Talk:Pluto/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Pluto fights back!!

Yet ANOTHER article about outrage against this decision. I'm tellin' ya, Plutos not over yet! http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880067 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .

Ok, we get the point, people want Pluto to be a planet. However surely we should be dealing with the facts as they currently stand, not what we want them to be, nor what we hope the outcome of some future meeting to reanalyse the decision will be. And as they stand, the official resolution from the IAU is that Pluto is a dwarf planet, and now it has a minor planet number. This does not prevent us from saying that there are a substantial number of people who oppose the decision for various reason and the controversy is still ongoing, but it is not our place here to protest the Pluto demotion. Chaos syndrome 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not protesting, I'm showing that the controversy is still strong. Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate is it not? Ignoring such controversy would be misleading to the public Wikipedia is supposed to educate, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .
  • We know that there's still controversy; it's just that every new protest or petition has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Ryūlóng 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Uhh, I think the fact that someone wrote a song about it is important. And also, those things DO go with the article as they were in the "IMPACT OF THE IAU decision" section. It talks about the "IMPACT" of the decision. Relevant? I think so.
  • No, it isn't. It's just another group complaining, one with a musician. Ryūlóng 22:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think something to bear in mind here is what article we're working on here. It is not "List of people/groups protesting the IAU resolution on the definition of planet". It is not "List of people/groups objecting to the demotion of Pluto by the IAU". It is "Pluto", which surely means the focus should be on the object itself rather than people bickering over a classification! Chaos syndrome 22:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to say every single group/petition against it, then there should be an equal mention of people for it, we are supposed to have a neutral POV here, i already think the impact section is isnt NPOV but i dont really care that much even though im all for the "134340 Pluto reclassification" :P . But as Chaos syndrome states Wikipedia is not somewhere to voice protest, even if you have strong feelings one way or another. Imagine if the Creationist/IDists had free reign on the Evolution page! -- Nbound 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Then I propose that an article named "Controversy over Pluto" be created. Would seem right to me.

Its already covered here... and i can see it become non NPOV real quick -- Nbound 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Will the redesignation of Pluto by the IAU really affect our day to day lives? - an indifferent user

• The definition of a planet is this: a bodie larger than all other bodies sharing a simmilar orbit. Pluto is part of an outer asteroid belt (hence its irregular orbit). Thus, it cannot, by deffinition, be called a planet.

Question about referencing

I don't want to sound demanding (and I'm sorry if I do), but for a planet that was discovered in the 1930s, I would assume enough time has passed for it to make appearances in many books/novels/scientific theory packages. While there are a number of print-based references, the dependence on web-based sources is relatively heavy. Are there more books or perhaps DVDs that could be accessed and used as notes? Never Mystic (tc) 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

pluto, kepler, and newton

Newton, elaborating on Kepler's Laws, said that a PLANET occupied an orbit whose period squared is equal to its distance from the sun in astronomical units cubed. Mass or size (except as the planet's reaction to the gravity of the sun) has no input in this equation. Let us see if Pluto is true to this equation. Pluto's farthest distance from the sun is 49.3 AU and its closest is 29.3AU. the average of these two numbers is 39.5AU. 39.5 cubed is 61,630. Pluto's orbital period is 248.5 years. 248.5 squared is 61,772 (a difference of less than a quarter of a percent). Let us see if Xena is a PLANET. Xena's closest approach: 38AU, farthest: 97AU, average: 67.5AU, cubed: 307,547. Orbital period "about 560 years". 560 squared is 313,600, a difference of 1.9 percent. I predict its period will be downsized to 554.5 years, but nonetheless Xena is a PLANET, according to Kepler and Newton.Azblueeyes 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)azblueeyes

But its not upto them to decide (I'm refering to Kepler/Newton) -- Nbound 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

...ignoring all the other large KBOs that have been discovered recently. Kensai Max 05:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lagrange Points and their effect on orbital resonance should be included in the "Pluto Controversy" page, if not the actual "Pluto" page. I beg pardon for putting this stuff here, but the Pluto page is locked.66.109.223.160 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)azblueeyes 14 September 2006

And not wanting to be pissy, but Newton probably was aware of the fact that p^2 is proportional to r^3, (where p is the orbital period and r is the radius (or semi-major axis for elliptical orbits)) and that thus this relationship holds for essentially all bodies on a reasonably circular orbit...--Stephan Schulz 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pluto article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. CovenantD 07:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kepler's Law and Newton's Law of Gravitation applies to ANY object orbitting ANY object. By your argument, every piece of rock that happens to orbit the Sun would be a planet! The law also holds for moons and artificial sattelites, and even binary stars. It's a general principle of gravity, not a special principle of "planets"! Nik42 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Several thousand precedents for Wikipedia using the CORRECT name over "popular" name

Unless you propose on renaming all of these subpages?

1–1000

10001–11000

20001–21000

30001–31000

40001–41000

(abbreviated list from the much longer one found on Lists_of_asteroids

Only concerned with Noteworthy objects? Some of the more famous comets? --John Kenneth Fisher 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(list reduced in size to save space - no need to fill the page just to make a point!)

Also, you could easily find thousands upon thousands of examples of using the simple name on Wikipedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to emphasize how solid the point is, but no worries on the abbreviation. But I do not think you CAN find that many "simple" named entries that don't redirect to the links in the above pages. At least, not in the category of objects that Pluto is a member of. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If an encyclopaedia is supposed to be educational, we should surely use the most correct version rather than the most popular version. I always thought the whole "most frequently used" thing would apply in cases where there are several "correct" names of equal validity (an example in astronomy might be star names, where the star can be referred to by its entry in several catalogues). In which case, this comes down to: is "134340 Pluto" more correct than "Pluto"? If so, we should use "134340 Pluto" regardless of the popularity of the less correct version. Chaos syndrome 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

{edit conflict} I think it's been pretty much agreed on this page that Pluto should remain here. While the official name according to Harvard and the IAU has been changed to have the number, you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone who will be using it beyond those two organizations. Common usage will remain Pluto, as will many scientific and technical uses. Moving in this instance makes no sense. And despite the demotion, comparing Pluto to something like Sedna is not a fair comparision. Sedna does not have 80 years of "planetary" history behind it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Sedna does not have 80 years of "planetary" history behind it" - no, but 1 Ceres did. (okay, 50.) Why are we making a special exception for Pluto? --John Kenneth Fisher 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we're here to educate anyone, but the data on the new name is there and the article is where the most people will find it right now, education provided. We've only got about 400 people on Earth who will be looking for this article at the new name. We've got several billion who will be looking for it at Pluto. I think that overrides all else. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Flawed premise. That's what redirects are for. Most people will search for the popular but incorrect MI6 instead of the actual name Secret Intelligence Service - but guess which one is a redirect and which is the real article? --John Kenneth Fisher 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Hardly a flawed premise. We're dealing with a scientific subject that has BROAD applications in non scientific areas, please explain why Dog is not at Canis lupus familiaris if we are to take your reasoning? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For one, because "dog" as a generic name for the numerous breeds of Canis lupus familiaris is a name that just evolved over millennia as part of the language. "Pluto" as a name for what we now call the specific dwarf planet in question is a made up scientific name suggested by an 11 year old girl in 1930. If we're going to use a made-up scientific name, let's use what is now considered the correct one. (After all, we're not calling 136199 Eris Xena anymore.) --John Kenneth Fisher 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd bring up Xena. True we're not calling it Xena anymore, but that wasn't it's official name then or now. However we are calling Eris' moon Dysnomia (moon) rather then it's "official" name of (136199) Eris I Dysnomia. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. For less than a day now. We'll see how that holds up to analysis as well. I don't know our history with moon names.

Our history with moon names is that natural satellites, whether of planets or asteroids or anything else, are entered under their provisional designations before they have names, and under Name (moon) afterwards. The only exception is Moon, since Moon (moon) might seem slightly redundant. There is a redirect from Luna (moon) though. RandomCritic 04:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we're not dealing with a moon, hardly relevant. And to reiterate: Ceres had decades of planetdom, just like Pluto. It's at 1 Ceres. Other dwarf planets? at the form 136199 Eris. It's not the unique situation people with short memories think it is. It's a made up name because scientists made up a name. That name has been revised, and we generally put it at the correct name and redirect the popular name to it when astronomical objects are in play. And Chaos Syndrome is right. Pluto should probably be a disambig pointing to the many things named Pluto in the world. just one of which is 134340 Pluto. We can go by what the masses think, but can't we try to make people learn with our little encylopedia thing here? --John Kenneth Fisher 22:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think your characterization of the current name as being "incorrect" is incorrect. But as you say, until a disambig is attempted it's a non-issue. Consensus overall appears to be to keep it here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong and I hate you. :-) On a side note, there are two issues here. Ignoring for the moment whether Pluto ended up at 134340 Pluto or Pluto (dwarf planet) or Pluto - the former planet thing? you know the one I mean., curious what your thoughts and the thoughts of others are on making Pluto a disambiguation page and moving the space rock elsewhere. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on that issue. While Pluto there are other uses of "Pluto" I don't think any are as well known or oft searched as the planetary body, and as such thus far the rock has been here and the others available throught the existing disambig page. That said if consensus was to move the rock to Pluto (dwarf planet) I wouldn't shit a brick or anything. But by the same token I would hope whomever suggests such a move provides ample evidence that Pluto the rock, planet, dwarf planet, ice ball, isn't far and away the dominant search, which as I understand it is now. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, at the moment, it's not really worth getting too stressed about. As it stands the title is not wrong (even though it may not be as pedantically correct as some of us would like) and at present we are not disambiguating the term Pluto with a disambiguation page. If we decide to make Pluto into a disambiguation page, the debate would presumably be between 134340 Pluto and Pluto (dwarf planet), in which case I'd advocate using "134340 Pluto" since it is an official designation as opposed to a Wikipedianism. Chaos syndrome 21:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• If this ever gets o the point of a poll or the like, I'd appreciate being paged for it. My own personal preference is to make Pluto a disambiguation page as the god, the dog, and the dwarf planet are all reasonably common, with the dwarf planet reveiving the most press of late. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Pluto the god nor Pluto the dog are nearly as well-known as Pluto the dwarf planet.--JyriL ^talk 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to note that Pluto received a minor planet number in the sake of consistency (as 1 Ceres already has minor planet number). However, as mentioned in the editorial notice [1], this does not preclude using a different numbering scheme for dwarf planet—something that has not been established yet. Therefore, it would be sensible not to use minor planet numbers for dwarf planets (maybe with the exception of Ceres, since it has been so long known as 1 Ceres). I don't think that Pluto's—or Eris'—minor planet number will become widely used. Not only making things simpler, it underlines the fact that dwarf planets are not small bodies. (If we want to be really pedantic, the minor planet number should be within parenthesis: (134340) Pluto. Wikipedia already deviates from that.)--JyriL ^talk 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is one of the reasons I'm not that fond of the idea of adding the number to the title. It may be "official" but it has already been identified as a number that will be replaced in the near future and also that the numbered name is only one of many possible designations. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• For the moment the dwarf planets retain their MPC numbers, whether or not it gets changed in the future should not effect debate, wikipedia is meant to be flexible, and is not meant to second guess future decisions... until such decisions are made all dwarf planets should be refered to as <MPC Number> <Name>. the IAU also refers to them with the numbers, this would hint that they are retaining these MPC numbers, (as not retaining them elevates them to a planetlike status - something the IAU specifically voted against) -- Nbound 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the circular released hinted that they would possibly get a dwarf planet classification as well as keeping their minor planet numbers. Richard B 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'd think would be a smart decision for the IAU would be to consider having separate numberings. Asteroids within the orbit of Neptune could have A preceding their number, and KBOs would have K preceding theirs. That way, the KBOs (most notably Pluto, Sedna, and Eris), could be designated as K1 Pluto, K2 Sedna, K3 Eris, and so on. In that sense, Pluto would still be notable enough to retain mention, being the first of the KBOs as Ceres was first of the asteroids.

And you just gotta wonder, why haven't they started redefining "moon"? They're finding these tiny things around Jupiter and Saturn, and quite a few of them orbit near the rings. Clearing the neighborhood, anyone? I just wanted to say that, following first reading about the number designation of Pluto. For being the first KBO discovered, it certainly doesn't deserve an unimportant and high number like 134340, especially with the many, many KBOs discovered long after it having lower numbers. Again, I just wanted to say it somewhere where someone might read it.

And about using Pluto as a disambig page, since it's not a planet anymore, why the heck not? If Pluto's got the number, it's obvious that it's not about to lose it. Ceres tried and failed miserably. But at least it got 1. Sorry for the rant, but really, it kinda makes me mad to plop something that people cared enough to learn about for seventy years at the measly number of 134340. Tom Temprotran 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll forgive me for anthropomorphizing snowballs and bureaucratic lurchings, Pluto was "offered" 100000 when it was coming up, and the Pluto people didn't want it, or something. I'd look up the details if I was going to put it in the article. 67.168.216.176 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat that we should make a clear distinction with minor planets and dwarf planets. Since no dwarf planet numbering scheme exist, it is better to keep dwarf planet articles without minor planet numbers to avoid confusion. Since the whole concept of "dwarf planets" is so young, we still don't know how they will be referred. So, using names without minor planet numbers is not incorrect or inaccurate unlike it would be in the case of "true" minor planets.--JyriL ^talk 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles (cf WP article of that name) is nick-named "City of Angels", even though the city charter clearly states that it is named after Mary, Queen of Angels(or perhaps after the Franciscan Monastery in Italy, the "Portciuncula"). There are lots of "errors" like this in Wikipedia, which are not bothersome if a little history is known and admitted.Azblueeyes 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)azblueeyes 15 September 2006

What about moving this to 134340 Pluto, keeping Pluto as a redirect, then using {{redirect}} to point to Pluto (disambiguation)? Despite its demotion, I don't think Pluto-the-dwarf will fade into obscurity enough that we could move the disambiguation page to Pluto. Maybe in 50 years, but by that time, Wikipedia may be known more as the paper encyclopedia "Wikipedia 2.0" than as an online project. :^P – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole debate seems unneeded to me. Pluto should stay at Pluto. Just because it has now aquired a number doesn't mean that it should automatically become part of the article name. The article should be named in the way that most people recognise. I'm sure that even professional astronomers will still use the term "Pluto" over "134340 Pluto", and so the latter certainly shouldn't be forced upon the general public. aLii 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm really bothered where the article is, as long as there are good redirects in place. The problem is mainly one of consistency - if Pluto has NOT got a minor planet number in its title, shouldn't we re-title all the other named Minor Planets. But surely too much work. So perhaps we say that Small Solar System Bodies with minor planet numbers have the number in the title, whilst dwarf planets do not. So perhaps I'm arguing for Pluto (dwarf planet) as the title, even though I wouldn't have supported that when I started reading here. Then all that has to happen is occasional re-titling if and when other bodies are confirmed by the IAU to have Dwarf Planet status. Dwarfplanets.org.uk 14:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about

One great strength of Wikipedia is the speed with which it gets updated. New information in a field - odds are you'll see it here before a lot of the mainstream sites. One great weakness of Wikipedia is the speed with which it gets updated. New information - well, you've read the preceding line. However, what can happen is that - in the rush to update - we lose sight of context and clarity.

Now, I'm not talking about "holding off on listing Pluto as a dwarf 'cos those darned IAU losers are gonna get it" (or any of the myriad variations on that theme that have emerged). What I mean is that we shouldn't be in such a hurry to move this page that we fail to look at the bigger picture, which should really involve developing a coherent strategy for handling the current and future dwarf planets.

There's a lot to consider: changing classifications, entries in multiple catalogues, conflicts with existing mythology articles. These are not issues we should pretend to be able to resolve with numerous "quickie polls" scattered across the various astronomy articles. It might take days, or weeks, and it shouldn't be rushed. Also, it would probably help if the discussions were coordinated in one place. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, keep in mind that if the article gets moved, it's unrealistic to expect that the astronomy crowd will get to hang on to Pluto the page as a redirect. Instead, it'll end up as a disambiguation page, much like Mercury. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great... all we need is a single place to do it... -- Nbound 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is where it belongs. WP is primarily an encyclopedia for the general public, although many articles have more depth than that (fortunately). Sure, the body text should give the up-to-date scientific nomenclature and discuss the naming-renaming history. Finell (Talk) 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

see discussion on dwarf planet names on Talk:dwarf planet--TheFEARgod (listening) 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

my opinion

I think pluto should be officially classified as a dwarf planet but still be part of the nine planet list and should still be included in textbooks as a planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Cat (talk • contribs)

that wouldnt be very consistent for a scientific classification - Nbound

I consider Pluto to have "grandfathered" status as a planet. --  Denelson83  23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And Ceres? Ceres was a planet for decades. Is that sufficiently grandfathered for you? No. Cause we learned better. Consistency is a good thing and so is accuracy. --John Kenneth Fisher 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- Nbound

• Ceres & Pluto are VERY different. Ceres was demoted in a time where nobody cared about the solar system and it wasn't set in popular-culture like Pluto has. The dog was named after the planet, refrences in TV shows to the 9 planets have shown PLUTO. More people know about Pluto than Ceres. And I'd like to point out that Ceres' demotion didn't have huge debates and a huge general assembly like Pluto had. Ceres was literally "lets just call it an asteriod" and everyone agreed. Pluto still has planet supporters and I have no doubt that come 2009 we will have it back, if not sooner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.47.195 (talk • contribs)

It took decades of debate after herschel suggested the demotion of Ceres. etc. for that to become accepted. You just made the above up, didn't you? --John Kenneth Fisher 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Since when does popular culture dictate science... Hell even Alan Stern, the main guy in the argument against the reclassification, agrees with the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet, he just doesnt agree with terms that dictate what is and isnt one.

Dwarf Planet:

"While accepting the characterization of "dwarf planet" for Pluto and Eris, Stern rejects the current IAU definition of planet, both in terms of defining "dwarf planets" as something other than a type of planet, and in using orbital characteristics (rather than intrinsic characteristics) of objects to define them as dwarf planets.[6] Thus, he and his team will still refer to Pluto as the ninth planet."

Mike Brown, the discoverer of Eris, agrees that it is definately a dwarf planet.

Eris:

"Under a new definition approved on August 24, 2006, Eris was designated a "dwarf planet".[2] Brown has since stated his approval of the new "dwarf planet" label.[3]"

I suspect there may be amendments to the definition of planet, but they will not change the current structure, they will just make the chracteristics needed better suited to the situation (ie. physical characteristics instead of orbital charcteristics - as per alan sterns argument).

Any personal feelings about far flung icy rocks do not hold weight in the world of science.

-- Nbound 01:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

---

• First of all, I've never seen anywhere that Stern agreed with it, and second, he probably agreed that he thinks Pluto is a dwarf planet because it is "small", however, he counts it as the 9th planet, meaning his definition of "dwarf planet" is a small planet.

BTW, Mike Brown is like the astronomer version of John Kerry..flip flop, flip flop. First he thinks Pluto shouldn't be a planet, then when Eris is discovered, he says Pluto is a planet, then when the minority scientists demote Pluto, he agrees????

And Herschel didn't think Ceres should be demoted, he just termed it an "asteroid" or star-like object and that happend to be the term they called all those things later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.86.39 (talk • contribs)

The citation on my above quote Alan Stern text links here: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspectives/piPerspective_current.php

And what Mike Brown isnt allowed to change his mind because he doesnt agree with you? please...

What you'll find with his apparently changing POV was really: seeing at the time Pluto was still a planet, and his world was at least Pluto size, if Pluto was a planet then so was his.

Also the majority of astronomers who attended the vote, voted in favour of the reclassification, the rest didnt even turn up despite knowing about it years in advance.

As i said above, there may be amendments to the defintion but chances are it will stick with a similar defintion (though likely based upon different parameters - physical vs. orbital - etc.), though if there is a change upon the definition it will be that they are all planets (similar to the original draft). There will never be 9 planets again. Thats for sure... -- Nbound 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sure that there will "never be 9 planets again". Even if the new definition holds, we haven't scanned every arcsecond of sky out there. In years to come, we may just find another body that fits the definition. You never know. Amphion 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not 9 planets, but to say you're 100% confidnet Pluto won't be a planet again is laughable, there are ways to get it back in without letting in a bunch more. Adding a few planets (like the 12 in the first draft) would've been so exciting, and the public liked the idea of having more planets, not losing one that everyone has come to love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

I mentioned just above there is a possibility they could all be classified as planets -- Nbound

I fully appreciate the emotions that the reclassification of Pluto has generated including schoolchildren sending in letters of protest to those museums that have removed their globes of Pluto from their Solar System exhibits. All of us born after 1930 (me included) have grown up with a 9 planet scenario that seemed fixed. However, developments in telescopes and imaging technology has revealed that the Solar System is an altogether more complex and interesting formation. The current debate resembles the events of January 1801 when Ceres was discovered by Guiseppe Piazzi but then other discoveries followed giving us Pallas, Juno, Vesta and so on. It became clear that there was no single large planet like the others between Mars and Jupiter but instead there was a belt comprising large numbers of small solid bodies that were eventually termed asteroids that recognised their distinct and different place in the solar system.

When Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto the Solar System seemed complete but over the last decade and a half it's become clear that beyond Neptune there's a whole series of ice covered bodies with rocky cores of which Pluto and Eris (ex Xena) are currently the largest members. I have no doubt there are more of these bodies out there waiting to be discovered and it's looking like that in addition to the major planets we've now got an inner asteroid belt composed of rock, metallic or carbonaceous material, an outer Kuiper Belt composed of ice asteroids with the larger ones having a rock core and beyond that, and possibly merging with, the Oort Cloud of predominantly bodies composed of different ices and dust that's perhaps most like our primordial solar system and providing the source of our long period comets.

The recent decision of the International Astronomical Union was a way of putting that new understanding of what's out there in a rational context. It is the representative scientific governing body for world astronomy and that decision to have 8 classical planets and dwarf planets, with Pluto being classified as one of those dwarf planets, was carried by a majority decision. I think we should respect that decision. It does not change the fact that Pluto, Charon, Eris and the others are still out there and they are still very worthy of exploration. I fully support the New Horizons mission to Pluto and I hope that telescopic research of the outer reaches of the Solar System continues. Similarly, and quite rightly, NASA will launch the Dawn spacecraft mission next year to study Ceres. I am sure that there will be many new and surprising discoveries that will arise from these studies in due course.

I do appreciate that this decision has caused a lot of controversy though and that our former 9th planet has many fans. In view of all that heightened emotion, I would suggest keeping the article on Pluto locked down for another couple of months but then have the main factual sections opened up but only for editing for new information from recognised institutions such as NASA, the Hubble Space Telescope Institute, the International Astronomical Union, the Minor Planets Centre and so on. Regarding the article name change I would go along with (134340) Pluto main article with a page redirection for Pluto. However, I would also suggest a controversy section be added to the (134340) Pluto article, open to all to edit, so that Wikipedia users can describe how this decision has been received across the world, what actions have been taken, etc. but not to be used to vent their own personal views and if they do then that section gets closed down again.

Oh, one final thing on the double planet, moon, satellite thing. If the common centre of gravity (barycentre) is between two objects and they both revolve around that common centre of gravity as in Pluto and Charon (having a twelfth of the mass of Pluto) then it's a double planet. Although large, our Moon is still 81 times less massive than the Earth so the common centre of gravity of the two bodies effectively lies deep down (and most importantly) below the surface of Earth and for all practical purposes the Moon orbits around the Earth so it is a satellite or moon.

TWF 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.204.115 (talk • contribs)

Very well put and well thought out, TWF :) -- Nbound 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comet tail

What's the point of saying that Pluto would develop a comet tail if placed near the sun? The Earth would develop a comet tail if placed near the sun, too. All that that means is that there is volatile material on the surface which can escape the object's gravity if heated enough. Ken Arromdee 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the source, which is more specific in saying the distance of the Earth, not just "near the sun". But it's still nonsense. There are four non-gas-giants in the solar system that it makes sense to compare Pluto to. Three are the distance of the Earth or closer already so any material that could become a comet tail at the Earth's distance would have been used up already. So all this really is is a comparison of Pluto to Mars! (And even Mars once had gasses that escaped to space, and is still losing some water by the solar wind.) Ken Arromdee 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Pluto.png

In the image "Discovery Pluto.png" File:Discovery Pluto.png could someone do a variant of it highlighting which blob is meant to be pluto and is meant to have moved. It isn't at all obvious. -- SGBailey 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look around and found two conflicting links,

1. planetary.org
2. arizona.edu linked from this page.

The first link looks more original, but an examination of them both would appear to show that the Arizona University one is probably the more correct. aLii 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the opposite. The image on Pluto doesn't even display the moved Pluto according to the second image that is found on the planetary.org page (the cut-off removes it), and the first image actually shows the original arrow that can be found on the planetary.org page (the images for which are credited to Lowell Observatories). Since we're using a copyrighted version anyway, and claming fair use, I say we just rip the image from the planetary.org page. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the page with the new (well, old) image. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

These images also show the version I updated to: [2], [3], space.com has the same image: [4], as do several other sites. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone try to do a blink comparison on there own of the segment showing Pluto's motions? I noticed 4 other objects in definative motion, and 1 in suspect motion. Here is the one I created.
File:Pluto found marked.gif
Pluto is in red, the other ones I noticed are also colored for clarity, does anyone have any idea what the objects are the ones I noticed, if they are objects? Abyssoft 02:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be practical jokes. I looked them up on the originals, and the objects that appear to move here all show up in both of the original plates, except for the cyan object, which doesn't move on the original plates. However, the object that you identify as Pluto isn't identified as Pluto in the original plates. That one appears to be legit. -- MiguelMunoz 09:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pluto_found_marked.gif can be currently found at [5]. -- Paddu 07:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a copyrighted image. See Image:Pluto discovery plates.png for copyright info. and //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Discovery_Pluto.png) for source info. -- Paddu 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming discussion

There is now no consistency in the naming of the "dwarf planets". See Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming for the details. Let's just say that a policy is needed to naming these objects, and we all need to decide on that policy as a group instead of each page's editors doing their own thing. --EMS | Talk 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from above (sorry, everythings a bit muddled at the moment, isn't it) as its a (hopefully) valid reply to this ... I'm not sure I'm really bothered where the article is, as long as there are good redirects in place. The problem is mainly one of consistency - if Pluto has NOT got a minor planet number in its title, shouldn't we re-title all the other named Minor Planets. But surely too much work. So perhaps we say that Small Solar System Bodies with minor planet numbers have the number in the title, whilst dwarf planets do not. So perhaps I'm arguing for Pluto (dwarf planet) as the title, even though I wouldn't have supported that when I started reading here. Then all that has to happen is occasional re-titling if and when other bodies are confirmed by the IAU to have Dwarf Planet status. Dwarfplanets.org.uk 14:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest anyone interested make their way to the page cited in the above comment. It appears the main discussion for Pluto and the other minor planets has made its way over there for now. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Symbol

I heard somewhere that you could find all the letters of 'PLUTO' in the P-L monogram, and you can, only it's not mentioned here.~Sushi 06:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of that; and please remember, this page is about discussing changes to the article. Not random factoids. Ryūlóng 07:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Page moves (again)

I've just archived both page move discussions, because they are still attracting comments despite clearly being closed. --ajn (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

pluto is a planet

why does the IAU get to change plutos classification?? i dont think the IAU was around when pluto was first discovered. also the IAU cant just change the guidelines for planetism just like that. i think pluto should be a planet, and so should eris and ceres as well for that matter. i think me and all pluto supporters should gather round the IAU HQ with flaming torches until they reclassify pluto. Dogs suck. Cats rule. 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)David Cat

Because someone along the way decided they get to decide. But if you want to go on calling it a planet you won't be alone, so more power to you. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the IAU was founded in 1919 so they were around when Pluto was discovered in 1930 and played a large role in the naming of it at that point. --Nebular110 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're going to resort of Violence and threats over the matter of a defenition!?

Wow this is a crazy world..... Zazaban 05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not threatening, it is a torch-light vigil for the demise of Pluto's planetary status. =) Zotel - the Stub Maker 21:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

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

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

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

--Ckatz^chat_spy 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

About time giving legitimacy: Earth has been considered flat for way longer than round. Should we say it is flat for that matter?221.249.13.22 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that didn't understand what the comment above me said at ALL? On a more on-topic note, I think this gives good concrete basis for NOT using the MPC numbers in the article names. If Ceres is no longer an asteroid, we can reasonably say the same for Pluto and Eris. E946 07:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What basis is that to remove MPC numbers... they all still have them, they are all still catalogued minor planets. -- Nbound 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Floyd Landis is still categorized as the winner of the Tour de France... doesn't mean it's true. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comment does NOT mean that Ceres is not an asteroid. Ceres is just the largest known asteroid. It can still be a minor planet and a dwarf planet all at the same time. Phobos is a moon, but it is also an asteroid. Asteroids do not have to be in the asteroid belt to be called asteroids. The trojan asteroids (among many other families) are not in the asteroid belt. The term "asteroid" identifies an object by intrinsic characteristics (largely composition), not by orbit or mass. (although clearly we need a lower limit on mass, since otherwise we'd be giving minor planet numbers to dust grains.) Lots of astronomical objects have multiple names. Stars in particular can have as many as 10 or designations. -- myrrhlin 16:07, 06 October 2006

Not liking the "official designation" wording

The number is NOT Pluto's official designation, it is simply "Pluto". I think it needs to be worded better. The IAU approved the name "Pluto" on May 1, 1930, that is the OFFICIAL name, with the number as a MPC only designation for catologues. Astronomers will still call it Pluto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .

It's been cataloged as 134340 Pluto. That's an official designation, whether you feel that way or not. Ryūlóng 23:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"An" official designation and "the" official designation are not the same thing... Shimgray | talk | 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is still an unofficial designation (a shortened version). In academic papers etc, it still has to be referred to by its official designation, 134340 Pluto. Therefore, as far as the IAU is (and encyclopedias should be) concerned, the name of the object is 134340 Pluto. In my view the page should be renamed as such and a redirect from Pluto made. --Jrothwell ^(talk) 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you source your claim that the MPC number is mandatory in academic papers? To draw an example from another area of astronomy, it appears to be not uncommon in abstracts of academic papers to refer to the Small Magellanic Cloud solely by that name, rather than by a catalogue number such as NGC 292. Henning Makholm 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, better worded, it should be referred to as 134340 Pluto. --Jrothwell ^(talk) 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you source "should", then? Henning Makholm 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As a follow up on this issue the MPC issued an editorial notice; Please see http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K06/K06R19.html For details. Abyssoft 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Name is wrong.

This KBO is called 134340 Pluto. Not "Pluto" or whatever you call it. Zazaban 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed the big argument for about a week, unfortunately theres alot of luddites/planetophiles out there -- Nbound 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I was there. I actually support Pluto being a planet, but I just think this article should be what it's called as of now. Zazaban 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• it is officially called "Pluto" as it always has been. Where have you been? Not on Earth, that's for sure ;). It's MPC number is 134340. So?! Don't believe in everything you read in wikipedia. "134340 Pluto" is wikipedia's "official" name, not the official name of the body itself. Confused?! get used to it. Pluto is Pluto. Earth is Earth. Pallas is Pallas. etc... etc... -Pedro 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

134340 Pluto is the official name... Pluto is the colloquial name -- Nbound 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• where's that written? --Pedro 01:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  See IAU Circular 8747. It makes it very clear that Pluto is now item 134340 in the MPC. In the future, it will be called 134340 Pluto or (134340) Pluto in the astronomical literature. --EMS | Talk 01:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  Hold on... there's nothing in that document (or any other that I've seen so far) that states that "134340 Pluto" is the official name. Even the text quoted below from Wikipedia (let's give it the benefit of the doubt) makes it clear that there is a distinction between the official number and the official name:

  "Once its orbit has been confirmed, it is given a number, and later may also be given a name (e.g. 433 Eros). The formal naming convention uses parentheses around the number (e.g. (433) Eros), but dropping the parentheses is quite common. Informally, it is common to drop the number altogether, or to drop it after the first mention when a name is repeated in running text."

  From that, it seems that the number and the name make up the official designation. To me, a human analogy might be one's social security number - it's an official catalogue number for the individual, but it's certainly not a name. I think it's important to get some sort of confirmation before we state categorically that the name has changed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  That IAU circular contains all of the confirmation you need. The first section is entitled "(134340) Pluto, ...". I will agree that the object's name is still "Pluto", but by Wikipedia convention the articles on minor planets have (until recently) all been names MPC# name. Dwarf planets are minor planets, hence the case the this article should be called 134340 Pluto. --EMS | Talk 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for agreeing... I forgot to add why I was mentioning the above - it wasn't an argument for or against the name of the article so much as a reaction to the tendency (not yours, but editors in general) to change "Pluto" to "134340 Pluto" in general text on the presumption that the name has changed. (As an aside, I'd still like to see some confirmation that dwarf planets are "minor planets", other than just the fact that they are part of the catalogue. Some of the IAU language suggests they night not be, but again, it's an informational void as far as these matters go right now. :( ) I don't have it handy right now (different location) but I'll put up a link tonight to an older version of the IAU FAQ I quoted regarding Ceres, which suggests a different spin on things had the original proposal been accepted. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  Pluto wouldn't be in the MPC if it was not considered to be a minor planet now. The dwarf planets as a group were denied planetary status at the last IAU plenary session, and that has settled that issue. A more germane issue is whether the dwarf planets are considered to just be large minor planets for Wikipedia purposes, or if they deserve some other treatment [such as the "(dwarf planet)" suffix]. --EMS | Talk 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

All minor planets are (or at least should be) refered to by "<MPC number> <name>", why do you think people wanted Pluto's page named that way? That is why Ceres is 1 Ceres, Vesta is 4 Vesta, and so on -- Nbound 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also from Asteroid:

Overview: the naming format

A newly discovered asteroid is given a provisional designation consisting of the year of discovery and an alphanumeric code (such as 2002 AT4). Once its orbit has been confirmed, it is given a number, and later may also be given a name (e.g. 433 Eros). The formal naming convention uses parentheses around the number (e.g. (433) Eros), but dropping the parentheses is quite common. Informally, it is common to drop the number altogether, or to drop it after the first mention when a name is repeated in running text.

Asteroids that have been given a number but not a name keep their provisional designation, e.g. (29075) 1950 DA. As modern discovery techniques are discovering vast numbers of new asteroids, they are increasingly being left unnamed. The first asteroid to be left unnamed was (3360) 1981 VA. On rare occasions, an asteroid's provisional designation may become used as a name in itself: the still unnamed (15760) 1992 QB1 gave its name to a group of asteroids which became known as cubewanos.[edit]

Numbering asteroids

Asteroids are awarded with an official number once their orbits are confirmed. With the increasing rapidity of asteroid discovery, asteroids are currently being awarded six-figure numbers. The switch from five figures to six figures arrived with the publication of the Minor Planet Circular (MPC) of October 19, 2005, which saw the highest numbered asteroid jump from 99947 to 118161. This change caused a small "Y2k"-like crisis for various automated data services, since only five digits were allowed in most data formats for the asteroid number. Most services have now widened the asteroid number field. For those which did not, the problem has been addressed in some cases by having the leftmost digit (the ten-thousands place) use the alphabet as a digit extension. A=10, B=11,…, Z=35, a=36,…, z=61. A high number such as 120437 is thus cross-referenced as C0437 on some lists.

[edit]

-- Nbound 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, y'all. Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) please and see why Pluto is not at 134340 Pluto, why Eris (dwarf planet) is no longer at 136199 Eris, and why 1 Ceres is still at 1 Ceres. Ryūlóng 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia: Naming conflict to see why the official takes precedence, when theres a conflict between two (or more) possible names -- Nbound 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

From that page:

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

I see no problems with the naming of this article, particularly because the scientific name that you claim utilizes the MPC number only appears in MPC literature. Also, the Wikipedia community decided on what to name the three dwarf planet's pages. This one had a keep to this page, and several straw polls afterwards tried to sway others for no apparent reason. There is not going to be a systematic naming for these objects on Wikipedia, which I had stated on Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming. We should take each object that becomes a dwarf planet on a case-by-case basis. Pluto stays as Pluto because it is the most common name, and even scientific literature omits the numerical designation, unless it comes directly from the Minor Planet Center's catalog. Eris has only existed as such for two weeks; as such, people decided that the name should be disambiguated from that of the goddess of chaos without the six digit number. 1 Ceres remains as 1 Ceres because it was still the first minor planet found, and it serves as a much better disambiguation from the goddess of agriculture than (dwarf planet). Should other objects, such as Quaoar or Varuna be classified as dwarf planets, then the community will convene and think of whether or not to rename those articles, perhaps to omit the five digit numbers in front of them, or perhaps to leave them as is. WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), and WP:NCON are guidelines, but it has been decided on what to utilize for the articles. Pluto doesn't have a massive amount of numbers in front of it, nor does Eris, nor does Ceres (it only has one). Ryūlóng 02:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, im not aware of anything else thats been published on Pluto since the change, other than MPC circulars... -- Nbound 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only been a month. I'm sure that there are various scientific periodicals that are publishing information relating to Pluto, and they are not using the MPN within the text. There's no pressing need for any sort of naming convention now, especially with any sort of consensus within the Wikipedia community. Ryūlóng 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed?

Haven't we had enough consensus building talk and straw polls on this already? The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep it here. End of story. We can revisit this in a few months or when the IAU gets off their collective asses and actually finishes a definition and designation program for the 3 or more dwarf planets. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New poll on naming dispute

Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, and the way the vote over there is currently going, 5 people are supporting an option that will give the denizens of Pluto the option to rename to Pluto (dwarf planet), 4 people are supporting an option that will force renaming Pluto to 134340 Pluto, 2 people support an option to just leave things alone for 6 months, and one person supports an option that will will give the denizens of Pluto the option to rename to Pluto (astronomy). Nfitz 03:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that "force" is an appropriate term. First the participants in that discussion must agree on a scheme, and then the editors here have to ratify it. I find it likely (but sad) that this page may go for some time as just plain "Pluto" until is has become a lone outlier which looks silly due to its not comforming to the standard (whatever that may end up being). --EMS | Talk 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well 6 of the regular planets (at least) still have the same nomenclature as Pluto. So I wouldn't worry about it being a outlier yet - besides, what is wrong with outliers? Nfitz 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

The Guardian is issuing wallcharts on all sorts of natural and scientific areas at the moment, and today is "Planets of the Solar System". It shows eight, with Pluto, 2003 UB313 (Xena) and Ceres in a separate box as "Dwarf planets". Pluto and the other two are not shown on the diagram of sizes and distances from the Sun. --ajn (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The dangers of long-lead-time printing ;-) Shimgray | talk | 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• And this is why this demotion will be fought until the day I die. Nobody cares about anything in our solar system but the sun and the planets. Nobody will bother to learn about the true 9TH PLANET that is Pluto because some retards at the IAU said it shouldn't be planet. If this mess continues, nobody will bother to learn about Pluto and it'll be forgotten just like Ceres, Pallas, Juno, & Vesta. All thanks to the Irrelevant Astronomical Union! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

• • I pointed my audioscope at Pluto last night, and I heard it crying about its omission from the Guardian's wallchart. It was sobbing "why, why don't they care about me?" and I bet it was weeping salty tears. Charon was trying to cheer it up by saying it wouldn't be forgotten, but wasn't having any luck. --ajn (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can we keep this on-topic please... -- Nbound 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That was on-topic. As I've said before, people need to stop anthropomorphising lumps of rock. --ajn (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does anthropomorphizing mean?

• Yes because we should class things on them being learnt about rather than real science. Why should people learn Pluto over Eris or Ceres anyway? Besides Pluto was an intruder in the planet category, even in the other option put forward pluto wouldnt be the 9th planet, it would be the 10th or higher depending on the characteristics of some asteroids in the asteroid belt. Pluto is nothing special, its just another ice dwarf among many, on the fringes of the known solar system. -- Nbound 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just to quibble, people say 'one in a million' to mean special, but even that means there are still 6000 people that match the 'one in a million' category. When it comes to astronomical objects in the solar system, there are many (including Ceres, large moons of Jupiter, and so forth), that are very interesting, but only people who have an interest in the subject pay attention to them. Yet many of those who whine about Pluto's demotion are those who seem no have to interest in solar system astronomy, judging by the ignorance they show in thier blog postings and the like. I get the impression that many did not even know about the Kuiper Belt. The concept of 'dwarf planets' might partially rectify that, by calling attention to some smaller objects... I'm rambling JamesFox 11:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Astronomy is one of my favorite subjects, and I definitely think Pluto's demotion was wrong. Just because I say my mind about it doesn't mean I'm some fanboy that is weeping at what the IAU did. If you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one against this definition, professional astronomers, the public, and even kids are mad about it. I'm letting my voice be heard and I, and many others, do not support the IAU.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

• From your posts id say you are a fanboy... if you havent noticed... those against are the minority, and science isnt based on public opinion anyway. Even those that were disappointed got over it quick, and now it is mainly a few who just wont let it go. -- Nbound 04:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• I was not talking, primarily, to you, but rather to Nbound's 'nothing special' comment. However, I will say that the start of the comment applies a bit to your message in that I feel that it is irrational that Pluto and Pluto alone is singled out by you for great recognition. As I said, I like the idea of dwarf planets because it could help popularize smaller, but still interesting objects like Orcus and Varuna. Even if Pluto had been grandfathered in, with Eris, I would still support the idea of dwarf planets. JamesFox 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that Dwarf Planets should be a seperate category of regular Planet. Pluto would be a Planet and it would be seperate from the other 8 main planets. Everyone's happy. (Even thought I myself support the original Idea to expand the list of planets). Zazaban 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there is no scientific basis for doing so. Im for any definition as long as its scientifically valid, rather than just arbitrary -- Nbound 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Fail (citations missing)

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass (1 tiny problen)

Additional comments :

• China started official use the name in 1933, doesn't make sense.
• There are needed citation ... if it can't be found, the text can be put on the talk page.
• The line Many details about Pluto remain unknown, mainly due to the fact that it has not been visited up close by spacecraft and that Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigations difficult. would probably require a citation to show that it isn't original research.

• A citation for this? Do we need to cite the obvious? Joelito (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not obvious that Pluto hasn't been visited by a spacecraft. And, while Pluto is obviously far away, it is not obvious that its distance makes investigations difficult, since that judgment would require a working knowledge of the state of the art in astronomy. Both of these statements, if they remain in the article, require citations. --Doradus 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pluto's apparent magnitude is fainter than 14 m and therefore a telescope is required for observation. To be easily seen, a telescope of around 30 cm aperture is desirable. It looks star-like even in very large telescopes because its angular diameter is only 0.15. is a bit technical, could it be lessened?
• Is a paragraph such as Among the objects of the Solar System... really useful as it is only comparison and not bringing useful details to the article.
• The word recently should be removed. Same for expected, recent, previous occurrence.

Why? Joelito (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a time expression. Michaelas10 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. To clarify: Wikipedia is not a 'current news' reporting source. Pretend you're picking up printouts of Wikipedia 70 years from now and using it for a school assignment. Will the word 'recently' mean anything later? No. Thus, it is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Dsf 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• A citation should be given for The current best hypothesis is that the south pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years in 1987, and extra nitrogen sublimated from a polar cap. It will take decades for the excess nitrogen to condense out of the atmosphere. as it borders pov.
• In the reference section there is a book published in 2007 ???
• It doesn't seem like the text that is in the article can be found in the textbooks mentioned below. The material used to write the article may not be present in the reference section. This article will need to give more inline citations for that matter unless textbooks are given.
• Image:Venetia phair.jpg fails to give its fair use rationale.

Lincher 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It fails article stability - more than 250 edits in the past 2 weeks, a nomination to rename the article and a nomination for WP:AID each individually could fail this WP:GA nomination, but together definitely make for an unstable article. Renominate in a month or two after these issues are resolved. Davodd 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has 29 citations. GA is not FA or even A class. Why is this not properly cited for a GA article? Joelito (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Astrological Symbol

I have re-added Pluto's astrological symbol to the infobox. I feel that having both symbols is best since 1) Planetary Symbols are probably used more in astrology than in astronomy; 2) It doesn't take up any extra space; 3) To aid any astrologists looking at the infobox; 4) To silently highlight the fact that it has two symbols; 5) Because it does no harm, and I cannot think of a good reason not to have the symbol. Bluap 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's relevant enough, though adding any more astrology would be wrong. But it's not there now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Something14 has twice removed the symbol from the template. I started this discussion in the hope of sorting out a consensus on the issue. I've reverted the removal twice, but will not revert the change a third time. However, I urge anyone interested to try to reach consenus here first. For those that are interested, the page to watch is Template:Dwarf Planet Infobox/Pluto Bluap 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• The astronomical symbol is of more importance than some silly astrological one. Uranus has 2 symbols and the astronomical one takes the greatest importance. In the Smitsonaian institutes planetary exhibit, Pluto's astronomical symbol is the one listed, not the astrolocial. The astrological symbol is listed in the article right where it needs to be, so anybody looking for it doesn't have to look too hard.

Also, I changed the font size of the "Pluto" name in the template, looks much better smaller and brings it inline with the other planets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

I took out the symbol earlier this evening, and then noticed this discussion. Sorry for not posting this note a few hours ago, but I ran into problems trying to save it back then. Anyways, I've removed the astrological symbol for three reasons:

• it is already covered in the "Symbol" section just a few paragraphs down;
• none of the eight planet articles have the astrological symbol in their infoboxes;
• without accompanying explanation, it is confusing to see two symbols.

I've also restored the formating for the "Pluto" caption that was removed by Something14; while there is a (very slight) difference between the planet box and the dwarf planet box, 14's revision was much smaller and looked very different. I took a look at the coding for each template, but it wasn't a quick fix unfortunately. I'll try again in a while and see if I can revamp the dwarf box to more closely resemble the planet coding. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• It was only Pluto's box that was different, Eris & Ceres are in line with Venus, Jupiter, etc., too. I edited all the templates to bring the symbols all within scale.

I've restored the "+1" sizing on Pluto - the "-1" you used is far too small in comparison to the other boxes. I think the problem lies in the fact that there is a difference in coding between the boxes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"none of the eight planet articles have the astrological symbol in their infoboxes" As I understand it, for the other planets, the astrological symbol is the same as their planetary symbol Bluap 13:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... doing some research (the dreaded Wiki "R" word), it turns out that Uranus has a different symbol for astrology. Pluto differs, as discussed above, and there are several proposed astrology signs for Eris (but no astronomical one yet). I think having two signs on some boxes and only one on others (with no explanation) would be confusing, especially since the primary focus of the infobox is on astronomical data. Another argument against it might be that it puts an undue focus on western astrology. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "update" tag

A few minutes ago, SeigeTank2000 added an "update" tag to the page, without leaving any indication as to "why". As such, I have removed the tag, as I'm not seeing any indication of "breaking news" about the affable ex-planet, and it's fair to say that this article is constantly updated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I heard from my mom and my bro, they say that Pluto has recently been nominated as to no longer be considered a planet within our solar system and i thought that you guys should change that and make any other changes nessisary

-Roy Zheng (SeigeTank2000) 05:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but welcome to two months ago. All of that happened on 2006-08-24 and it is now 7 October 2006. Ryūlóng 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-Date Reference

This reference looks out of date to me. I could justify it if it was a current event article and tagged as such, but I think it's been sufficiently long to not consider it such.

Henderson, Mark (Oct. 30, 2005). "Pluto may lose status of planet". New Straits Times, p. F17.

What you guys think? Thadius856 07:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was used in making part of the article in the past, it should stay until such is completely replaced. It might otherwise be dishonest. If it's a see also, remove it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Ceres move

Following the discussion and supermajority/consensus established on Talk: Dwarf planet/Naming there is a proposed move for 1 Ceres to be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet) on the Talk: 1 Ceres page. Those Pluto editors who wish for a policy one way or another on the overall naming scheme for dwarf planets should participate there. Thanks. The Enlightened 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Realise, though, that a vote to keep Ceres where it is shouldnt affect Pluto much. Indeed, as I read [[6]], (a proposed guideline) Pluto should stay here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move poll died

The page move poll for Pluto seems to have died a quiet death at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming, so I removed the header from this talk page. Maybe someone wants to try proposing it again, knock yourself out. --Yath 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradicting Pages

There is a slight contradition between different pages on wikipedia here. Clearing the neighbourhood says that Stern calls the planets that dominate their area überplanets where as this page just calls them planets. If he calls them überplanets, there is no contradiction, and if he does there is. Either way, one of the pages has to resolve the contradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.99.121 (talk • contribs)

I think the term "überplanets" was more a description when the term "planet" was still hanging in the air and he wanted to remove ambiguity. There's no contradiction here. The Enlightened 05:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Earlier version of this page specifically said (something like) that Stern & Levison wrote "'our solar system clearly contains' eight planets which have cleared their neighboring planetesimals," thus avoiding directly quoting the silly word "überplanets" which would then have to be defined for the reader, while still being accurate and relatively clear. Leaving out the last clause makes it look like Stern agrees with the IAU terminology, which he never has, rather than with the science, which he always did, until he started this business in the press about Earth Mars Jupiter & Neptune not clearing their neighborhoods any more. 64.122.41.167 04:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Why are we now implying (probably unintentionally) that the MPC catalogue is the only place you'd ever find minor planet numbers used? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Because the lingo is only for them. The name is Pluto, always has been, always will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

No the "lingo" is used in scientific literature, its only the public which refers to it otherwise... also... can you please sign your posts its quite annoying adding unsigned tags and its not exactly hard to do -- Nbound 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I changed the wording before realising this discussion was here. I don't think the phrase "in the Minor Planet Center catalogue" implies its the only place it is used. The fact that its mentioned in the first sentence shows its an important designation more than some random list, and an adequate link would mean people could easily look it up if unsure. The Enlightened 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Untrue, there are plenty of scientific literatures that ditch the numbers. They are only for tables for the MPC, that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, Enlightened, but, eh, it'll probably be some time before we get the phrasing exactly right. Small things are the most awkward. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

Could someone knowledgable add an IPA pronunciation in the first sentence? I think it a) looks good & informative, and b) helps non-English speakers. The Enlightened 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has adjusted the IPA text at the top, so that it now differs from the one in the Charon section. Which one is correct? --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The one currently at the top of the text is found in the OED, so I'd say it's "rightest". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made them conform. I'd also suggest someone add the "correct" pronunciation of Charon in that table (the one for Charon (mythology)). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

AID nom

Pluto (41 votes, stays until November 3)

Nominated August 25, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by November 3, 2006

Support

1. Davodd 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Jeff321 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 09:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC) - Get up to FA Status now that it's not a planet anymore..
4. --M@rēino 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) we should also improve the related articles, like Clearing the neighbourhood.
5. ClockworkSoul 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
6. JQF 18:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
8. GoldenTie 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Speedystickd 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
10. TransNique 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
11. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
12. TestPilot 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
13. CG 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Litefantastic 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Amphytrite 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
16. --Tachikoma 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Jeffklib 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Tarret 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Sum1else 14:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Some P. Erson 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Daniel's page ☎ 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
22. mirageinred 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Pedro 13:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
25. C-squared 23:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
26. ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Ixistant 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Yeti Man5 11:52AM MST, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Farquaadhnchmn 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Lukesed 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Kyoko 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
33. TransNique 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Benbread 12:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Will.i.am 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
36. User:Nicholassayshi 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Michaelas10 Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
38. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
39. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
40. Ckatz^chat_spy 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
41. ArthurWeasley 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
42. Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• With the recent hubbub and demotion to "dwarf planet" status, this once-fine article needs to be fixed up by us.
• I spent 6 hours cleaning it up, if it still needs cleaning, vote. Else, unvote! :) Electrawn 01:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• It is a poor and confusing article. I hope this become a neutral, reliable, and clean article. It will be very hard, because we know nothing about it, maybe that it is why most of the article is not about Pluto itself, but its classification (which does not seem balanced BTW). Thus, it seems a 19th century astronomy article. :S But surely there are several scientific papers concerning physical aspects of Pluto, theories, etc... --Pedro 13:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Does anyone have a better photo? --Farquaadhnchmn 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course not! No one's gone that far out with a working camera/ sattelite. Be amazed that we could retrieve that.
• Despite its demotion, Pluto still deserves the best article we can muster! --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• With some work, could make FA. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes removed

1. 67.175.85.188 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, no anonymous votes Errabee 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Pluto image

I've observed/contributed to this page for a while now, and the main image does bother me a bit. It just looks like a disco ball and encourages vandalism. Would an image that wasn't so highly resolved be better, like a shot from further out showing the Pluto–Charon system? Because what's the point of zooming in on something so closely when we really don't know much about the details. Kris 12:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Weel, there'll be a probe arriving at it in a few years... Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't we find an artist to draw one perhaps? We could keep the old image, and the new one side by side, or even just show a picture of the solar system with an arrow to pluto. Comments? Micropw 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual image could easily just be blurred to remove the "disco ball-like" effect. I don't really think that's necessary, though. It's fine as it is. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the picture looks like some dusty old disco ball some old lady kept for the past 30 years. I think putting a picture of the Solar System and an arrow on Pluto is a great idea. It's all we have until NASA can come up with a picture of Pluto that doesn't look like it just came out of the 70's. Abcw12 06:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AID

During the Article Improvement Drive this week, let's keep in mind that this article is already longer than the suggested size from Wikipedia:Article_size. Keep it crisp! Gnixon 16:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Polls

There have been umpteen polls on renaming this, and other dwarf planet articles, most recently at Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. The consensus is not to rename anything, and more importantly not to have half a dozen bloody polls every month because some people don't like that. --ajn (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually consensus was to rename Eris and Ceres to Name (Dwarf Planet) and to have Pluto remain here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Physical characteristics images

In the third illustration in this section, how do I match up the named moons with the moons in the image? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

second-largest known non-planetary body orbiting the Sun

Seems a useless bit of information. If it is known that dwarf planets are smaller than planets, and that there are no brown dwarfs orbiting the Sun, then it's a given. Also, it might actually be wrong, when one considers that planetary systems orbit the Sun, so moons really are orbiting the Sun as well (and there are plenty of Moons larger than Pluto). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Seemed awkward when I looked at it, seems more awkward with the moon thing. Get rid of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my edit

...dated 10/22/06:

I added "known" to "second-largest known dwarf planet" because the recent discovery of Eris makes it far from certain that larger dwarf planets don't lurk farther out in the Kuiper Belt.

I changed the "Dinky Pluto..." link because the old link pointed to a map, with no obvious way to proceed to the article.

I changed "0.5832%" to "0.59%" because the information box on top says Pluto's diameter is 18% of Earth's, and 18% cubed is EXACTLY 0.5832%. So if that's how 0.5832% was computed, there are too many significant figures. I computed 0.59% by using the Pluto and Earth articles to get (2306/(6,372.797x2))³. Art LaPella 23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing "known"--we've gone over this more than once here already. Yes, there may be more. But even if there are, it's not our job to speculate. Right now, Pluto is the second-largest dwarf planet. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. If there are any larger ones, they are out there right now. They will not suddenly spring into existence when they are discovered. Qualifying "largest" with "known" is not speculation, it is simply being accuracy. On the contrary, not qualifying it thus would constitute an unsupported claim that only one larger one exists. Henning Makholm 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, there are objects that might qualify as dwarf planets out there, but that doesn't make them dwarf planets. The fact that there are objects right now that we currently know of that have not been designated dwarf planets that probably fit the criteria makes it clear that it is designation and not simply existence that makes something a dwarf planet. There is speculation on the part of some astronomers that a body the size of Mars might even be lurking out there. That body, if discovered, could conceivably be classified as a planet. Does that mean we have to change the description for all current planets to "known"? We should be working on our present knowledge, not future possible knowledge that may or may not come into existence. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Present knowledge is that we don't know which other dwarf planets are out there (and, again, being discovered is not among the criteria for dwarf-planetness, so whatever unknown dwarf planets are there are even in their current undiscovered state dwarf planets) -- but that there is a scientific consensus to strongly suspect that a nontrivial number of them will be found in the decades ahead. Otherwise the whole redefining-the-status-of-Pluto debacle would not have been needed in the first place. You're arguing for a wording that claim a scientific fact the impossibility of undiscovered dwarf planets larger than Pluto, which is plain and simply an untrue proposition. Henning Makholm 18:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I disagree that being designated (not discovered) is not a criteria of being a dwarf planet (despite it not being in the "definition"). However, my wording does not argue that there may not be further objects designated as dwarf planets in the future. It simply speaks in the present from present knowledge of the size of dwarf planets as currently defined and designated. Your position would purport to put the word "known" in statements about size of planets, if, as some have claimed, there is a possibility of the existence of an as-yet-undiscovered Mars-sized planet. Would you agree to this change to the articles on planets? Your position, if it was the one commonly held, would mean that prior to the discovery of Pluto, astronomers were not saying that Mercury was the smallest planet, only the smallest known planet, something I think is highly unlikely. In addition, your position would not affect only astronomical bodies. What if an article contains a statement about the relative size, or colour, or age, or whatever of some obscure (or not so obscure) animal family? Would we modify these statements with "known", since new species are discovered daily? How about the following (from Orca):

The Orca or Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) is not a whale, but the largest species of the oceanic dolphin family (Delphinidae).

Do we put "known", since there is a possibility (I don't know the likelihood, but I'd guess, even if it's very very low, is non-zero) that a larger member of the family Delphinidae could be discovered? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a large difference between the Delphinidae and objects far out in the solar system. Only 1 new Dolphin species has been found in the last half-century (according to our wiki-articles). Before 1992, there was only 1 known object which had a semi-major axis larger than that of Neptune's orbit. As of 28 August this year, there were 1146, with ~90% of those being discovered since the start of 1999 - that's on average more than 2.5 per week - a much higher rate than Dolphin/Orca species discovery - and many of the objects found have been comparible to the size of Pluto - it's not like we're finding pebbles out there. Jupiter placed out at 500 AU would only shine as brightly as Eris - and that was only discovered a couple of years ago. The Moon at 500 AU would be virtually invisible to even the most powerful telescopes we have. The "survey" for outer-solar system bodies is far from complete. Richard B 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For the second time you've ignored my point about the possibility of a Mars-sized body (with planet status) being discovered in the outer solar system. In the interests of accuracy and consistency, I charge you with inserting "known" into the first sentence of Mercury.

Oh, and I still disagree that any body is a dwarf planet until we classify it as such. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT insert the word "known" into the Mercury article. Even if we find an ice cube larger than Mercury there is a good chance that Mercury will be the more massive because it is very dense. Kheider 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Explaining my edit - Volume?

I am confused. There are 2 references to the volume of Pluto on the page. One says .0066 earths, and the other says .59% of earth. Which one is it? Dan 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The page says the diameter is 2306 +/- 20 km, but the NASA reference (the first External Link) says the radius is 1195 km (implying 2390 km diameter). I used 2306, and the .0066 figure used the NASA volume - which is consistent with 1195 km after applying the 4/3 pi r³ formula for the volume of a sphere. That discrepancy explains the volume discrepancy. We're using a diameter and a volume inconsistent with each other. The NASA source seems to be fairly authoritative, so it looks like we should change 2306 to 1195x2. That change would imply changing .59% to .66% earths. Art LaPella 05:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, using a value of 0.5x2306 km for r yields a value of roughly 6.4x10⁹ km³ for the volume of Pluto, a value far short of the volume listed in the article. I agree, 2306 km should be changed to the NASA figure. --Nebular110 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just made this change. Art LaPella 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the error bars? ;) Obviously neither can be absolute. aLii 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese

"Japan used to use the pronunciation プルートー (puruutoo); later Tokyo Observatory decided to adopt it, and it became the official name in Japan in 1943." the article states. I've just looked Pluto up in Kenkyusha's Lighthouse English-Japanese Dictionary (1984) and found "2冥王星（めいおうせい）" ... no mention of "プルートー" at all. Jimp 01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This was later revised to "Japan used the pronunciation プルートー (purūtō); later Tokyo Observatory decided to adopt it, and it became the official name in Japan in 1943." Jimp 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[7] Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, since I'm no expert, but "プルートー" is katakana, a syllabary primarily used for foreign and technical words. "冥王星" would be the word in kanji (and is what the article on jp.wikipedia.org is titled, and "めいおうせい" would be the word in the hiragana syllabary. Hiragana is used, inter alia, for showing the pronunciation of kanji, in the same way we use IPA, and this is how it is used in the Japanese Wikipedia article on Pluto. As for not finding the katakana in the dictionary, this may be because the word started out with katakana (being a foreign word), but later received kanji. Whatever the case, the word has its own kanji, and the kana (either hiragana or katakana) are pronunciations. It would be better to just say the pronunciation is "purūtō" and leave the kana out altogether. Actually, I've been wondering for a while why the section is included in the article at all. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 冥王星 (めいおうせい) using ruby? Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this has been removed (haven't bothered to check). It's obviously stupid to have such details in the english Wikipedia. If one cares about Japanese all you have to do is click to read the Japanese version... aLii 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with you. If you want to know the translations into other languages, another place to go is Wiktionary to which I've just added the link. I've removed the statement in question ... note: Wiktionary doesn't mention the katakana version either. Whilst I was at it I also got rid of "China started official use of the name in 1933."

Oh. I neglected to mention that "プルートー" would be romanised as "purūtō" but "冥王星" or "めいおうせい" would be romanised as "meiōsei". So "プルートー" is not a pronunciation of "冥王星" but a transliteration of "Pluto".

I've only deleted two sentences so far but it seems to me that the whole paragraph about the dwarf planet's name in foreign languages probably belongs in Wiktionary not here. Jimp 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

should be incorporated into the "Discovery" section

Looky what I found...the telegram that first announced the discovery of Pluto!

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=050215_pluto_announce_02.jpg&cap=Pluto%92s%20discovery%20made%20big%20news%20in%20the%20astronomical%20world.%20The%20discovery%92s%20announcement%2C%20put%20out%20by%20the%20Lowell%20Observatory%20a%20few%20weeks%20after%20the%20observations%20had%20been%20made%20and%20analyzed%2C%20appears%20here.%20Credit%3A%20Lowell%20Observatory.%20Click%20to%20enlarge.

HEYYY! Please knock it off with all the Pluto-hating and Jupiter loving.

• This isn't Pluto hating, Pluto is my favorite planet.Something14 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is pluto a planet

Is it really a planet? WikiMan53 T/C 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can read in the article, no. It is drastically different from the 8 planets, and had we known in 1930 what we know now, it would never have been called one. Pluto's not even the largest stray rock out there anymore. -- Jordi·✆ 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not "drastically" different from the other 8. It has more incommon with the Earth than Jupiter does, so is Earth not a planet???

Talk pages aren't for debate about the article's subject, they're only for discussion of the article itself. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Bryan 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is not considered a planet because it has not cleared the neighbourhood (since there are KBOs in pluto's general location in the solar system, and cleared the neighbourhood is one of the 3 criteria for being considered a planet accoring to the 2006 definition). To be considered a planet, pluto would have had to swallow up the KBOs, eject them from the location, or placed them under its gravitational control. Pluto has not done this, so it isn't a planet. Instead, it is a dwarf planet (which has not cleared the neighbourhood). Polonium 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how something is called “debate” when it disagrees with the article's bias, where discussion repeating/supporting the article's bias is valid. People should be much slower to judge. C'est la vie. Nonprof. Frinkus 00:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions or comments to make about the article itself? The above doesn't seem to make any. Bryan 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, however I wanted to get clarifications with a good question below before I could make suggestions to improve this article itself. I think in an attempt to keep with the latest fads, this article shows misleading information … but I frankly cannot comment until I get important answers first.  :) Nonprof. Frinkus 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit request

with a 1,280 kilometers diameter, making it a bit more than half the size of Pluto.

would better be

with a diameter of 1,280 kilometers, about half that of Pluto.

Ysth 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Done here. --Doradus 19:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved the number down a little bit

I disagree with this person. Pluto should not be classified as a "dwarf planet." It should be classified as a planet. For 76 years Pluto was considered a planet and I don't think that you should demote a planet after 76 years.

I feel that since Pluto is still the common name for the planet, I feel the number should be mentioned in bold at the part in the 2nd paragraph where they mention the MPC giving it a number. "Pluto" is the common name, it should be in the first sentence, and the number down a little bit but still bolded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.85.61 (talk • contribs) .

• I agree. I think putting the number in the first sentence degrades Pluto, and even if the Pluto-haters don't like to admit it, Pluto is much more known and important that 2003 UB313 & Ceres. Having the number in the article is fine, but "Pluto" has been this object's name for over 76 years and I feel that it will hold a special place in the public's hearts..much more than Ceres or UB313 can say.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .

"degrades Pluto"? It's a semi-spherical piece of rock very very far away. We should provide as much useful information as possible. Giving both the common name and the scientific designation does that. --Stephan Schulz 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• The scientific designation is just as important as Mercury or Uranus. Pluto should be equally called by its PROPER name, which is just "Pluto" as these "planets". Just because you like this gay reclassification, doesn't mean the rest of us have to endure this garbage. "Pluto" is the name. Venitia Burney named it in May, 1930 and she did not say ANY numbers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .

Stay cool there. It's just a number. Don't disrupt just because you feel strongly about it. Ryūlóng 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please don't throw around terms such as "Pluto-haters" - it degrades your arguments, and makes you look childish. I'm one of the editors who support listing the number in the lead. Do I "hate" Pluto? Rubbish. Do I respect the scientific process? Absolutely. Let's be rational about this. Changing the name, changing the classification, adding a number to it CHANGES NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL OBJECT. If the IAU wants to call Pluto a banana split, so be it. If you don't like the term, then work to change it. Go to school, study for a long time, become an astronomer, attend the IAU meetings, and lobby for change. Prolonging a meaningless edit war here on Wikipedia will do nothing to restore Pluto as a planet, and everything to damage Wikipedia's credibility. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I want Pluto to be classified as a dwarf planet BECAUSE I like it/am interested in it. The larger objects that are likely to be classified as dwarf planets are some of the most interesting in the Solar System(who wouldn't be fascinated to know why 2003 EL61 spins so fast?), and are likely to give scientists a lot of information about the way solar systems are formed. Incidently, can't believe the number of people who seem to be interested in this but don't know of the Minor Planets Centre - that and the Distant EKOs newsletter are the first places I turn to to learn about new discoveries ... Dwarfplanets.org.uk 13:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• (after two edit conflicts) Having the official designation in between the parentheses in the first paragraph seems like a good compromise. I agree that the title of the page should not be moved per the above discussions but as Pluto's official designation now includes the number, I think it is our job to clarify this at the very beginning of the article despite any personal opinions that we might have. Giving it a number does not necessarily degrade it. No matter what you call it (or number it), it is still the same big chunk of ice that it was before all of this controversy and the IAU is not forcing anyone to obey its decision. --Nebular110 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I realy do not understand this debate. Wikipedia should serve to general public. I do not think that anyone including astronomers will ever look up this article by the name 134340 Pluto. I actually do not believe that anyone will ever remember such a long number. So no need for moving the article. As for inclusion of the number in the lead, we should remember that first articles should contain most important information. I do not think that anybody except of experts is interested in knowing this number. This is just a childish game between supporters of IAU decission and opposers.

Anyway IAU's decision is not binding for anyone. Any scientist (and any person) can have his own classification and there might be scientists who will continue clasify Pluto as planet. Under NPOV policy we should note this oppinoin: "IAU clasifies Pluto as dwarf planet whereas Mr. Smith clasifies it as planet". Although IAU's oppinion is supreme as it has the greatest reputation, it is not law approved by congress or resolution of UN. Even naming is not binding. If I decide to call it Mickeymouse no one can arrest me for doing so. It is legal. --Jan Smolik 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But calling it Mickeymouse will prevent anyone else from knowing what you are talking about. If I say Pluto the planet, you know what I'm talking about. If we follow the IAU's definitions, everyone will be in the loop. As for my opinion, I think we should keep the article where it is and mention that the IAU put the numbers in front of the name.--Farquaadhnchmn 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The IAU's decision is binding upon scientists and scientifically-literate members of the public wishing to remain relevant. Insisting otherwise is akin to putting one's fingers in one's ears and screaming, "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

People, let's be happy that Pluto is in the category it belongs in nowadays, not one in which it is obviously out-of-place. The IAU's decision was representative of the body as a whole (How many people actually showed up to the meeting anyways? How many cared about planetary science? Didn't the counter-proposals get shot down in flames beforehand? Seems to me that everyone relevant went and voted and got a very strong consensus on what was scientifically appropriate.) and it is not going to change its definition regardless of how many angry petitions or whiny schoolchildren come to complain. And let's stop this damn war, it makes me sad looking at the Pluto article and seeing fifty protection notices. Kensai Max 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious discussion, Johnny. Kindly remember that. Kensai Max 20:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On a serious note however it does appear that several well respected members of the scientific community are currently disagreeing with your assertion. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they have vested interests in Pluto as a planet. "Several" well-respected scientists going against the consensus of thousands of well-respected scientists only means that they are making themselves irrelevant and harming good science. It's really very pathetic that they would defy the IAU and the simple tenets of logic in this case. Can -you- give me a single good reason why Pluto should be considered a plent? 24.59.66.226 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Umm..only 424 people on this whole entire "planet" had a say in this and the number is somewhat lower for the people who actually voted for it. 1 petition against this definition gained enough signatures in like 2 days, which says alot about the controversy we're dealing with here. And Pluto deserves to be a planet just as much as Mercury which is a dead brown rock that will be gone in 4 billion years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

Personally, i want those with vested interests, meaning, the astronomers who study planetary systems (realizing, of course, there are a number of groups of them who won't necessarily agree on anything), to have a larger say in the definition, than say, John Q Public. The "vested interests" here are not people looking to make a buck, they are scientists whose work and passion are to know everything possible about said objects. Myrrhlin 04:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but they were from the official body... just like whoever is in the lead of your countries government... with less people again voting... your national government would make far greater changes to your daily life. also "gained enough signatures", how many is enough? u cant just make an unqualified statement. Mercury is twice the diameter, and about 4 times as dense as pluto, it has also cleared its orbit... pluto is in a belt of objects... the kuiper belt is just like an icy version of the asteroid belt further out from the sun. -- Nbound 06:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Who elected them? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to take issue with your main point, but exactly that part of the planet definition is rubbing a lot of astronomers the wrong way. Its not inconceivable the definition of "planet" may be changed in the not so distant future. Neptune hasn't "cleared its zone" of objects, or else there wouldn't be the plutinos. So is Neptune a planet? Okay now you have to say what exactly "clearing a zone" means, and thats where problems start. Just how do you define a planet's "zone", how can you say definitively a zone is clear (since you can never prove its empty, only that you haven't found anything yet), and even if the zone is empty, how do you know what cleared the zone (without knowing where the previously there stuff went)? Myrrhlin 04:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The IAU is composed of people who actually work in the field of astronomy, which is not an inclusive field and where the opinions of people who know nothing are worth nothing. As such, the expert opinion of a dozen astronomers on the matter is worth far more than the sentimental feelings of a million neophytes. As for the legitimacy of any petition, only a relatively small fraction of all astronomers were at the IAU meeting, thus each one of them was speaking for many more of his colleagues back home. A petition would only be valid if it collected the signatures of enough actual -members- of the IAU (not passers-by in the street, lab techs, grad students or engineers, which I imagine most of the signatures on any give reinstate-Pluto petition compose) to represent not only voting members at the conference but the consensus of the people who weren't there. Moreover, if actual significant members of the IAU had a problem with this decision, they would probably take it up at the next conference, not make petitions which will have no effect and which only serve to generate publicity and create the image that there is some kind of credible opposition here.

Given that the IAU's total membership is only around 10,000, of which only a fraction were present at the conference that decided all this, a vote of ~400-very few represents absolutely overwhelming consensus. Sorry, but claims that the vote was somehow hijacked are simply absurd - there was no conspiracy to pack the ballot box, the previous inclusive definitions that had been floated and prematurely publicized were simply scientifically flimsy and were demolished in the process of debate as they should have been. Anyone still referring to Pluto as the "ninth planet" is trying to keep the spotlight on and the funding flowing for his New Horizons mission. Questioning the legitimacy of the IAU to rule on matters that relate to astronomical science is similarly farcical.

"Clearing its orbit" can be broadly understood as a body dominating its orbital zone completely and having removed all similarly-sized bodies from orbiting on the same trajectory. Rubble on erratic orbits that strayed into the general area of the solar system (not on the same orbit!), or which is completely dominated by the vagaries of gravitational interaction with a vastly larger body (as Pluto and most known KBOs are with Neptune), simply doesn't enter into it. It's like saying your car is gravel because it's parked on your gravel driveway. Kensai Max 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On a late note, claiming that Pluto isn't a planet because "it hasn't cleared its orbit of neptune" is a very poor explanation. Remember, even if we ignore the 3:2 resonance, Pluto's inclination places it a MINIMUM of 6+ AU from Neptune. The Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are ALWAYS closer to the sun than that -- in fact the first four are always closer to each other than that! So according to their absurd ruling, those five and Saturn (which is as little as 3+ AU from Jupiter) should be disqualified, leaving us with only two planets! -- DragonAtma 69.122.126.146 08:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Um...I can see one (to me) good reason Pluto should remain a planet, regardless of if it meets some qualifications that were not around when it was discovered. The article says that Pluto is shown as a planet on the Voyagers. I know it's unlikely that they'll ever be picked up, but wouldn't it be embaressing if they were, and the first thing SETI got was something along the lines of "Lovely, I bet (insert enemy here) a (insert large amount of alien currency here) that the next solar system I found would have nine planets. You won my bet for me!" Forget embaressing, that could mean war when it came out! And, on a less preposterous note, anyone else remember "Most Vegitarians Eat Many Jam Sandwichs Under Nine Planets"? That menemonic is useless on two counts without Pluto...--192.117.117.22 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Who decides which organizations get “official take” status?

Since Wikipedia is maintained by its users, who gets to decide that whatever the “International Astronomical Union” says (whether decision was a scientific one or a political one, I believe they've gone with the latter with their recent activity) gets the official say on how information is present and/or categorized? Wikipedia should never move in lock step with any body or individual to avoid POV, and should move forward based on slower more refined NPOV methods than to be so quick to follow something like arguing over English language “wording” semantics and the like.

Nonprof. Frinkus 00:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreement between people interested in the subject. IAU is such one forum, although constrained to only small fraction of astronomers. As up to now it was sufficient. But their decisions bear no legal weight and are "official" in no sense connected with government, law or any other authority bearing the name "offical" in common sense. So their decisions have weight only when they found someone to follow their suggestion. GrzegorzWu 09:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no responses to this highly valid question, I plan on editing this article to refer to Pluto as a planet (as it has been for decades now in scientific writing), and refer to the IAU definition as an attempted redesignation. Time will of course show what the best course is … but I strongly urge Wikipedians in the future to be not so quick to edit articles based on political maneuverings of a single body (especially with such a small turn out % of the entire IAU). Haste makes waste. Nonprof. Frinkus 07:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been hashed out over many, many, many discussions, and by doing what you described above, you will only be causing problems. Please, I implore you, refrain from doing so, in the interest of avoiding needless edit battles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a scientist I can assure you that politics are needed to get things done. If as a community we let the minority have the final say over the majority do you honestly think we'd get more respect? Pluto's demotion is in many ways sad, but it is certainly logically sound, and has the scientific majority behind it. aLii 11:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious, because it's not true. The majority is against it.Something14 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I asked a clear question originally and no one would touch it. I still have no answer to an important my original question. Next, where is official policy being quoted on these "so-called" discussions, and where is their clear official outcome placed so it is easy to find by future Wikipedians? Why are people talking about battles here, this is pretty simple matter? Nonprof. Frinkus 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am personally appalled that scientist must resort to politics to get things done. What scientific principal is politicking under? The scientific majority is not behind this, why would you as a "scientist" mention something you state clearly when there is other people with information to the contrary, does not sound scientific. For populace reasons, sadly no one will poll the entire scientific community for an answer here. We just heard one group of select individuals in a single scientific group, with a tiny amount of the total showing up at a meeting, and that was what decisions were based upon. Of course, science is about facts, not popularity contests. To that note, no one would even tell me why "Dwarf Planet" designation was so important to be added into the scientific dialog. :( Nonprof. Frinkus 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of Article

I have just reverted a move to incorporate the minor planet number in the article title. As was discussed ad infinitum last autumn, consensus is to have Dwarf Planet articles at Name (Dwarf Planet), with the exception of Pluto, which is to remain at Pluto. Bluap 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It shrunk?

This part of the article..

"Pluto's diameter and mass were incorrectly overestimated for many decades after its discovery. Initially it was thought to be relatively large, with a mass comparable to Earth, but over time the estimates were revised sharply downward as observations were refined."

It could be the opposite, possibly pluto's size could have shrunk overtime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.247.228 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Photo

Why is the photo in the infobox so terrible? Is that the best available photo due to the planet's distance from earth? Just curious because it looks like graphics out of an old video game machine with visible polygons. Quadzilla99 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the best the "Hubble Telescope" could provide given the distance. Overall it's a marvolous achievement. A better picture should be obtained after the next repair mission goes up, as it will include a new camera that has a greatly enhanced resolution. we should also be able to get a better picture of Eris and its moon, Charon, and several of the dwarf planet candidates. I'm hoping for a image of this quality for Sedna. Abyssoft 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have to crush your hope. The image in the infobox is not taken by Hubble; it is a map based on brightness variations taken during the Pluto-Charon mutual eclipsing events that occurred in the late 80s – early 90s. Hubble cannot and will never be able to take as detailed image as this. Fortunately for Pluto, the New Horizons mission will take close-up images of it and its moons. Eris and Sedna lie much further out and are basically spots of light in Hubble's view. Hubble had to use a special method to just to measure diameters of these objects, since they are so far that one pixel in Hubble's camera is larger than them. At that resolution, it is impossible to resolve any surface features.--JyriL ^talk 11:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. Kind of unfortunate as it is pretty jarring to see the photo's quality. Thanks for answering my questions and clarifying. Quadzilla99 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

number not needed in the infobox.

The MPC number isn't needed in the info box..it's mentioned in the article and consensus was that it shouldn't be in the info box or title of article.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the MPC number shouldn't be in the title of the article. But I see nothing wrong in having it in the infobox. Bluap 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The consensus that Something14 is referring to was in regards to the article name and the title at the top of the infobox, above the picture. It had nothing to do with information inside of the infobox. (Plus, if we delete everything in the 'box that is also mentioned in the article, it will be a very empty template...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)  :::The text says the number is part of the name, which it is NOT. Even the IAU has said numbers are just for catologue purposes, and the name of the object is Eros, Vesta, etc. And we did fine without the number there before. I don't see why we need it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure how you are interpreting "MPC designation" as "the name is X". Whatever. Anyways, what's the group consensus on colour? S14 says "stop changing the color of the template..it's supposed to match Pluto's color" - but if we're going that route, a reddish-brown would seem to be more appropriate than a green. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)  :::::Then the color should be reddish brown. Mars' box is red, Neptune's blue, etc. Eris should be white-ish and Ceres I'm not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Something14, why do you insist on repeatedly changing the infoboxes here, at Ceres, and at Eris, in order to remove the MPC designation? You have now been reverted by Bluap, Shimgray, Michaelbusch, JEBrown87544, and myself. You have also made a series of what can only be described as "nuisance" edits. These include changing the Natural satellites template by deleting Eris from the "Pluto and Eris" tab and moving Eris to the Earth-Mars tab, as well as changing Pluto links to Pluto (planet) redirects on several pages. Please, accept that you are not going to change the IAU's decision, and restore Pluto to planethood, merely by editing Wikipedia. All you will achieve is to disrupt the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Psst: To all parties: Whenever alleging a consensus, please remember to provide a link or reference to your source. This oddly named WP policy provides guidance. IAU resolutions, MPC policies, related WP discussions and the like may be enlightening. -- JEBrown87544 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I, for one, appreciate it, and will await input from the RfC. Is it worth starting a sub-page for the discussion, given that it affects at least three pages? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping the discussion on the Pluto page, since that is the most contentious case Bluap 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How about putting the MPC number in the infobox and not in the text? --Yath 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The way the page currently is seems perfect to me. The MPC number is only within the infobox and on one line of the lead section, succintly describing what it is. Seems great to me. aLii 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As a slightly bemused responder to the RfC, I'm not entirely sure why there's a problem here. The infobox frequently repeats information elsewhere in the article and that's fine; it's an at-a-glance reference for key details. And a key detail is its MPC number. It's also part of its name, so can be included succinctly in the lead. I see no problem with how it is currently (provided I'm understanding this properly). Trebor 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As a person who works on what are now defined as SSSBs (formerly minor planets), which is quite a mouthful and rather lengthy to type out in full, I see no problem is display a catalogue number that is clear marked as such. In addition whether listed as MP Catagory, or simply as object type, again if clearly marked...Infobox templates are designed to be able to provide to those looking for quick statistical and catagorical information, that information in a concise form and collected place.

And,for Something14 and others who are distraught over the change in pluto's status, just so you know although I personally disagree with the demotion of Pluto:

	1) There is historical presidence for such a demotion with Ceres, Vesta and some of the other Main Asteroid Belt SSSBs. 	 

2) The current definition, though lacking in many ways, is the first serious attempt to apply a scientifically based definition to the historic and common term planet. Please review the appropriate articles for clarification.

	3) Note also that is has been said by many different astro- oriented scientist that this is far from over as the definition will undergo refinement and tuning. 	 
	4) An encyclopedia's purpose is to provide the most up to date and current knowledge on a myriad of topics both current, historical, and in a few cases projective. By including the information it does not invalidate a particular stance or view (NPOV), rather it acknowledges that at the current time it is the information available, and passed no judgement on it. Think of wikipedians as a supergroup of reporters that, unlike mainstream media, must remain unbiased, unemotionally attached, and detached from their own point of view, no matter how compelled, driven, or moved. 	 

Abyssoft 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I came here through RfC, too, and I don't see any good reason to delete the MPC number from the box. — Sebastian 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The MPC number in the infobox looks fine. Axl 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Keep the MPC number in the infobox. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Date rather than just year

I think it's worth noting the date 18th February 1930 of discovery rather than just the year. (verifiable source http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050215_pluto_anniv.html) -- James H. Dunn 17th Jan 2007 203.26.177.2 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Jimp 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When and why is Pluto not a planet anymore?

What is curious on my mind is that, why is pluto not a planet anymore? When was pluto not a planet anymore? tsyoshi 19:05, 13 October 2006

Looks to me like these questions are answered in the second paragraph in the article, don't you think? --Yath 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pluto was redesignated as a dwarf planet in August as a result of a formal definition of planet being made by the IAU. Many astronomers had not considered Pluto worthy of planetary status for a while and with the discovery of Eris there was simply no scientific way of justifying Pluto´s status as a planet without allowing many more. Atomic1609 11:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Atomic1609, can you use smaller words, please? Michael Houang 03:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Houang, how about you get an education? There is no reason Atomic1609 should use "smaller" words when what he wrote is concise and to the point. The day all comments are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of intelligence is a sad day for humankind. --72.202.129.98 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --LiamE 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Michael's was a fair request. It's easy enough to say "get an education" but an education might not be such an easy thing to get. Also Micheal may indeed be getting an education or he might have an eduction which covered other things besides those big English words. It could well be that 72.202.129.98 is a troll.

Okay, in small words. The IAU is the International Astronomical Union. In August the IAU changed their definition of the word planet. Before August the word was defined so as to include Pluto. Since August it has been defined so as to exclude Pluto. Many astronomers had been unhappy with the old definition because of the inclusion of Pluto. This is because Pluto is so different from Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. It had been the odd one out. Then they discovered Eris. Eris is no less planet like-than Pluto. It made no scientific sense to continue calling Pluto a planet unless we called Eris one too. It seems that there are a great number of similar objects out there. So there were three choices. First include all of these objects and have dozens/hundreds/thousands/... of "planets". Second stick with the old definition which was useless to science. Or third do as the IUA did.

Now just incase that wasn't enough to vex (nice small word) you. You wouldn't say "Pluto is not a planet anymore." because, in fact, Pluto never was a planet. It's the meaning of the word planet which has changed. Pluto does not fit the new definition. Pluto never did fit the new definition. Thus Pluto never was a planet.

As to when and why the definition was changed, I think that's been answered ... but just in case: August & because the old definition was useless to science. Jimp 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys are spewing a bunch of bull. There are many scientific ways to include Pluto as a planet. Just because you've been brainwashed by Mike Brown and Dave Jewitt doesn't mean the rest of us have to obey your "reality". Face it..a planet is any object orbiting a star that's round. Our solar system happens to have a lot of them, one of them is named Pluto. Seriously, I hope something just like Earth is discovered out there so Pluto fans can write petitions to demote 134340 Earth. Something14 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

oh, so basically, the IAU changed the definition of 'planet' and pluto didn't make it in the cut. okay, thanks... oh, and 72.202.129.98, GO THROUGH E.... why don't you ju... you can...... why are you..... BITE ME, 72.202.129.98!!!!!! 130.13.97.147 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

O....kay..... He got you there, 72.202.129.98... Michael Houang (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection changes

Since becoming a wikipedian, I have notice at least 4 different times, if not more, that Pluto has had to enter sprotect status. Invariably with 24 hours of removing sprotect status, the vandalism starts right back up and continues until placed under protection again. Do to the continued recurrent vandalism associated with this topic, It would probably be in the best interest of both the wikipedia and it users to place the page in "indefinite vprotected or sprotected status" per WP:VANDAL and WP:SEMI. Additionally, it should be considered a strong candidate for the "controversial" tag, in part due to many of the vandal edits being both blatant violations of WP:NPOV. In closing, I would like to see others reflective views on this as well. Abyssoft 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

6 definate vandalisms within 36 hours of protection removal. I for one plan to keep an eye on this. Abyssoft 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the idea of an extended period, as I've had to request protection for this page several times now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Manoeuvring

Regarding this edit: "manoeuvring" is a valid spelling (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manoeuvring), and normally we don't go around switching English to American spelling or vice-versa. However, I didn't revert the change because I didn't want to start a revert war, and I have to admit, the new spelling seems more logical and readable to me. --Doradus 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Manoeuvre is directly from French, although maneuvre is older and both are from manu operari. So really the whole word isn't particularly logical in the first place. Most variant American spellings were created in the 19th century in order to be more readable, but inasmuch as they've culturally alienated the U.S. from the rest of the English-speaking world I think they were kinda dumb. 64.122.41.167 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)