's a disney character (okay, maybe a greek god too). While the dwarf planet is much more common than ceres, the orange dog is Very very common, probably more common than the planet to the layman, I'd guess. I think in all of the cases of these minor planets. Astronomers don't really say 90377 Sedna. They just say Sedna. 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think the number issue here only becomes relevant if we decide that Pluto should be a disambiguation page. In which case I would support moving this article to 134340 Pluto over Pluto (dwarf planet) since, while both would serve equally well to disambiguate, the former has the advantage of being an official designation. Chaos syndrome 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Absolutely agree. Dwarfplanets.org.uk 10:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the number

I hate to be a spoil sport, but all this reaks of lack of Notability. Who is this guy from harvard to decide what the name of Pluto is? Not the IAU that's for sure. Who is this MPEC? There isn't even an article in wikipedia on it. Why? 168 web pages link to it from a total of 4 servers: Wikipedia, Answers.com (wikipedia clone), ulisse.bs.it (don't know who that is), mlahanas.de (another unknown), and the beautiful 131.142.24.68. So We're going to need some more reliable information before we accept this. McKay 03:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with McKay. I have removed this number from the article and template where it has been used. I seriously doubt that any astronomy group is going to give Pluto a number, when it was discovered long before all of these other minor planets. Ryūlóng 00:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually going to agree for now. I can find no other ref that claims this is the number assigned to it that doesn't come from Harvard. In addition it's not really needed in the article. Pluto is pluto. There is little ambiguity about that. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's just a database for Harvard. I don't think the IAU will be renaming Pluto to include these "Minor Planet Numbers". I think that these just cover the Small solar system bodies that aren't planets or dwarf planets. They are making a bad assumption that because one of the minor planets is now a dwarf planet, that all other dwarf planets are minor planets. Ryūlóng 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1 Ceres was discovered 130 years before Pluto and didn't have a number for fifty years. If Eris has to have its number in front, then Pluto should too.The Enlightened 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. It's understandable that it isn't in many popular sources yet - the number seems to have been assigned only a day or so ago. The Harvard site just the host website for the Minor Planet Centre. It's really the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and is the official minor planet numbering body. From their website: The MPC is responsible for the designation of minor bodies in the solar system: minor planets; comets (in conjunction with CBAT); and natural satellites (also in conjunction with CBAT). Basically speaking - if the MPC releases a statement saying that the minor planet number for an object is x, then that's its official minor planet number sanctioned by the IAU - and goes in the official database. Subsequent position coordinates have been released as "(134340) Pluto ....". Whilst we probably don't need it in the title of the article, (134340) Pluto and 134340 Pluto should probably be redirects to Pluto - we should make reference in the article, and the infobox, of it's official number. Richard B 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference in the article, in the second (third?) paragraph of the lead. Now, the infobox, I will try and see where it can fit in. Right now, I'm thinking that this decision in this database is only temporary, unless future IAU literature will refer to "Pluto as "(134340) Pluto" or whatever numbering system they make up for the dwarf planets. Ryūlóng 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the number to the article in the lead, but it is not bolded and it is within the parentheses. Ryūlóng 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a permanent designation - and it's been cited in New Scientist as well as the IAU's MPC. Richard B 01:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I stated before, it's been reincluded in the first line, however I believe that this numbering may change. The IAU may decide that dwarf planets should be numbered differently, depending on how many there will be following any other decisions regarding other minor planets that could be considered dwarf planets, given time. Ryūlóng 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. They may decide to do that in future - but for now, this is its permanent designation. If it gets a separate dwarf planet classification - it will likely keep its current minor planet number - as hinted by the IAU in the cited minor-planet circular (which mentions the possibility of having a dual designation - as dwarf planet and minor planet/SSSB. Richard B 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Crystal balling I believe does not cover not including such information, just the inclusion of such information, which I have never said I will do. I've just reincluded it, but not explicity stated that it is also known as "134340 Pluto." Ryūlóng 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy in this matter is very clear. MPEC is not notable according to the few tests we can perform as to its notability. When over 3/4 of the sites that link to the MPEC are from Wikipedia. It doesn't warrant notability. Any more reliable source and we could put it, but we've yet to see anything. Sure, we can have the redirects, but the content should not state 134340 without a reputable source. And with what information we have MPEC is not reputable enough for wikipedia. McKay 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy. The Minor Planet Center isn't a notable source?

"The Minor Planet Center (MPC) operates at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, under the auspices of Division III of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), with significant funding coming from subscriptions to the various services offered by the Center. The MPC is responsible for the designation of minor bodies in the solar system: minor planets; comets (in conjunction with CBAT); and natural satellites (also in conjunction with CBAT). The MPC is also responsible for the efficient collection, (computation,) checking and dissemination of astrometric observations and orbits for minor planets and comets, via the Minor Planet Circulars (issued generally on a monthly basis), the Minor Planet Circulars Orbit Supplement (MPO) (issued three or four times per year), the Minor Planet Circulars Supplement (MPS) (issued three or four times a month) and the Minor Planet Electronic Circulars (issued as necessary, generally at least once per day)."

What, exactly, would constitute a reliable source if this isn't acceptable?!? --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We haven't seen any other literature relating to this number yet; and the only places that link to the MPEC database are Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors (and some other sites no one has heard of). The Minor Planet Center is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but right now its information is questioned. Ryūlóng 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Type "minor planet center" in Google - the first hit is the MPC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what we're talking about here. Scroll up and see what pages link to the Minor Planet Center [1]. This is why the information is questioned. Ryūlóng 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To sum it up, we are questioning the reliability of the source material. Ryūlóng 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From New Scientist Space:

"Pluto will henceforth be known as minor planet 134340 Pluto, according to a new designation by the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center. The decision to include Pluto among the many asteroids and comets in the minor planet catalog makes official the icy body's recent – and highly controversial – demotion from planethood. Pluto's status was changed from "planet" to "dwarf planet" at a meeting of the IAU in Prague on 24 August. Many astronomers are unhappy with the new planet definition that excludes Pluto and some of them are organising a conference to come up with an alternative definition (see Astronomers plot to overturn planet definition). But the official catalog of small bodies in the solar system is under the authority of the IAU, and it recently added Pluto to its list of minor planets. Tim Spahr, the interim director of the IAU's Minor Planet Center (MPC) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, says this was done for the sake of consistency. That is because the IAU decided that Ceres, an asteroid already in the minor planet catalog, is also a "dwarf planet".

--Ckatz^chat_spy 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. I will add this as a reference, and clean up the lead. Ryūlóng 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Noticed the "move protection" tag - I still think the page should stay as Pluto, as per my comment in that discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree that the page should stay as it is (this is why I have not bolded the numerical designation in the lead, nor in the template). Ryūlóng 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In that vein, I think we're better off with text similar to what was in a few (dozen) edits ago, along the lines of "Pluto, officially known (or "catalogued" or something else) as 134340 Pluto, is..." The common name is still "Pluto", and will no doubt remain as such. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the designation/cataloging/etc. is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead, unless we use a linkspan thing and link the number to the section that describes what the number means. Ryūlóng 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ckatz. This is exactly what I was looking for. Sorry about being so rigid, but I did mention that I would be strict. The purpose for this particular rule is to get good references in wikipedia. I didn't know where the sources were, so by reverting those changes, those (like you), who know where the sources are, can add them. Thanks for your help Ckatz. McKay 04:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the thanks. One piece of advice, though. I can understand your desire to "be strict". However, as with anything, it can be carried too far. In this case, we were saying, effectively, that the IAU body which issues official designations for minor planets isn't an acceptable source for the official designation of a minor planet. You can see how that wouldn't look great to a casual observer... --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that I was wrong here, but in my defense, when I look for sources, I look for external verification. Anyone can say on their own website "I'm the awesomest", so I didn't read much of MPEC's (poorly organized, and poorly written) site. I checked google back links, wikipedia entry on MPEC, even the IAU website, and I couldn't find any evidence that it was official. So I posted a message expressing my concern. Then, after waiting a day, and people had been reverting and adding new references to it, I got strict. Someone said that the MPC was official, but even still, I didn't know that the harvard site was the official MPC, I was thinking that it was possibly some grad student's site where he webified the circulars he recieved.

Wikipedia policy is citing secondary sources, and we didn't have any. So I reverted (after waiting a day). McKay 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've posted on your personal talk page, but I'll add some stuff here as well. MPEC stands for "Minor Planet Electronic Circular". These MPECs are issued by the Minor Planet Center - and Wikipedia *does* have an entry for this. The IAU website says

"When the orbit of a Minor Planet becomes well enough determined that the position can be reliably predicted far into the future (typically this means after the Minor Planet has been observed at four or more oppositions), the Minor Planet receives a permanent designation - number issued sequentially by the Minor Planet Center, for example (433), (4179) or (50000)." It's clear from this that the IAU believe that the MPC can give an object an official number. The IAU is the science's "governing body". Searching google for "Minor Planet Center" received 233,000 links - I bet that's more than many of Wikipedia's other sources. The reason why you received so few links to your previous search is that you were just linking to the catalogue search page. So the MPC is a reliable source: indeed it is the definitive source. Richard B 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead sentence

As for the lead, it still needs work. I think we should go back to what we had a little while ago, something along the lines of:

"Pluto, officially designated 134340 Pluto, is a dwarf planet in the solar system, orbiting 29 - 49 AU from the Sun."

If we want to enhance it a bit, and bring it in line with 2003 UB313, then there's:

"Pluto, officially designated 134340 Pluto, is the second largest known dwarf planet in the solar system, orbiting 29 - 49 AU from the Sun."

Aside from the above, the text definitely needs a tweak towards the end of the sentence:

"Pluto, officially designated 134340 Pluto, is the second largest known dwarf planet in the solar system, orbiting between 29 and 49 AU from the Sun."

I'm not married to "officially designated" - it could be any wording that conveys the idea that what follows ("134340 Pluto") is the object's official title. (Right now, the lead doesn't look very good, or read all that well.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm going to add points 2 and 3 right now. I'll hold off on (1) for a while, so that we can debate it (given the events of the past few days). The others, though, are more basic (and less controversial, I hope!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "officially designated" is necessary for the first sentence (well, at least not bolded if it is mentioned in the first sentence). The other two additions do work, though. Ryūlóng 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to that MPC database thing, they call 1 Ceres "(1) Ceres", but the common name is still Ceres. I would think that for these more recent numerical designations, the pages should remain as they are, but include the numerical designation in the lead between parentheses, without any sort of "officially designated" thing. Ryūlóng 06:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that using normal (non-bold) text for the number looks odd - as if we've forgotten to do it. Better to start with "Pluto", mirroring the article title, and then describe the official designation:

"Pluto (134340 Pluto) is the second largest known dwarf planet..."

(or)

"Pluto (134340 Pluto) is the second largest known dwarf planet..."

(or)

"Pluto (134340 Pluto) is the second largest known dwarf planet..."

(or)

"Pluto (134340 Pluto) is the second largest known dwarf planet..."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 06:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the last. Ryūlóng 06:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully, we'll get some feedback from the other editors as well, given that it is the lead. Thanks for the comment. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked "Pluto, also known as 134340 Pluto," myself. 67.168.216.176 07:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I like "Pluto also known as Planet X and The Unspeakable Planet of Doom", myself. I don't suppose there'll be any support for that though, so the current version's the next best thing. --ajn (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto officially designated (134340) Pluto is.... sounds the most logical. It still conveys the common name that everyone is familiar with - but also says that in the official minor planet catalogue, that it is listed as (134340) Pluto. Richard B 12:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Richard B's idea above -- Nbound 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I prefer as well - although for grammatical purposes there should be commas around the "officially..." phrase, like so:

"Pluto, officially designated (134340) Pluto, is...."

Ryūlóng had concerns about the term "officially designated" - I don't know if that concern still exists, though. Maybe we should seriously consider the "Planet of Doom" option... --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that it is not necessary to state official designation twice in the lead, I will make changes to the lead as follows:

Pluto (designated as 134340 Pluto) is...

How does this minor change that I've already performed look? Ryūlóng 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki Layout Guide suggests that "If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance" - so I think we need the (134340) Pluto bit also in bold. I think we should remove the bolding on the number from the section "After the reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340. "

I'm also wondering whether the intro section has gotten a bit long. Perhaps these could be re-worked into relevant sections (doesn't need to be done right now perhaps). Richard B 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

MINI edit/revert war

There seems to be a few edits removing the minor planet number of Pluto. Can we agree to keep the number? Hopquick 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if we tweak the opening we should keep it. Something like "Pluto, also known as (number) Pluto, blah blah....", would work fine. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the number to the infobox, to be consistent with Ceres. Hopefully this will help with the issue! --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job, JohnnyBGood, on that last edit. Hopquick 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it was for the best since both names are technically correct. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to 134340 Pluto?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Already discussed below at #Move to 134340 Pluto., nothing to see here; move along. Ryūlóng 08:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All the other minor planet pages are listed by their designations. Serendipodous 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is being discussed above. If we follow WP:Common Names then it should remain here. No one is currently using that designation, nor is it universally being applied even by astronomers. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I gathered from the editorial notice (link above), Pluto received a minor planet number because another dwarf planet, Ceres, already has one (and some of the largest asteroids may be reclassified). There may eventually be a new numbering scheme for dwarf planet, but until there are several dozens of dwarf planets, I don't think there will be a need for it. Numbering is important for typical asteroids, but it is obvious that Pluto (nor the other giant TNOs) actually need it.--JyriL ^talk 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just a head up

I reverted a redirect that was done to Article which redirected it for some odd reason to planet. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Editing War

I have painstakingly copied the IAU's resolution on the definition of a planet straight from their website, and each time it has quickly been replaced by the same, squishy, vague(r) "definition" as before. I do not appreciate this, and would like whoever is doing it to stop. I believe that a good compromise would be to have the IAU definition first (with citation, etc., of course), followed by something like "In other words...," followed by the squishy definition. Agreed?Alphabetagamma 03:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No. CovenantD 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not agreed. We can easily summarize the IAU definition without having a verbatim definition of "planet". Joelito (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WHY NOT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Alphabetagamma 03:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't necessary. All we need is the basic criteria. There should be a link to the place where the criteria is fully available, but it doesn't belong here. McKay 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put it here: Alphabetagamma 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary for the talk page, removed. Ryūlóng 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CALIFORNIA FIGHTS FOR PLUTO!!

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/060907_pluto_politics.html

Californian government officials are fighting for Pluto's planetary status!! I say it again people: Pluto may be down, but it sure as hell isn't out!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.117.29.253 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks. This makes my day ;-) --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When will people realise it is a scientific decision... not one of public opinion -- Nbound 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the article (or the proposition). All of it. Seriously. Lawmakers with a clue! --Stephan Schulz 07:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this section... it doesn't harm the Wiki article to have it here, and there is some good information in the Space text. (Apologies to Nbound for dropping the "u" in the edit summary!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't think this decision was a scietific one to begin with. It was more political then anything. The definition of "planet" is entirely arbitrary. For instance Sedna as we know it now fits the current planet description, but the IAU chose to ignore it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. You have amply demonstrated that you do not know or understand what "cleared it's orbit" means.--Stephan Schulz 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know what it means. And Sedna has done exactly that according to current evidence. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree. I don't see a chance to agree, and I don't think its worth trying.--Stephan Schulz 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who hasn't read the Stern and Levison paper and/or the Soter paper probably doesn't know what it means. The WP page on clearing the neighborhood could certainly be further improved. Just because astrophysicists have to use their common sense in figuring out whether an object is at hydrostatic equilibrium or is likely to clear its neighborhood doesn't mean everybody on the street already understands these technical terms.

Sedna's huge orbital zone may or may not happen to be nearly empty for some other weird reason, but Sedna is not large enough to clear its zone just by being there. Sedna is barely larger than Ceres. Even at Mercury's orbit, it would have a Lambda value less than 1, and it would not be a neighborhood-clearer. 67.168.216.176 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Stern-Levison parameter Sedna looks much more like a dwarf planet; I get a Λ/Λ_E ranging from 6.7×10⁻¹² to 8.7×10⁻¹¹ (using the two extremes of the mass estimate given in the Sedna article). The Soter planetary discriminant "μ" is a lot harder to calculate since most of the range of Sedna's orbit hasn't been very thoroughly mapped for other objects, but it ranges from 76 to 975 AU so I expect it crosses paths with a lot of junk. I'm not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt that a 900-AU-wide range of orbits has been cleared by this little iceball. Bryan 23:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke. They're mocking political interference with "scientific heresy." 67.168.216.176 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• WHEREAS, Recent astronomical discoveries, including Pluto's oblong orbit and the sighting of a slightly larger Kuiper Belt object, have led astronomers to question the planetary status of Pluto; and
• WHEREAS, The mean-spirited International Astronomical Union decided on August 24, 2006, to disrespect Pluto by stripping Pluto of its planetary status and reclassifying it as a lowly dwarf planet; and
• WHEREAS, Pluto was discovered in 1930 by an American, Clyde Tombaugh, at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, and this discovery resulted in millions of Californians being taught that Pluto was the ninth planet in the solar system; and
• WHEREAS, Pluto, named after the Roman God of the underworld and affectionately sharing the name of California's most famous animated dog, has a special connection to California history and culture; and
• WHEREAS, Downgrading Pluto's status will cause psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe and worry about the instability of universal constants; and
• WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet renders millions of text books, museum displays, and children's refrigerator art projects obsolete, and represents a substantial unfunded mandate that must be paid by dwindling Proposition 98 education funds, thereby harming California's children and widening its budget deficits; and
• WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet is a hasty, ill-considered scientific heresy similar to questioning the Copernican theory, drawing maps of a round world, and proving the existence of the time and space continuum; and
• WHEREAS, The downgrading of Pluto reduces the number of planets available for legislative leaders to hide redistricting legislation and other inconvenient political reform measures; and
• WHEREAS, The California Legislature, in the closing days of the 2005-06 session, has been considering few matters important to the future of California, and the status of Pluto takes precedence and is worthy of this body's immediate attention; now, therefore, be it
• Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly hereby condemns the International Astronomical Union's decision to strip Pluto of its planetary status for its tremendous impact on the people of California and the state's long term fiscal health; and be it further
• Resolved, That the Assembly Clerk shall send a copy of the resolution to the International Astronomical Union and to any Californian who, believing that his or her legislator is addressing the problems that threaten the future of the Golden State, requests a copy of the resolution.

The entire bill was submitted as a joke. it was never intended to be taken seriously by the author. CovenantD 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

We've got two open discussions above about this. Consensus thus far is to keep it here. Common names dictates the most used name should be where it is located. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New Horizons

"The New Horizons project, like a growing number of the public, and many hundreds if not thousands of professional research astronomers and planetary scientists, will not recognize the IAU's planet definition resolution of Aug. 24, 2006."70.177.71.206 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspectives/piPerspective_current.php. There's no meat to it. He says NH will keep referring to Pluto as the "ninth planet" but then argues again, as he did in 2000, for everything-round-is-a-planet, which would also not leave Pluto at number nine. In 2000 he also argued for a different use of the word "dwarf," but he seems to have gotten over that one. 67.168.216.176 04:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This archive contains the results of two debates regarding moving Pluto to another page name.

Move to 134340 Pluto.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. That's the proper name and all objects of this type should be titled as so. Zazaban 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Please see THREE other discussions on this page. Ryūlóng 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia rules say "the most common name", which certainly is plain Pluto. Also see the previous debate. --Stephan Schulz 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Also, it remains to be seen whether or not, when it comes to dwarf planets, the proper names will necessarily include the minor planet number. JamesFox 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Exactly, and we don't even have any information from the IAU itself (ignoring the MPC) concerning the number in formal literature. Ryūlóng 23:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   The MPC is the IAU's official body for assigning numbers, so in that sense we do have information from the IAU. (Let's not revive the debate as to whether or not the MPC is an official source!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Support as long as the page titled "Pluto" redirects to "134340 Pluto". For disambiguious uses, a "Pluto (disambiguious)" page should be created, and referenced at the top of "134340 Pluto".--Nintenfreak 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - if it isnt moved now it should be moved eventually as all the other MPC listed objects are named as such, there should be some consistency -- Nbound 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Consistency with other minor planet articles. -- Fonzarelli 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support - The status of Pluto has changed. It is no longer a considered to be a planet, and the IAU has changed its proper name to 134340 Pluto. Pluto should now redirect to Pluto (disambiguation), and this article should be listed under its new name there. My only caveat to this is that a coherent policy is needed for the treatment of the dwarf planets in general. Pluto should not be treated any differently than the others. --EMS | Talk 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Like it or not, that's now its designation. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support Just face it. Pluto is a dwarf planet, and the article title should be the actual name of the object, just like the other dwarf planets, and include the number. Stop being emotional about Pluto not being a planet anymore. This is rediculous. Faz90 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the move, as previously stated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

   Why asteroid Xena don´t? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.112.39 (talk • contribs) .

   Because 2003 UB₃₁₃ doesn't have an official name yet. It's just nicknamed Xena. Ryūlóng 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose the move. Nearly everyone in the future will simply search on "Pluto" as precious few will remember the 134340 part. Accordingly, it makes zero sense to re-title the page as this will virtually always simply result in a redirected alert. Just now I searched in Wikipedia for "Eros" and was directed to a disambiguation page. This is completely unnessary for Pluto. Pluto will be a unique case among the asteroids for generations to come. I might support it if doing so doesn't result in a disambiguation page. Greg L 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

   Pluto isn't an asteroid, it's a Kuiper Belt Object ... big difference ... asteroids are rocky, KBOs are icy. --Cyde Weys 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose for the fourth time on this page. Also I'd like to point out that the number is a "minor planet number" while Pluto's primary designation now is that of a dwarf planet, not a minor planet. Pluto's official name under the new dwarf planet category has yet to be determined, for that matter neither has 1 Ceres new designation nor Xena's. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless use of the number with the name become common, which won't be known for months or years. It's certainly not common usage now. --DavidK93 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose--Nixer 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - silly move. FairHair 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - most commonly called Pluto - see WP:NC. It's the same reason that NASA hasn't been moved to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose--Honeymane 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose--Anguirus111 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose--per JohnnyBGood's reasoning with Dysnomia (moon)'s name (see section below: "Several thousand precedents for Wikipedia using the CORRECT name over "popular" name"). In addition, the article on the United States is simply called United States, despite the official name being United States of America (and even the leading sentence titling it "United States of America"). That article had a several separate debates regarding moving to the full name, yet the "United States" article title was kept.--theSpectator _talk 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Very Strongly Oppose The IAU is a Joke. They wait till there are only 424 people left to vote. I strongly oppose moving the Ninth Planet Pluto to some Politically Correct site. MagnumSerpentine 9-16-06
12. Oppose Everybody knows it as Pluto, so it should remain Pluto. Just make sure the actual name with numbers appears as the first thing in the article. E946 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Strongly Oppose A move would be needless pedantry. -- Beardo 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Everyone knows the world as Pluto. Only a select bunch of astronomers give it a full designation, and even then they will colloquially use the current name. aLii 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose In the absence of another naming convention, WP:NC(CN) should be used. Please see the article name for Selachimorpha for example. --Bobblehead 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose The name Pluto has a more than 70 years old historical precedence and it is so much easier to remember than 134...(what was the number again?)...Pluto. Besides, the new and scientifically correct designation is given in the article so why bother? What if the IAU comes up with a new definition of planet 20 years from now? ArthurWeasley 21:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose The name should be Pluto or if not acceptable then Pluto (dwarf_planet). WilliamKF 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Pluto is by far the most commmonly used designation. --Nebular110 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Second strawpoll

The following discussion is an attempt to make a second strawpoll before the first one. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This discussion was following /Archive4#Move to 134340 Pluto? and #Move to 134340 Pluto. and was made after the fact. Ignore any comments below. I am sorry, but this must be done. Ryūlóng 08:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - Eris (formerly known as 2003 UB313) has page 136199_Eris not "Eris", Ceres is on page 1_Ceres, not "Ceres", and many asteroids and planets moons like Titan has page Titan (moon), or asteroid Vesta on page 4_Vesta. Pluto too should be moved to the page [[134340_Homo Cosmosicus 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - We need uniformity. Either all dwarf panets should have their numbers listed in the article name or none should do. Seeing that they are being numbered with other minor planets (rather than their own dwarf planet numbering system) it seems sensible the article names should be the same as the other minor planets.The Enlightened 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree: I don't see the problem, just move it to 134340 Pluto, have a redirect from typing "Pluto" in, and hardly anyone will even notice. First and foremost Wikipedia needs to be impartial and correct. Put the disambiguation link at the top of the article, simple. This shouldn't be something people are getting hot-under-the-collar about. Kris 09:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree: For all the reasons above, and otehrs as mentioned elsewhere -- Nbound 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't quite understand why those that failed to win the below straw-poll have attempted to open this as almost a second straw poll. This talk section should really be removed or closed as it is a prior discussion to the below closed poll. Anyone who is interested enough to make a further comment should go to Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming instead of writing here. aLii 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This debate should be closed and moved to the dwarf talk before we devolve into an endless series of polls that get nowhere. (I think this particular thread started prior to the main debate below, and it has now been resumed post-debate.) The energy should be put into resolving the overall issue, so that we avoid the mess that occured over at Eris. There was a long debate, then the page was moved, a lot of effort went into adjusting links, only to then have to undo it when it turned out someone had moved the page prior to consensus being reached. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: This move would serve no purpose to the article's usability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: Pluto is the common name of this dwarf planet. Numbers are ridiculous, and this discussion has been made way too much; several of these "Agrees" and what not were added ten full days after this was brought up, and then brought up again, and again. Ryūlóng 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As shown at the central naming page common name does not get precedence over scientific names -- Nbound

In fact, this is made after the Requested move, below. Ignore all of this, and move along. Ryūlóng 08:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The mass vs. volume vs. density do not seem to add up.

Good catch Nebular and Art. I was using 2306 on my own papers, I must have read it someplace in the later results on impact of Charon to the old estimates. Anyway, I did some extra checking against data on NASA's planetary fact sheet for Pluto. I still noticed some differences -- mainly in trying to resolve the density value. (www.spds.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html)

1. Mass 1.305x10(power 22) does not match NASA's Pluto Fact Sheet (indicating 1.25 x 10(power 22), but maybe the Wikipedia Page has more up-to-date data? The funny thing is that both NASA (with the different value) and Wikipedia, indicate their masses equal 0.0021 earth masses. NASA = 0.00209 (.0021); Wikipedia = 0.00218 (which is really .0022). Was there a typo somewhere?
2. Wikipedia's Volume of 7.15 x 10(power 9) matches NASA (which is, correct, 0.0066 earth volumes). The surface area on the Wikipedia page (1.795 x 10(power 7) agrees with the mean radius of 1195 km. The former radius listed (1153) resulted in an "off" surface area of 1.67 x 10(power 7). So, I think the correction to the 1195 radius is in greater agreeement with the other data on the page.
3. Wikipedia's Density shows 2.03. NASA's shows 1.75 (my calcs, using the NASA figures, come up with 1.748 -- which is close enough). Using the Wikipedia Pluto values for radius, mass, and volume, however, result in a density of 1.825 (which is not close to the 2.03 value).
4. To get a 2.03 density, but in keeping the radius at 1195 km, we would have to up the mass to about 1.45 x 10(power 22) -- but Charon, Nix, and Hydra might object <grin>.

So maybe we need to update something? Do we need to change the mass to 1.25? Or, if the source data used for the Wikipeidoa Pluto page is more current than NASA's Pluto Plant Fact sheet pages, then one of the values (mass, volume, or density) is incorrect. Tesseract501 8 March 2007

I recommend changing the values to ones that can be verified to come from an authoritative source. If someone wishes to provide more up to date data, it is their responsibility to indicate their source (and the fact that they did not is why we're in this mess). —RP88 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, checking around I find that JPL's physical data for Pluto disagrees with the NASA data (although JPL sources their facts to references dated 1992 and 1996 and we've learned more about the Pluto/Charon system since then). —RP88 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection?

Due to the number of vandals i'm wondering whether we should get this page protected from editing by non-wikipedians ?-- Nbound 10:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of reverts that are needed is certainly getting tiresome. I think protecting the page for a month or so, until most of the public fuzz around Pluto has disappeared, might be a good idea. Kris 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the page for consideration of protection, to a semi-protected level. (no anonyomous users, and no users less than 4 days old) -- Nbound 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it's protected, someone with access should make this change: "The craft will benefit from a gravity assist from Jupiter" -> "The craft made use of a gravity assist from Jupiter" (Ask me about signing my posts!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.204.137 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. —RP88 08:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and the style guide

I see there's been a lot of dispute about the appropriate name of the article. I'm astounded that (as far as I can tell) nobody looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for article naming:

• Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This pretty clearly supports the use of the unmodified "Pluto" as the article name (or maybe "Pluto (astronomical body)" for disambiguation and NPOV). I don't see anything else in the guidelines to indicate that the other version is preferred. The official name of the 42nd President of the United States was William Jefferson Clinton, but the article is Bill Clinton nonetheless, because that's how he's commonly known.

We have these guidelines for a reason. Use them! Elliotreed 07:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you write, but not all. I agree that the text of the Pluto page should reference the whole historical reasons behind why Pluto was called a planet to begin with (as was Ceres). I agree that the text of the page should indicated that many people in society and even in the scientific community believe that Pluto is a planet. But, we can't lose sight of the fact that what a "Planet" is defined as is really a subjective matter of opinion. Because of that, see my request, below. By the way, I interpret the guidelines differently: I believe the intent it to communicate with a REASONABLE MINIMUM OF AMBIGUITY. Using colloquialisms lends itself to ambiguity (for example, how several pages incorrectly use the term "civil disobedience" to describe almost all forms of prtests that happen today (although "civil disobedience" is a very specific form of protest). E.g., the anti-Globalization page, etc. Keeping the definition of "Planet" could lead to ambiguity. At the very least, it would lead scholars to doubt how up-to-date the page might be. Like it or not, now that the IAU has made the change to the categorites, usng "Planet" to classify Pluto could now be ambigous, if only because there has never been a clear definition of Planet except to say it was the nine we knew of. Ceres used to be called a planet, but was bumped because we started to realize there were too many objects out there. Now that the IAU has made their own definition of Planet, an uninformed reader could assume that Pluto falls under the IAU definiton (which it does not). Someone decided to create a sub-classification of asteroids. Was that a good thing? That is open to berate. Same situation here, with Pluto. I am not saying that Pluto is not considered a Planet by some (and always will be). Nevertheless, if we want people to use Wikipedia for research data, we should not go with calling things by a "curve" scale. I personally use the term Planetoid instead of Asteroid, TNO, Dwarf Planet, Comet, etc. (because all such subcategories are as subjective and arbitrary too). Regardless, to keep AMBIGUITY to a minimum, we have to use an agreed-upon convention -- at least on the tile pages and search engines. As far as cal ling the President Clinton page, "Bill Clinton" -- If the page is just for fun, then Bill Clinton is OK. If the page is meant to be a scholarly, historical, or biographical work, however, it should be called "William Jefferson Clinton" with a reference to the use of "Bill Clinton" in the text.

Request to Relocate the Comments about the Pluto Naming Debate

May we move the whole discussion about whether Pluto should be called a Planet, Dwarf Planet, Planetiod, or a Yellow Dog? I am not saying that the debate is unwarranted. In fact, I think it is a good topic for discussion. I am requesting, however, that such discussion be moved to a new page (something specific to the "Naming of Pluto" instead of keeping it on the Pluto page itself. Here is my request ...

1. Since the root (and stem) of the issue are subjective (on the part of both society and the scientific community) -- this debate could continue until the cows come home. There will always be opposing views on the topic. The whole issue behind calling something a planet becomes ambiguous and subjective once we try to differentiate between the many things that orbit the sun. Granted, the IAU could have handled the P.R. better, and the Dwarf Planet classification will probably result in more problems down the road (e.g., "Santa" and Varuna are most likely elongated spheriods, so will they be excluded from the new Dwarf Planet definition -- even though they are larger than Ceres)?. Regardless, the IAU should have made it clear that they are not trying to claim sole rights to defining the term "Planet". Such a term has, and probably always will be, under the "ownership" of the general public (i.e, everyone has dibs). The IAU focus should be to aid the scientific community in general categorization (as do the new categories). Without such, any attempts at precise communication become difficult -- and precision is necessary for science, but not necessary for our societal connection to individual solar-system objects).
2. Keep the title page references and the various solar-system body listings in agreement with the IAU. Otherwise, those of us who try to use the pages for technical or scholarly work will have to start going elsewhere to gather our data.
3. Keep the textual references as to the history of Pluto as being called a planet (and why). Keep the textual references on the page regarding how the Planet association is still kept by many in society and by several scientists as well.
4. Move all the talk pages about the naming debate to a new page (something titled "What is a Planet" or the "Pluto Naming Debate" or something like that. The same thing already holds true for other debates, such as, should humans be called primates or should a virus be called an organism, etc. Nevertheless, keep the debate to a minimum on the actual Pluto page. It is filling up the talk pages so much, those of us who go to the page to gather actual physical and orbital and astronomical data have to go to the archived pages to check feedback. Tesseract501 7 March 2007

Inclination and Obliquity

I can not reconcile three items on the Pluto page.

1. Regarding the Obliquity of Pluto. The Pluto page indicates 119.59º for Pluto's Obliquity. Other technical sources (NASA and others) indicate values closer to 122.5º. Why the difference? Is there a way to have the latest best estimate on this page? If not, will someone at least reference why the 119 value was chosen over the 122 value?
2. In addition, I am having a difficult time in resolving the Axial Tilt values on the Physical Characteristics (bottom of table) against the Orbital Information section (top of the same table). The Inclination, under the Orbital section, indicates 17.1417º (Pluto's orbital plane to the Earth's ecliptic (orbital plane). Here are the confusing items:

Other wikipedia pages (Earth page) indicate that the Earth's Ecliptic (orbital plane) is 7.25º inclined from the Sun's equator.

The Pluto page indicates that Pluto's orbital plane (inclination) is 11.88º from the Sun's equator and 17.1417º from the Earth's ecliptic (orbital plane).

How does this add up? If Pluto's orbit is 11.88 from the Sun's equator, and the Earth's is 7.25, That's a difference of 4.63º (not 17.1417º). Am I just being obtuse as to how one goes about configuring the data? How did the Pluto page come up with 17.1417 value? Granted, it is probably correct -- several alternative source documents (NASA's fact sheets, etc.) indicate that Pluto's orbital plane is 17.16º to the Earth's ecliptic. This is CLOSE (but not exactly) to the 17.1417 value on the Pluto page. So - that leaves me with the following possible explanations:

(A) I am just not getting it?

(B) The 11.88 "Pluto's-orbit- to-Sun's-equator value is incorrect, or

(C) the 7.25 Earth's-ecliptic-to-Sun's-equator value (on the Earth page) is incorrect?

1. Along those same lines, I have a question about another Pluto item. How does one reconcile the 122.78º value (Pluto's axis to the Earth's ecliptic plane)? Taking the values referenced above, I can't seem to resolve that number. Tesseract501 7 March 2007

Remember that these things happen in 3D, so simply adding or subtracting angles will not work. (Imagine two planes, all you know about each is that they are 45° to the horizontal. The angle between them many be anything between 0° and 90° according to how close the horizontal direction of their slopes are). If |Sun-Earth| is 7° and |Sun-Pluto| is 12°, then |Earth-Pluto| may be anything between 5° and 19°, roughly, limited only by the spherical triangle inequality: $\sin(a/2)+\sin(b/2)\geq \sin(c/2)$. –Henning Makholm 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MH, but my question is about how the author came up with the inclination and obliquity values (which are 2D values, not 3D values). It is not so much about angular mathematics, unless you can show me how a given formula comes up with the 112.78º value. The info doesn't seem to match the astonomical data that I have from other sources (NASA, etc.). Regarding the 3D issue, astronomers use the right ascension and declination of the "north" pole, the major axis, the arguement of periapsis, the longitude of ascending node, the mean anomaly, etc., to define the orbit in 3D. My understanding is that Inclination and Obliquity values, in and of themselves, are 2D. If you know how to arrive at the value of 112.78º value, and can detail this, it would be super-duper. Thanks. Tesseract501 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pluto Planet Day

Can Pluto be declared a planet by a memorial of the state of New Mexico? What does this mean? Should it be mentioned in the article? --128.176.236.34 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

State legislatures in the US have in the past declared all sorts of odd things regarding the sciences, but they hold no weight in the scientific community whatsoever. At most it might warrant a line in the "Impact of the IAU decision" section, IMO. Bryan Derksen 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also that it is a memorial, not a resolution. Unlike a resolution, a memorial just expresses an opinion, or urges a certain action, and as such does not have the effect of law. —RP88 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

Hi there, I am reviewing Pluto for Good article status. It may take 24-48 hours, depending.

I was wondering, is the previous GA review available, I would like to read it over before I dive in. Please respond promptly. Thanks. IvoShandor 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming this is it. It was failed after being on hold? Is that correct? IvoShandor 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to answer, or should I just fail it. It's not a hard question, I just want to know if what I found is what I am looking for. Message left on nominator's talk page as well. IvoShandor 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the article history, yes. That's the one. --Bobblehead 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, review will be posted by tomorrow. : )IvoShandor 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

I am having a problem with this image. (Image:Pluto structure ESO.gif) I read the ESO copyright page referenced on this Image file's page, and it notes that there are exceptions to the copyright policy. The text of the ESO Copyright page reads: "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use".

Which per the citations on the report that this image was taken from, would disqualify this image for no copyright, as the images credits are to sources which appear to be copyrighted. Though I am not sure who "Kristina" is. This will have to be resolved before the GA nomination can go ahead I am placing the nomination on hold, which I rarely do, but I feel the problem can be addressed quickly, if it isn't the article will, of course, have to be failed. IvoShandor 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are right. There is no exception from the general policy stated on the citations page for the report. Giving the source is something completely independent. It's possible that ESA has messed up, but as far as we can tell, this image is usable. However, given that the image is simple, but not very good, we can just ask someone at Wikipedia:Requested pictures to redraw something like this. --Stephan Schulz 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have just made this request... --Stephan Schulz 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this image on the NASA site. The only thing possibly questionable about it is that it is courtesy of the Lunar and Planetary Institute which is funded by NASA. That generally means the product is owned by the government as well. --Bobblehead 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just made an SVG replacement for the image. It's at Image:Pluto-cutaway.svg. I'm no graphic artist, so let me know what you think. —RP88 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I like it. Is that a standard texture on the surface or where did you get it? --Stephan Schulz 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the praise. I constructed the texture by using a small piece of this PD NASA image on Commons and then modified it to better approximate Pluto using information from the PD NASA image of Pluto in true color and Pluto's known albedo and color index. —RP88 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Smart! One day I have to learn how to do this. If that wasn't clear by now, I fully agree with IvoShandor. The new image is a lot better (and more certainly free) than the old one. Thanks again! --Stephan Schulz 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Go with any new image. That text above does imply that there may be copyrighted material on the ESA website, it came from their webpage so I am not sure how you interpret that as "there is no exception." If they don't own the copyright, they can't freely license it. Either way, it is irrelevant as it seems you have come up with a better solution. IvoShandor 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I interprete "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated." as a blanket permission with exceptions that will be explicitely stated. I found no such statement for the image in question. Anyways, the point is moot, as thanks to RP88, we now have a much superior image. --Stephan Schulz 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and might I say the new image is far superior to the old one. I will probably just go from on hold to the review, shouldn't take too horribly long as I know you have waited quite awhile on this nomintation. At a glance the article looks good, of course I will know more as I delve in depth. Thanks for addressing this query quickly. IvoShandor 12:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the MPC number be doubled in the lead sentence?

Something14 tried changing the first sentence to

Pluto (IPA: ...), also designated (134340) Pluto (See Minor planet names) ....

but Ckatz promptly reverted to

Pluto (IPA: ...), also designated (134340) Pluto or 134340 Pluto (See Minor planet names) ...

citing consistency with other dwarf planet articles. When choosing between equally good alternatives, consistency is a good guideline, but I don't see that this is the case here. We're obviously not talking about two different designations, merely about two typographical variants of one and the same designation. Giving the form both with and without parentheses appears to be needless redundancy - everybody who has any use for the catalogue number will know that it can be written either with or without the parentheses. Why not improve readability and preserve consistency by eliminating the redundancy from all three dwarf planet articles instead? –Henning Makholm 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've no preference either way, and will go with whatever the group wants. The previous change was reverted simply because a) it was only changed here, not across the board; b) there was no comment or explanation as to why; and c) the editor who made the change has a long history with regards to edits on Pluto-related articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just change it across the board then. The asteroid articles I've sampled use the parenthesis-less form exclusively, so that will be the one I keep. –Henning Makholm 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move

This article was moved to (134340) Pluto earlier today, with a note of "To keep the title similar to the other minor planets)". I've reverted it; please discuss such a move before doing it. The page name has been highly contentious in the past, and I don't see any recent consensus to change... Shimgray | talk | 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

From memory, consensus was to keep Pluto as is, and move the other dwarf planets to Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet). I think that there would be a lot of resistance to opening up the debate. Bluap 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct - and what fun that discussion was! By the way, your removal of the "disputed" tag was entirely appropriate - the editor who posted it also called for the deletion of Special relativity on the basis that "nearly all of the content, including the title, may be purely unverified". --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to have next to no citations

I've just added six citations but this article needs about 30 more. What sources are the regular contributors using for the info? Serendipodous 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm...I count 50 references, and another 20 or so entries in "Further reading" and external references. How much do you want? --Stephan Schulz 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything from "Symbol" to the second paragraph of "Atmosphere" is completely unreferenced, as is everything from "Orbit" to the second to last para of "Trans Neptunian object", and most of "Planetary status controversy". Serendipodous 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Inline cites are neither necessary or always required, IMHO. They should be used to cite any possible information that is "likely to be challenged," (which Pluto's orbital characteristics and symbol are not), as well as anything controversial, (which the name status thing is), although saying "most" of that section is unreferenced is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, just an interested party here, I think I may have made two edits (for grammar) to this article in the past, so neutral opinion weighing in. IvoShandor 13:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add, for non-controversial or material not likely to be challenged, a references list will suffice. There is no policy that states anywhere on Wikipedia that inline citations are required anyway. IvoShandor 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless it does appear to be an issue; the only reason this article failed a GA review was because of inadequate citation.Serendipodous 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article currently is under GA review, and the reviewer is the very IvoShandor you just replied to. It was put on hold due to copyright concerns about an image that has now been replaced. Also, the October 2006 GA review failed for lack of stability, lack of references (29 back then) was only mentioned as a reason to put it on hold, not for the final failure.--Stephan Schulz 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. So it's getting its GA stamp? That's good. Serendipodous 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's knock on wood. It's not through yet ;-). --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving?

I don't know which threads on this page are still active, but I'm pretty sure at least some of them can be archived now.

OK; I've just archived all threads which have been inactive since Jan 31. I hope no one thinks me too forward for doing so.

Serendipodous 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me...--Stephan Schulz 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ehheh. Slight hiccup. While I was archiving, Wikipedia had one of its momentary tantrums and crashed. I think I managed to recover all the lost material but I'm not 150 percent sure. Serendipodous 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Estimates of Neptune's mass

The article currently states that "After the flyby of Neptune by Voyager 2 in 1989, it was conclusively demonstrated that the discrepancies in Neptune's orbit observed by 19th century astronomers were due instead to inaccurate estimates of Neptune's mass." This is puzzling, since Neptune's orbit shouldn't depend on its mass. Could it be Uranus's mass or Jupiter's that was uncertain? Or perhaps it was the distance of Neptune? I'm looking into it now, but if anybody has more info it would be welcome. --Reuben 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neptune's orbit does indeed depend upon its mass - due to the fact that its mass affects the degree to which its orbit is perturbed by other massive objects in the solar system. —RP88 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Only at higher order. The direct effect of Uranus on Neptune, for example, doesn't depend at all on Neptune's mass. It's only when Neptune perturbs Uranus, which then causes a slightly different perturbation of Neptune, that Neptune's own mass enters into it. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny effect.

The real reason here appears to be that the residuals in question were not in the orbit of Neptune but Uranus, which was much more well known at the time. They were actually using observations of Uranus going back to the 1700s, while Neptune had only been known for less than a century. Neptune was more massive than thought at the time, so the Uranus residuals were calculated based on a too-small Neptune. --Reuben 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing refs confirm that Planet X / Pluto was predicted based on residuals of Uranus, not Neptune (until Neptune was added in much later by Pickering). Edited accordingly. --Reuben 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. —RP88 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this still need to be Semi-Protected?

I think the whole public interest in the "is it a planet" matter has long died. Can this be opened back up? JaMiE P 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to edit, log in--Heliac 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• As soon as it's opened back up the Vandals will start within 24 hours as they have in the past. Both fortunately and unfortunately many people still feel very strongly about the Pluto issue. The unfortunate side of this is some cannot contain there emotions to remain NPOV and so they vandalize the page (akin to the way terrorists try to get thier way.) to try to force the issue. The fortunate side is those that can contain thier emotions do proceed to discuss the manner is CIVIL manner and add to the topic and utilize proper avenues to have thier views addressed. So for now my answer would have to be yes it still needs to be SP, for at least another 3 months, to help ensure vandalism is kept to a minimum. Abyssoft 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold Review (2nd time)

It looks like the original reviewer has abandoned this article. I have extended the hold, and am taking over the review since they never put a hold notice on WP:GAC. Based on criteria at WP:WIAGA, the article is fairly well written, broad, NPOV, and uses images appropriately. It would seem that the referencing of the article needs improvement, specifically in areas where numbers or data are quoted, or other assertions of fact are made. Some examples of where this needs fixing:

• Section titled Symbol is entirely unreferenced.
• Section titled Physical characteristics makes the following unreferenced subsections:
  • Appearance
  • Mass and size
  • Orbit
• Subsection of Moons titled Charon is unreferenced.
• Commemoration as a planet section is unreferenced.
• New discoveries ignite debate is unreferenced.
• There are other parts that may be unreferenced. Check over these to see that I haven't missed any.

Also, the format of references is inconsistant. Some refs are simply URL links. Minimum bibliographical information is missing from some references. Ideally, each reference should contain:

• Author's name (if availible)
• Title of article
• Title of larger work (if applicable)
• Publication information
• Date of access for websites.

If you would like, you may use templates found at WP:CITET to organize your reference information. It isn't required, but I have found them helpful. More information on citing sources can be found at WP:ATT and WP:CITE

As a whole, given the level of activity this article recieves, I am certain these fixes can be made in the next week. A hold will stay for 7 days. If the required changes are not made within 7 days, I will have to fail the nomination. If you have any questions, or would like me to review the article once the changes have been made, see me on my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, I did put it on hold, I just removed it when my original concerns were met with the note that I didn't have time to finish the review in as detailed a fashion as I wanted to. Sorry for any confusion. IvoShandor 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Orbit section

Much of the info for this section is unsourced, and the only sources I can find for it are mirrors of this page. Any thoughts on where the info came from? Serendipodous 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best source is likely to be this one, which is not available online.

• Malhotra, R. and J. Williams, The heliocentric motion of Pluto, in Pluto and Charon, D.J. Tholen and S.A. Stern, eds., Arizona Space Science Series, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson (1997).

There are also some web sites that give some of the info and reproduce some of the figures from Malhotra: [2], [3]. --Reuben 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another useful web page with a slightly different view on the orbit's precesion is [4] Deuar 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• By my count, we only need five more citations, so I've taken down the section heads and simply flagged them with {{Fact}}. Serendipodous 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, and could you double check to make sure that I've flagged no 43 with the correct citation? I'm not sure. Serendipodous 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Malhotra actually wrote that web page; it looks like the author just took the figures from the chapter in Pluto and Charon and intended the comment at the bottom of the page to credit their source. It's a little confusing, though. --Reuben 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the #Heliocentric distance and #Trans-Neptunian object sections are often covering similar ground. Perhaps the entire rbit explanations should be rearranged (and put all into the "Orbit" subsection). For example, like

1. Present orbit
2. Long-time orbit evolution
3. Neptune-avoiding 2:3 resonance
4. Heliocentric distance

I'm willing to give it a try. Deuar 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Serendipodous 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can do a decent rewite it's either Deuar or Serendipodous. And right now moving those items and reworking them could only help to clear up parts of the article. Abyssoft 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's sweet :) I've given this article a general cleanup, but I'm afraid I can't really touch the orbital section, as my knowledge of dynamic physics is, well, not. I don't want to risk a misinterpretation on my part. Serendipodous 16:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Eeep. Sorry Deuar. I hope I didn't interefere too much with your plans, but there was so much repetition in that section I just had to get rid of it. Once I got rid of all the repeated info, an entire section basically disappeared.

Yeah - I didn't have time to reduce it down yesterday, unfortunately. Great that you did that. I think the "Neptune-avoiding 3:2 resonance" section still needs some editing to clear up some details. Deuar 12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing; the paragraph beginning "When Neptune approaches Pluto from behind..." (now the third para in the "3:2 resonance" section) may be a repeat of the info you added in "Long term orbit evolution". I'm not sure though.

Yes, it's the same stuff I think. In fact I was thinking last night that my attempt at the long-term orbit evolution section was pretty bad, and it needs a complete rewrite. Also, what is really needed for a decent understanding is figure 8.51 from here. Maybe i'll try to generate a similar figure and include it. Deuar 12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing; I took a gamble and combined the mention of the Kozai mechanism with the mention of Pluto being 8 AU above Neptune when it crosses its orbit. I am 99.99 percent sure that they refer to the same thing. I also combined the "nodes" paragraph with the Kozai mechanism paragraph because it seems to me that they are also referring to the same thing.Serendipodous 07:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that the Kozai mechanism is what is responsible for the "long-term orbit evolution". In this case, I think all the three subsections (2:3 resonance, other factors, long-term evolution) are not independent, and should be co-massed somehow into one block. Deuar 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit out of my depth, but I can try to get someone over here who might have some idea how to do it. Serendipodous 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Just explaining the rationale behind my recent re-arrangement. Since the 2:3 resonance is a major issue by itself I thought having its own short section might be useful. Then all the gory details of how they avoid each other can be belabored in a "neptune-avoiding orbit" section. I put the inclination issue in first there because I think it's easy to understand, whereas the timing issue is a bit more involved. Finally issues related to why this configuration is stable and how it librates can be put in the "long-term orbit evolution" section. Deuar 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Serendipodous asked me to give the orbit section a once-over, so that's what I've done. I've cut a couple of bits where you had numbers with no citations and very little hope of finding them (the 13/20 year alternation, the linear separation of the two orbits), but in both cases I've replaced them with similar or superceding information that I could source. It's all referenced now, at least. I can see you've done a lot of copyediting and rearrangement of this section already, so I've stuck to the structure you've already developed, and done my best to tighten up the science a bit. I hope it's okay. Spiral Wave 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Super! That's exactly what it needed. Your edits were a massive qualitative improvement. Deuar 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Ketakar

The article gives no indication of why Ketakar's prediction of another planet is significant. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were dozens of people predicting planets beyong Neptune. Without having read his original article, I don't see any possibility that Ketakar's predictions were more well-founded than any others, since Pluto's mass is far too small to significantly perturb the other planets. The work of Lowell and Pickering is notable for several reasons: first, their predictions were quite influential, and helped lead to the actual discovery of Pluto, even if the apparent accuracy of their predictions was fortuitous; and second, their calculations were generally correct, but they were working at the edge of significance. They were doing valid science even if the conclusions were not correct. As for Ketakar, it seems that he is being promoted mainly for nationalist reasons. It's possible that his work was of similar validity to that of Pickering and Lowell (and also quite possible that it wasn't - it would take expert review of his article to find out!), but it doesn't appear to have been similarly influential. I don't see the notability. --Reuben 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the one thing I've learned in a year of editing astronomical articles on Wikipedia is that if you revert the work of the Indian nationalists, they'll just put it back in again. And when you make your case on the discussion board, they'll accuse you of Western imperialism.Serendipodous 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Screw it. Bring 'em on. If Indian nationalists feel that it bolsters thier nation's image to claim that one of their own was the first to provide a vaguely correct location for a non-existent planet, let them make their case. Serendipodous 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article only mentions the Kuiper belt once

Really needs to have a section to itself, don't you think? Pluto is a Kuiper belt object; indeed it is technically the largest Kuiper belt object. That aspect of its identity should be explained. EDIT: added Kuiper belt section. Serendipodous 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Triton image

This Voyager image shows the atmosphere of Triton in profile. I was wondering if anyone thought it would be a good idea to include it as describing the probable appearance of Pluto's atmosphere.

Serendipodous 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a published scientific work claiming that the atmosphere of Pluto is likely to be similar to Triton, then there may be merits in including it. Otherwise, it's probably complete speculation on our part, and therefore shouldn't be included. Richard B 11:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few:

[5] [6] [7] [8]

I'm not sure if they alone would be enough to justify the image inclusion. Serendipodous 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

no subject

I really believe that since Puto is so small that it has been considered a dwarf planet for so long that you should say that it is like you do with the dwarf planet Eris. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.169.12.140 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Composition

The image of Pluto's interior doesn't appear to refer to any section of the article. The composition section only refers to the surface. EDIT: Expanded section. Serendipodous 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

True anomaly

True anomaly is not given in the infobox. This is very annoying, especially if you actually want to use the orbit parameters for something. Why can't we give all six orbital elements is we go so far as to give five? Of course, surprise, surprise, there is no reference for the values already given. Well, anyway, that's my two bits worth of complaints. Deuar 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The true anomaly is continually changing though, it's not a "constant" (to zeroth order) like the longitude of ascending node and chums... it might vary rather slowly for Pluto, but then should we include it for Neptune too? Then for Uranus? That's a slippery slope, and you need a well-defined cut-off before you start, else we'd have to update the Mercury entry every 12 hours. If you feel it should be included for distant objects, you should probably take it up with WP:ASTRO, they govern all things info-boxy. Spiral Wave 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear what you're saying about not being a zeroth order "constant". Epoch would also have to be given (hell, it should be given anyway, with or without giving the position along the orbit). I would of course be for putting it in for all the planets. It's not such a huge slippery slope as might be supposed because e.g all the minor planets already have Mean anomaly and epoch specified. Still, it would be good to put it up for discussion at WP:ASTRO beforehand, which I, at least, don't feel up to at the moment ;-) Deuar 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I hadn't realised that the M.A. was included for the minor planets. That strengthens your case a fair bit, I would've thought. (And since it's given for Eris and Ceres, surely it should be given for Pluto? Is it an oversight from the reclassification?)

Idly, I wonder if there's a case for simply giving the eccentric anomaly instead; then the user could easily calculate the mean and true anomalies for themselves if they wished, assuming a well-determined orbit. I suppose the problem is that not everything is that well determined, and perturbations tend to screw it all up. Spiral Wave 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed: Explanation

This article has been on hold for over a week. Significant improvements HAVE been made, and it looks really close. I still count about a half-dozen {{fact}} tags that need to be resolved, but once that is done, the article should be GA ready. Please feel free to renominate when all fixes have been made. Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, guys, that wasn't me. But the person who posted it had a problem with his/her signature, which caused all the sections below to bunch up into one massive block. I moved it down here to stop it causing problems. Serendipodous 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the damage. I repaired it and returned my sig. Again if you have any questions, please see me at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is very well written and well referenced. The above issues have been addressed, and I am happy to promote this to GA status. Dr. Cash 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

To everyone who helped getting this article featured. Serendipodous 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a minor planet

Pluto is not a minor planet, is a dwarf planet but it appears in the list of asteroids (also Eris and Ceres) I know that minor planet and asteroid can be considerated as synonyms in this case, but dwarf planet is yet different. I think is prudent to change the name of this page: List of asteroids ÏíìÏ 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UU)

Pluto is a minor planet since it is in the Minor Planet Catalogue. All dwarf planets are minor planets, though not all minor planets are dwarf planets. Serendipodous 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see... I was misunderstanding, thanks for the information. --Damërung-- 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pluto isn't a minor planet, it's a planet. 9th planet of 9.{{subst:unsigned}}

Not according to international scientific convention as determined by the IAU. See 2006 definition of planet. It's officially designated as a dwarf planet, and neither dwarf planets nor minor planets are planets proper.--Stephan Schulz 08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the previous formal definition of "Minor Planet" was abandoned. The current scheme is Planet / Dwarf Planet / Small Solar System Object. The people in charge of the Minor Planet Catalogue have decided that the catalogue will cover Dwarf Planets + Small Solar System Objects, rather than just Small Solar System Objects. Bluap 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pluto is no longer a planet, it was considered too small, so they began to start classifying it as "dwarf planet"

Ruby loves me.. not u.. 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I remember it, the change to Pluto was to stop dozens of other similar size objects in the solar system being classified as planets, rather than it just being too small. --86.154.218.67 11:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

picture

ive only ever seen this horribly pixelated picture of pluto, there must be a better one. Plokt

If you can find one, post it here for discussion. Start by looking through Google images. Be sure it's free-to-use first though. Serendipodous 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what you see up there is the best we know of the real surface of Pluto. Any clearer looking pictures you might find will be artists' renditions. The fact we've been able to get that much detail about Pluto's surface from Earth is incredible! --Patteroast 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Blurring the image to make it look more real, whatever it is, is quite difficult to do, too. Tried for a while and couldn't get totally rid of the pixelated colors. The result's here: Image:Plutoblurred.png Dreg743 05:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if authentic pictures must be placed prior artistic conceptions in the article´s main image of the infobox, if there is no problem, maybe we can modiffy this one: EightTNOs.png (this image visible in the article section: Planetary status controversy) .........ÏíìÏ 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the rule is that artistic conceptions constitute original research, and so should only be used if an actual image is unavailable. Serendipodous 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is pixelated because of the method by which it was created by scientists. Check it out here. int3gr4te 12:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we put a edit blocker on this so that only users that reach certain rights can edit this page?

Is it possible so that only elite members of Wikipedia can edit this page for use? My brother edited it in a way that made the original writer look unintelligent. Aquzenn 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is already semi-protected, meaning only people who have been editing for more than four days can touch it. Any more protection and only administrators will be able to edit it. Serendipodous 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I guess I will have to deal with it then. Thanks for the information. 67.8.112.85 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Aquzenn

I don't find that fair. Many people aren't elite, and don't you have to pay for that? Many people grasp the fact that

it's FREE, and you don't need to pay. It's optional. Oh, I see your point,Serendipodous Rubyandme

Biased

This artical is biased against thoses who are on Pluto's side. There is no section on the controversy that has been created by the removing of planetary status on Pluto. 71.112.114.161 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Except for the section called "Planetary status controversy" Serendipodous 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw that and was about to delete my comment. 71.112.114.161 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Binary dwarf planet?

Should pluto be considered binary dwarf planet becuase pluto and its moon charon orbit each other? P.S. is it possible to change a page title (I recently created a page and made a typo in the title)oops!

As for the first one: Possibly, but we we need a reliable source for such a statement. For the second: Sure, use the "move" button. Please do not move established pages without previous consensus, though. --Stephan Schulz 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the below comment:

Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, are often considered a binary system because the barycentre of their orbits does not lie within either body.[3]

I oppose because if we use this definition, then Jupiter is not a planet either: its barycenter with the sun is outside the sun, so it would be the Sun-Jupiter system!Ryoung122 09:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly the place to argue definitions. Note that the above isn't why Pluto isn't considered a planet: binarity doesn't have anything to do with that. Michaelbusch 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pluto larger than Eris?

If pluto is considered a binary planet then should it be considered larger than eris, because pluto plus charon is larger than eris???--Cbennett0811 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The sum of the diameters may be larger, but the total mass is still smaller. Pluto=1.3×10²²kg, Charon=1.5×10²¹kg, Eris=1.6×10²²kg. --Reuben 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning but uranus(8.6832×10²⁵kg) has less mass than neptune(10.243×10²⁵kg) and uranus is considered larger--Cbennett0811 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Eris is one body, Pluto and Charon are two bodies. "Binary planet" (or "binary dwarf planet", as I'd presume it would be) speaks to the relative mass of the *two* objects. They aren't considered to be one object. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uranus is larger in one sense, it's true. But if you stuck Pluto and Charon together to make a contact binary, it would only be larger than Eris in one direction, and smaller in the other two - and it would have a lot of empty space in the middle. So adding diameters doesn't seem like a very "fair" comparison to me. I think the two most meaningful standards are mass and volume. Going back to Uranus vs. Neptune, Neptune is more massive, but Uranus has the larger volume. Given current best measurements, Eris is larger than the sum of Pluto and Charon in both mass and volume. If Eris were denser, so that it had more mass but a smaller volume, then you could say that Pluto-Charon is (in a sense) larger. --Reuben 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ckatz and Reuben for your responses to my question I now understand why eris is considered to be larger--Cbennett0811 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why cant I edit this page

I have been a member for 9 days and it still wont let me edit semi-protected pages what can I do about this?--Cbennett0811 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you email Wikipedia Adminstratiors, and tell them Rubyandme 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

not a planet

didnt they come out with a definite definition of a planet and pluto did not make the cut, i am just wondering? [9] Timmsterr

Yes. Read the article, in particular the "Planetary status controversy" section. –Henning Makholm 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, personally, they came out with that, so they had an excuse, to kick Pluto out, so the media didn't swamp them, for kicking Pluto out for now reason, which is wrong.

Rubyandme 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accept it or not, who cares?

Why not?

Why isn't pluto a planet? Aishe zq 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To be a planet, an object must

1) Orbit the sun

2) Be round

3) Be gravitationally dominant in its orbit

Pluto passes 1) and 2), but fails 3). Objects that do this are called Dwarf Planets. Bluap 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't understand, why does Pluto not pass 3?

I'm almost 10, by the way. My birthday is in 12 days... :) Rubyandme 03:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)!

For Aishe's question: Pluto is 0.07 times as massive as debris in its orbit.

But Rubyandme, you are 10? 10?! claps!Kfc1864 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't that still make pluto dominant in its orbit since it is still bigger than the debris? Coolchriswow 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pluto is the single largest chunk in its orbit, but it is only a thirteenth as big as the rest of the stuff in its orbit put together. Serendi^podous 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Demoted Pluto as a Dwarf Planet and not the largest Dwarf Planet...

This is so stupid, when I heard the news about this, I am really pissed that they're demoted Pluto as an Dwarf Planet because it's too small. Why are they trying to get rid of Pluto for? There is no reason to get rid of Pluto like that. If I misunderstood, then my bad.

Read the news article here:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/oddities/story.html?id=acf061ed-bff2-4daf-a236-f593b12bfbc6&k=87404

--Girla PurpleHeart 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for being too small. Small had nothing to do with it. It was demoted because it's part of a belt. Oh, and good article by the way. Good info. Serendipodous 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so just because there is a bit of debris in Pluto's orbit it suddenly isn't a planet any more?? There is debris in Earth's orbit, but earth is still a planet ^DAVID _CAT

The only large object in Earth orbit orbits it. That doesn't count. To count as sharing its orbit, an object has to orbit the Sun directly. Earth is millions of times more massive than all objects in its orbit put together. Pluto is 0.07 times the total mass of the objects in its orbit. Serendi^podous 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And Earth is the best planet in this aspect! There is no other planet so many times more massive than the "debris" in its orbits - the most "planetary" of the planets.

Pluto is only the greater of his hundreds little brothers who live in the same "house". And not that greater. wildie·wild dice·will die 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They should make Pluto an honorary planet. I don't think I'll ever get used to the 8 planets thing. Showers 03:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, with the discovery of a larger object (Eris), it was either get used to 8 planets or get used to 10 or more. And no matter what we call it, it's still there and an interesting place. :) --Patteroast 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pluto is shit, 8 is better, and sooner they will be seven after they bomb the Marsians.

Does ice cream melt?

Does ice cream melt on Pluto?! Please help me, I wanna know. ;) --HoopoeBaijiKite 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Most of the time, not even oxygen or nitrogen (the stuff we call "air") melts on Pluto. Serendipodous 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for beeing curious and learning more... What do you mean exactly by "melt"? -- Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_ΞΞΞ_} . -- 2:55, 10 July 2007 (GMT-5)

I mean it stays frozen :) Serendipodous 08:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With pluto a dwarf planet

With Pluto now a dwarf planet, should the numatic device to teach the planets to children be changed from my very energetic mother just served us nine pizzas, to my very energetic mother just served us noodles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.161.12 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 20 June 2007

Well, it depends. My Project Ideal teacher does a similar phrase, but I can't remember.

I don't see how Noodle fits. Although we could use, My very energetic mother just said used paper LOL it's funny, but not making sense. Oh, and please, sign your comments for goodness sake. Rubyandme 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct mnemonic would be: "Many Very Educated Men Just Screwed Up Nine..." Shsilver 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrzegorzWu (talk • contribs)

I persinally use: My very elegant mother just served us nachos! --ŴôôDéļf 13:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf, Comet, or Planette?

Obviously, for now at least, the IAU has designated Pluto to be a Dwarf Planet. But if you made it come closer to the sun, wouldn't it grow a tail? So doesn't that make it a large comet? Plus, some people think it should be called a "planette". I know we as Wikipedians can't do much, but shouldn't someone clear up the definitions of all these objects. I like things to be orderly. Of course

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."

I think as long as we make it or duty to learn more about Pluto and the rest of the universe, classifying it becomes more of an important hobby than a nessecity. Debatable... 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pluto is a large comet. If the Kuiper belt had been called the Comet belt, as it should have been, it's very likely we'd be calling Pluto a comet today. But it's not, and we're not, so that's that. Pluto's cometary status is discussed in the "Kuiper belt" section. Serendipodous 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it should be called the "comet belt"—I rather like when things are named after people. And if it was the "comet belt" you'd have the Oort cloud, which by the same argument should probably be called the "comet cloud". And then we'd have confusion. Lexicon (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nix and Hydra, Moons or sattelites?

I reworded the passage about Nix and Hydra in the introduction. I changed the wording describing them as moons, to one describing them as satellites. The passage now reads- Pluto has two known smaller satellites, Nix and Hydra, discovered in 2005. I figure that with all the controversy over semantics we would be better off with a more all-encompassing word like "satellite".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Moon is better. Satellite can mean many things other than natural satellite. If you're going to make the change, use "natural satellites". However I don't see the need, as it's standard wikipedia practice to refer to natural satellites as moons. Serendi^podous 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to second Serendipodous' point, notice that the satellites of both Sylvia and Ida are both called moons. (These are the only two asteroid articles I looked at — presumably most, if not all, of them follow this convention.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I would have fixed this myself but the page is locked so can someone please make "Eris" in the third paragraph internally linked? It's right before the [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.218 (talk) 20:09, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

There is another mention of Eris in that para, and it is already linked.Serendi^podous 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Error

In the introduction I read:

Pluto (IPA: /ˈplu.toʊ/), also designated 134340 Pluto, is the smallest planet in the Solar System

This sentence is incorrect because Pluto is not a planet, it is a dwarf planet and even of those not the smallest one. Please correct this mistake. 131.220.136.195 09:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't so much as error as a few disfgruntled users making a last stand against reality. Science may yet go their way, but not until 2009. Serendi^podous 09:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

scientist Robert Staehle

Under Exploration of Pluto:

"scientist Robert Staehle telephoned Pluto's discoverer ..."

Sounds like a bit of a joke. Delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.18 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It may sound like a joke, but it's not:

Last August, in a courtly gesture, the 37-year-old Staehle telephoned then-86-year-old Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto in 1930, and formally asked permission to visit his planet.

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Internal Conflict

I guess the question goes to whether or not Eris is a member of the Kuiper Belt. If so, then the phrase "Pluto is now recognised as the largest member of a distinct region called the Kuiper belt." is incorrect, as it would be the second largest. If not, then the TNO section needs to be more clear.

Actually... the problem may be that I am conflating the terms Kuiper Belt and Trans-Neptunian. Is there a difference?

Svyatoslav 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a difference. From the Trans-Neptunian object article:

The Kuiper belt, Scattered disk, and Oort cloud are names for three divisions of this volume of space.

Eris is considered to be part of either the outer edge of the scattered disk or inner Oort cloud, depending on who you ask. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Eris is the largest TNO, Pluto is the largest KBO, As the above poster states, Eris is considered part of the Scattered Disk (or sometimes the Inner Oort Cloud). -- Nbound 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Pluto image?

It's showing up on its own page, but not here. Serendi^podous 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Subbed a new image. Serendi^podous 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A year since Pluto has not been classified as a planet

It has been a year now since Pluto has not been classified as a planet. Voortle 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

8/24 - NEVAR FORGET! SonnyCorleone 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider Pluto!

I think Pluto should be reconsidered as a planet because it has been considered a planet since its discovery to 2006 and it is very confusing to change it after being used to a certain category so long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.103.166 (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea but it's more complicated than that. See Definition of planet. Serendi^podous 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pluto is a dwaft planet!! dont forget it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.71.165 (talk • contribs)

Quite honestly, what we say doesnt matter is the slightest, unless one of us works at nasa. Despite the fact that many think it is a planet, there isn't anything we can do about it. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 06:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nasa doesn't really have a say; only the IAU does. The IAU will next deal with this issue in 2009, so we'll have to wait and see how things turn out. Serendi^podous 12:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, when i say nasa, i mean those who have the authority, and i am not quite sure exactly who it is, i guess the IAU. though, it does seem like since the descision is made, it wont change at the whim of a few editors. Or everyone on the earth. Personally, i still call it a planet, and if i get a F's on tests, so be it, thus, i wont edit this article. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well planet is a fairly arbitrary term, I think you can use it however you want. I think that the "folk" definition of planet is going to remain "an object as big as or bigger than Pluto", whatever science decides.Serendi^podous 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the only thing that the IAU has any formal authority over is the terminology used in their own publications. Since those publications constitute a major part of the communication between professional astronomers, most astronomers will pragmatically adopt the IAU terminology even when communicating through non-IAU channels, lest they go mad from having the same word mean different things depending on where it is said. Science teachers, public educators and encyclopedia writers will follow the general majority of astronomers because they would be doing their job badly if they taught a different terminology than the one used by active researchers in the area. Everybody else can and will call Pluto whatever they please. In general the "folk" definition will remain constant, namely "what I was taught in school is the Immortal Truth". Thus, it will lag behind the professional terminology by about a generation, but not be left behind completely.

(However, I wish "everybody else" would get it through their head that the question is not whether Pluto possesses some kind of abstract Platonic planetness. It is about whether the word "planet" encompasses Plutoness). –Henning Makholm 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Pluto image up for deletion

At Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pluto.jpg. It appears that the creator of this image, Eliot Young, only allows non-commercial educational use. Since the creation of this image is based on a method described in [10], I wonder if there's any possibility for creating a free alternative, or if there's basis for a fair use claim on the image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence?

David Cuikshank and Dale Cruikshank; is it possible that these are the same person? 91.125.37.35 10:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking they are and David doesn't really exist. Dr Dale P Cruikshank is a well published scientist working for NASA. [11] --LiamE 11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent magnitude

Mean 15 and maximum 13... is that an error or is there something I don't understand? -- 213.6.12.149 14:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The astronomical magnitude scale uses smaller numbers for brighter objects, so what is meant here must be that Pluto has magnitude 13 at its brightest. I'll try to revise the wording to be less confusing. –Henning Makholm 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Please, the Roman counterpart to Hades is not Pluto (which is another Greek name for Hades), it is Dis. I would hope a featured article would be better about this sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.148.27 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Pluto is the roman counterpart to Hades, Pluto is definitely NOT "a ritual name" for Hades. At the time the planet/dwarf-planet was named, the common understanding was that Pluto was the Roman equivalent for Hades, and the girl's intentions were clearly to maintain the Roman-based naming scheme. Hence, if the planets had been named, in order - "Ares, Zeus, Ouranos, Posiedon", then the object currently named "Pluto" would have been named "Hades". Planets are named after major gods, not mostly unknown ones. The article should state something along the lines of, "the planet was named Pluto, at the time considered to be the Roman counterpart to Hades." This gives people the understanding of how the name came about without getting too bogged down in the derivation of the name. (Which based on what I've researched so far, suggests that while Pluto and Hades started out as separate deities, they eventually came to be considered one in the same.) Either way, "ritual name for Hades" is flat-out wrong. MaASInsomnia 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Pluto (mythology) makes plain that "Pluto" was a Roman name for Hades, even if it wasn't necessarily the Roman name for Hades, so I reworked the line to reflect that. Serendi^podous 10:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is named after Mickey Mouse Dog, idiots