Talk:Pluto/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Clouds!

http://www.universetoday.com/131492/latest-results-new-horizons-clouds-pluto-landslides-charon/ Serendipodous 18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Universe Today as Source

I changed some numbers based on NASA fact sheets and they were reverted to the numbers provided by universe today. While I respect this site, I think that it should not be a source for numbers. Opinions? - Duff06 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about your edit from 6 August 2015, more than a year ago? Looking at the revision history of this article around that time there appears to have been a bit of back and forth about the Pluto Fact Sheet being out of date. With the hindsight of history, using Internet Archive, we can see the editor who reverted your edit appears to have been correct about the values being inconsistent. While the values you were entering appear on the July 29 2015 version of the Fact Sheet, a month later the August 28 2015 version had been corrected to the values that match what this article was already using before your attempted change on 6 August 2015. But this entire discussion is moot, as this article is no longer citing the source you find objectionable. —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

Please change "because its mass is only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit" to "because its mass is only 1.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit" as the former infers that Pluto is smaller than the objects around it, which it is clearly not. Wcliffordbrown (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please provide a source for this claim. -- Dane2007 talk 19:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Pluto is the largest member of the Kuiper belt. Most of the known Kuiper belt objects cross the orbit of Pluto and can potentially collide with it, these are the objects being taken into consideration when determining if Pluto has cleared it's neighborhood. Pluto's mass is about 7% of the Kuiper belt’s mass. —RP88 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Pluto's orbit is not the whole Kuiper belt, obviously. And most Kuiper belt objects do not cross Pluto's orbit. But since Pluto's orbit crosses Neptune's, perhaps they are counting that planet as part of the uncleared mass. Anything to keep there from being unmarketable dozens of planets.—Kaz (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

This is brillliant. I have been editing since 2006, now 11 years, and have made over 5,000 edits. But this is the first time I have seen this style. It makes it so much easier to read and edit the Wikitext. Sometimes I have absolutely struggled for minutes to discern where the text was, that I wanted to edit, because it was buried in a slew of journal and book references. Those are so long that they make it very difficult to edit. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Date on when Pluto was named

The object was officially named on May 25, 1930. Each member of the Lowell Observatory was allowed to vote on a short-list of three: Minerva (which was already the name for an asteroid), Cronus (which had lost reputation through being proposed by the unpopular astronomer Thomas Jefferson Jackson See), and Pluto. Pluto received every vote. The name was announced on May 1, 1930. Upon the announcement, Madan gave Venetia £5 (equivalent to 300 GBP, or 450 USD in 2014) as a reward.

I see this as impossible, maybe a clarification is needed. -Theklan (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing; but it's not a mistake in transcription. It would help if I could read the archived newspapers to figure out which source is in error. Serendipodous 14:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
From the source for May 1: "On 1 May 1930, the name Pluto was formally adopted. When the news went public...". Speculating: Maybe the Lowell committee adopted the name on May 1, and made the public announcement on May 25? Not sure why they waited so long, unless they had to clear it with the IAU first. Note that the BBC source doesn't say it was "announced" May 1, just adopted, so I think the wiki-page is incorrect. Tbayboy (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tbayboy. "On 1 May 1930, the name Pluto was formally adopted." okay, that's when it was formally adopted, according to that source. "When the news went public..." That is sometime later. It's an error to infer from this source that the name was announced on May 1.
As for the May 25 date, that is at least the date on which the announcement was first reported by the New York Times. I don't have access to the NYT database; but it could be that the editor who added the May 25 date as the date of naming was actually citing the date the naming was reported.
The only thing I could find direct from the IAU is The public communication at the IAU GA 2006, which says (page 150):
The name Pluto was suggested by Venetia Phair (nee Burney), an 11-year-old English schoolgirl at the time of the discovery. Mrs Phair is now in her late 80s and lives in Epsom, England.
Venetia suggested the name after reading about the discovery in The Times with her grandfather, Falconer Madan, a retired librarian from the Bodleian Library. Madan took the suggested name to a friend, Herbert Hall Turner, professor of astronomy at the University of Oxford and former astronomer royal. Turner agreed the name was a good one, and promised to send a telegram, forwarding the suggestion, to the Lowell Observatory.
Accounts of the naming process then simply note that the name was formally adopted on 1 May 1930, the announcement made by Vesto Slipher, director of the Lowell Observatory. Any role the IAU may have had is not mentioned.
Given the fog here, and the lack of clear sources, I'd go for just using the date of May 1930 for both the formal naming and its announcement. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, a little more. Given the quote above my guess is that the IAU was not yet the official namer of celestial objects; perhaps it was left up to the discoverer, instead of simply granting his wishes deference. So I thought to search lowell.edu instead, and found this:
In a Lowell Observatory Circular dated May 1, 1930, the Observatory designated Pluto as the name for the new planet
Given this info, I think it's fair to say that Pluto was both officially named, and the name announced (in the Circular), on May 1, 1930. My guess for the current error is that the official naming was first reported in the general media on May 27. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed references to May 25. If the editor who added them wishes to argue the point, it would be helpful if he or she could provide us with the necessary context. Serendipodous 00:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the quote that was in the reference for May 25 made it very clear that May 25 was the date of announcement to the public ([1]); not the date it was "officially named": Pluto, the title of the Roman gods of the region of darkness, was announced tonight [May 25] at Lowell Observatory here as the name chosen for the recently discovered trans-Neptunian body, which is believed to be the long-sought Planet X. It would be fair to include, if anyone wishes to, a statement that the name was announced to the public on may 25, with the AP/NYTimes ref as the supporting cite. TJRC (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Also (and I know I'm really beating this thing into the ground): The [New York Times] called it Pluto for the first time on May 25, 1930, when the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz., made the official announcement of the new name. Bakalar, Nicholas (July 6, 2015). "March 30, 1930: Pluto Is Discovered". The New York Times. Retrieved March 22, 2017. TJRC (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

Semi-Major axis of Puto is actually 39.481 AU. 65.113.89.157 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Nasa many of the orbital values are in need of updating http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html (NASA Official: Ed Grayzeck, edwin.j.grayzeck@nasa.gov Last Updated: 04 April 2016, DRW) retrieved 06202016

Semi-Major axis should be 5906.38 Gm and 39.48 AU (Calculated) Sidereal orbit period (days) 90,560 Perihelion (106 km) 4436.82 Gm Aphelion (106 km) 7375.93 Gm Orbit inclination (deg) 17.16 Orbit eccentricity 0.2488 Obliquity to orbit (deg) 122.53 [Axial tilt] 2001:4870:800E:101:4D1A:92C8:5181:D1A1 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done per source provided. Thank you, and my apologies for not realizing you had provided a source here sooner. A2soup (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@A2soup: I don't think the older values needed "updating". They were based on a good reference, and our knowledge of such numbers has not changed very much at all. I think the explanation may have to do with definitions. The NASA reference is "barycentric" elements, whereas another paper gives values for "heliocentric" elements, and its value for the semi-major axis agrees with the old value (39.54 au). Frankly I don't see why there should be such a difference between barycentric semi-major axis and heliocentric semi-major axis, but I suppose that's the explanation. The new values you put in don't agree with the reference we have in the article, and I don't think the NASA reference above is as good since it's just a webpage. We could try writing to the e-mail address given there and asking him why there is a difference between his values and those of the French reference (TOP2013). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hoax about "reclassified as planet"`

Just a mild heads-up - there's a hoax article being shared across social media recently claiming that the IAU had reversed their 2006 decision. It's a copy of an article originally released on April 1. Manning (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

PLUTO IS NOT A 'DWARF PLANET'

Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.127.155 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

Pluto has been declared a planet again by NASA and is no longer a dwarf planet. on August 24, 2019, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said "Just so you know, in my view, Pluto is a planet, and you can write that the NASA administrator declared Pluto a planet once again," Bridenstine said in a video posted to Twitter on Friday. "I'm sticking by that. "It's the way I learned it and I'm committed to it." In 2017, NASA's New Horizons team, which guided the spacecraft in a close-up study of Pluto, proposed a new definition for planets that would allow Pluto to qualify. 111.93.121.234 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

NASA doesn't control space. And that guy was just speaking his personal opinion, not voicing a decree. The International Astronomical Union (key word there, international) is the body designated to dealing with this, and they're sticking to it. Serendipodous 12:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, it is merely the opinion of the IAU that Pluto is not a planet. A group of foreigners which operates much like the useless United Nations has absolutely zero authority to change the definition of planet in the English language. Wikipedia stating the opinion of this fringe foreign group as if its opinion were a fact is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. I would also like to note that NASA is considerably more powerful and has much more authority than the IAU. When is the last time the IAU has sent a man to the moon or even to space? Do those losers ever actually do anything besides gazing at stars all night and assigning names to asteroids no one cares about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.142.184 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It’s always good to see someone who doesn’t need other people to tell them what to think. Seriously the IAU has ZERO authority when it comes to this situation and their decision only applies to the IAU itself and no one outside it is required to even so much as acknowledge their “definition”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.32.18 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but you could say the same thing about Bridenstine's tweet, and it's easy to argue that an individual's tweet carries less authority and merit than the decision of an international organization whose designated role is to decide on the definitions and naming conventions in this field. Of course the IAU's authority only goes so far as people are willing to accept it, but it is currently the most widely accepted authority on this and related matters. NASA may have more clout in the United States in general, but their intended role has never been to make these decisions on definitions and naming conventions like the IAU, and, as Serendipodous said above, this tweet is just Bridenstine's individual opinion and is not the official stance or opinion of NASA anyway. --Yarnalgo talk 20:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. The IAU, a self-appointed jumped-up group of mostly foreigners, has ZERO authority to determine what X is called in English. Sticking 'International' in front of their name confers on them ZERO additional authority to name anything in English, and is pure self-important hand-waving. 'Designated'? ROFL. 'Designated' by whom? "The most widely accepted authority" - LMAO. That's a very elementary logical fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.127.155 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

I would like to add the fact that the director of NASA stated he believes that Pluto is not a dwarf planet but rather a normal planet Bradyss (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a result of a study nor a formal proposal. That was his personal opinion, which bears no weight on the current official designation by the IAU. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
LOL. Throwing the word 'official' about is meaningless. The IAU is a jumped-up self-appointed group with zero authority to determine what anything is called in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.127.155 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

I want to edit this because i know a TON about pluto and could add some cool fcts 147.92.60.133 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.
Also, Personal knowledge is not verifiable, either by an editor or one of our readers and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an expert. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Perihelion Moment

The perihelion moment as given by the source quoted is Julian Day 2447885.610187903512, which translates to 1989-12-25 at 02:38:40UT. The page currently gives "September 5, 1989," which I thus believe is wrong. Can anyone confirm the perihelion date? Thanks! CielProfond (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Using JPL Horizons (Pluto Barycenter) I still get 1989-Sep-05 11:42 UT @ 29.6555640763638AU from the Sun's center (@sun). Keep in mind if you just use a random epoch, it will generate a slightly different date (and distance) of perihelion based on generic two-body solution. -- Kheider (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Eris or Pluto which is larger?

This article;

It was the first Kuiper belt object to be discovered and is the largest known dwarf planet.

Eris article:

Eris (minor-planet designation 136199 Eris) is the most massive and the largest known dwarf planet in the Solar System.

Looking at the article on Eris pluto is slightly smaller by volume. The definition of larger is of course non precise but having two articles claim both are the largest seems sloppy. Mandrilltiger (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that. Eris's article says it is the second-largest, which it is. Serendipodous 21:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Pluto is largest by volume and Eris is largest by mass. -- Kheider (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I happened to look at the Eris article for the few hours when it had the edit that it was the largest.

So this can be disregarded. Mandrilltiger (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a treacherous place. Serendipodous 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Serendipodous, mate: Wikipedia is full of serious errors, not to mention outright propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.127.155 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


Mean radius

The value of 1,189.9±0.2 km given for the mean radius is not supported by the source. The source only describes it as the "local radius" defined by a particular section. The source then says it is consistent with (not that it improves on) the value of 1188.3±1.6 km for the global mean radius determined by Nimmo et al. Icarus 287 (2017) 12–29 [2]. I think that the value in the infobox should be changed to 1188.3±1.6 km. Zerotalk 11:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed. Serendipodous 11:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

Reference to be included in the internal structure and differentiation of Pluto

[1]. Sandeep Sahijpal (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Feel free to reopen this request with a specific location in the article you would like this source added. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bhatia, G.K.; Sahijpal, S. "Thermal evolution of trans-Neptunian objects, icy satellites, and minor icy planets in the early solar system". Meteoritics & Planetary Science.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

Please insert the following reference after the text in the section on "Internal structure".

Pluto's density is 1.860±0.013 g/cm3.[5] Because the decay of radioactive elements would eventually heat the ices enough for the rock to separate from them, scientists expect that Pluto's internal structure is differentiated, with the rocky material having settled into a dense core surrounded by a mantle of water ice.

[1] Sandeep Sahijpal (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bhatia, G.K.; Sahijpal, S. "Thermal evolution of trans-Neptunian objects, icy satellites, and minor icy planets in the early solar system". Meteoritics & Planetary Science.
Not done: Please don't reference yourself. Stickee (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sandeep Sahijpal: It isn't explicitly prohibited to use your own work as a reference, especially when that reference would likely be considered a reliable source. However, I had trouble finding how the proposed reference verified the statement in the article, which is why I didn't add it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017

Anwar hosen65 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2018

Computer simulations suggest that Pluto once came the closest to it's neighbor Neptune sometime in the Winter of 504-505 AD; At approximately 2 and a half Astronomical Units. (2.5 AU) This did not seem to effect at all the orbit of Pluto around the Sun, however.

It has been wondered if Pluto could ever be captured by Neptune in the Solar Systems' future and turned into a Neptunian Moon. Or the latter planet even having a collision with the former.[1] One moon of Neptune Triton, is itself believed to have been once a dwarf planet that was captured by Neptune; Due to it's slightly larger radius than Pluto and it's unusual Retrograde orbit.[2] [3][4] ArishKanaan (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The minimum Pluto-Neptune separation is 17 AU -- Kheider (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That source is wrong or erroneous -- I'm sorry, Kheider. I have a simulator on the orbits of Planets; and on the day of 18th February, 505 AD - Pluto and Neptune made their most recent and closest approach at about 2.5 AU. I don't know where nineplanets.org got the idea that Pluto and Neptune can only be separated by only 17 AU (at the most). That is clearly bad science/uninformed observation.

(Maybe they overlooked this specific event?)

If you own a planetary orbit simulator; set your clock backwards to 18th February in the year 505 AD. And you will see Pluto and Neptune are extremely closest to each other; than ever before. (Something that has actually not happened ever since.) — ArishKanaan (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your generic "planetary orbit simulator" probably does not solve the n-body problem and just assumes the orbits are constant and unchanging. -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.livescience.com/32505-will-pluto-ever-hit-neptune.html
  2. ^ http://www.astronomy.com/year-of-pluto/2015/06/captive-worlds-is-neptunes-moon-triton-a-kidnapped-pluto
  3. ^ https://www.space.com/2393-neptune-captured-triton.html
  4. ^ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/moon-neptune_2.htm

Chasing New Horizons

New book of significant Pluto system interest, this entry is suitable for the "Further reading" section:

  • Stern, Alan; Grinspoon, David (2018). Chasing New Horizons: Inside the Epic First Mission to Pluto. Picador. ISBN 978-125009896-2.

158.130.58.62 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 14, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-07-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Pluto
Pluto is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond Neptune. Discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930, Pluto was originally considered to be the ninth planet from the Sun. Following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt, its status as a planet was questioned, and in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) gave a definition of the term "planet" that excluded Pluto. The largest and second-most-massive known dwarf planet in the Solar System, Pluto is primarily made of ice and rock. It is relatively small, with a moderately eccentric and inclined orbit.

This photograph of Pluto is a composite of four near-true color images taken by the New Horizons spacecraft in 2015. The most prominent feature in the image, the bright, youthful, nitrogen ice plains of Sputnik Planitia, the left lobe of heart-shaped Tombaugh Regio, is at right center. This contrasts with the darker, more cratered terrain of Cthulhu Macula at lower left.Photograph: NASA / Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory / Southwest Research Institute

Archive – More featured pictures...

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

112.200.5.14 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC) SAM

 Not done No identifiable edit request. Iffy★Chat -- 12:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Introduction should mention its demoted status

The instruction should mention that it used to be a Planet before it "transitioned." There are still many references to it as one of the nine planets and it's not inconceivable someone will look up Pluto to see what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.141.164 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

How Big is a Billion Kilometers? (Warning: Trick question)

The distance to the sun is given in both AU and kilometers. At apihelion, it shows as about 4.4 billion km. But what, exactly, is a billion? In the United States, it's 109, but in the UK, it's 1012. Shouldn't ambiguous words like this be avoided? Thousand and Million are safe to use, but billion, trillion, etc. are not. It seems to me that we should be using scientific notation here. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@MiguelMunoz: Only historically. Today, a billion means 109 in both British and American English, and a trillion means 1012. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

New true-color pictures of Pluto and Charon

So the New Horizons team has released new approximately true color images of Pluto and Charon that, based on the wording of the article, are more accurate to what a human eye would see if viewing Pluto in person. A general trend that I have noticed is that, whenever possible, articles of celestial bodies in the Solar System attempt to show objects in as true color as possible (or at least monochrome), with an attempt to present objects as they would appear to the human eye. As a result, I think it may be a good idea to use the photos in the article (link below) on the New Horizons website as the "main photos" for the articles of Pluto and Charon since these photos (if I'm reading into the article's language correctly) are more "accurate" than the current ones. Thanks for your time and consideration.

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20180720 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briefcoolman22 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done (not by me, just pointing out that I see it was done) StormWillLaugh (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree although I wouldn't be surprised if we see another round of this since nailing down the green wavelengths is really hard.©Geni (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Pluto's a Planet Again!

Pluto's been promoted to a planet again. Even if you consider is disputed, you now need to list it as both!!!!!!

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yes-Pluto-is-a-planet-12893841.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C600:C59:2529:C051:97B9:58FA (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially classed as one. Alan Stern is simply restating a claim he made last year. It's an interesting idea, one that I don't think will have much pickup once the public learns there would have to be 100+ planets in the Solar System. But at least he's not lying about it like he was in the early years, claiming that his definition would only leave the Solar System with 13 planets. He's put his money where his mouth is, and I respect that. Maybe the International Geological Congress could make it their definition of planet, so we would have a geological definition and an astronomical one. Probably have to wait until Juno finishes probing Jupiter though. Serendipodous 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


Regarding its recent "classification as a planet" I agree with the above statement,I think the article edit as a planet should wait until IGC has again declare it official a planet

4:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueYears (talk • contribs)

I move that Planetary Geology be the prevailing authority on the classification of Pluto per the best evidence principal given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of fact and not conjecture. Prior to New Horizons data, on the basis of about a dozen pixels of interpolated topography and animosity within the astrological community, Pluto's astronomical significance became that of a rock with only cultural importance. After New Horizon's data, Pluto's Planetary Geology from scientists observing with instruments 7.5 BILLION KILOMETERS CLOSER (best evidence) revealed that Pluto IS (present tense) an ACTIVE PLANET. Drakcap (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The planet or non-planet status is clearly still controversial among scientists, so we should stick with WP:NPOV. Everyone agrees that Pluto is a dwarf planet. We should refer to it only as that, and not state or imply that it is or isn't a planet. We should of course continue to report the facts - the historical designation as a planet, the IAU decision, and the controversy about it.StormWillLaugh (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not controversial. Official. People disagree, but that doesn't lessen its official status.Serendipodous 16:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It is your opinion that it is official, and you are entitled to that. But a significant group of important scientists disagree with your opinion, and say that the IAU did not have the authority to make that decision in the way they did. According to WP:NPOV, we must not take sides. StormWillLaugh (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@StormWillLaugh: Please look at the heading of this page: "This article is not the place to discuss or complain about Pluto's reclassification as a dwarf planet." Thank you, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: I did not intend to express any opinion about the reclassification, nor to discuss it nor to complain about it. I apologize if it sounded that way. Nor do I even have an opinion to express - I am not an astronomer. As a WP editor, I am just pointing out that this article in its current form violates WP:NPOV. This talk page is explicitly the place where WP policy compliance should be discussed - see WP:DR. It is an observable fact that there is controversy - widely diseminated articles are actively being published by well-known people both in scholarly journals and in the general media. Following the guidelines in WP:NPOVFAQ, we can make a few minor edits to conform. I think it would be enough just to remove the word "originally" in the second paragraph (which strongly implies it is no longer), and add a few words at the end of that paragraph indicating that there is controversy (e.g., copy or paraphrase the sentence from below "There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification.") Reading it over, the rest of the article is actually pretty good about this. StormWillLaugh (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Quite right. This is not a forum. Please delete his post. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@StormWillLaugh: Actually I agree with you, but what you write isn't the case on WP which clearly sticks to the IAU definition that there would be "eight planets" and that Pluto and Eris weren't planets anymore. If WP wants to count as independent it better does do what you've written. Or if WP wants to stick to a certain definition it should listen to what planetary scientists and geologists say (out of whom noone will say that Pluto were no planet) and it would be a scientific definition contrary to listening to the completely nonsensical definition by astronomers whose business it isn't and who should stick their nose out of that matter. This article may be very helpful. 212.186.7.232 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

hello my name is helper and you have written a word wrong and i want to fix it Helper1277 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to say what exactly it is that's wrong and have the "answered" parameter in the template set to "no". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Small typo

The sentence "Pluto is sufficiently slowed, and Neptune sufficiently sped up, that Pluto orbit relative to Neptune drifts in the opposite direction until the process is reversed" should read "Pluto is sufficiently slowed, and Neptune sufficiently sped up, that Pluto's orbit relative to Neptune drifts in the opposite direction until the process is reversed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowercasename (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done TJRC (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Characteristics of binary system...

OK, let's assume that Pluto-Charon is at some point in the future officially reclassified as a binary dwarf planet. What does that do for the effective radius, if anything? Volume and mass would presumably be added together... Would we increase the current mean radius of Pluto by the ratio of the volumes or such? Maybe do that for Charon as well and take the average if it differs? I don't know how we properly classify these things, but it would be prudent to figure out how it's done not only for this but other binary DP/MPs (and even exoplanets, stars...?). Also I'd like to know for a particular pet project... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Change "One early hypothesis was that Pluto was an escaped moon of Neptune" to "One early hypothesis was that Pluto was an escaped moon of Neptune or even Jupiter" with source being Gerard P. Kuiper, Planets and Satellites, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961, p. 576.

2407:7000:A2AB:D00:588F:67DD:C071:9937 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please cite your source in Wiki format, then reopen this request by changing the “answered” parameter in the template to “no.” — Tartan357  (Talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
(not edit requestor, but reopening request because IMO respondent's response was vague and unclear about what they needed done)
@Tartan357:, did the IP OP not provide enough information for their source? I can't tell that there is anything crucial that is missing in the source that he gave. If the article were not semi-protected, and had they added it but did not format the source correctly, the content wouldn't be deleted and kept out of the article until the editor that added it formatted the citation properly. From WP:CITE (that you linked to): While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. Now, semi-protection exists to protect articles from vandalism or contentious content and such, does it not? Surely the intention was not to keep content out of articles for no other reason than the person submitting it for inclusion didn't format the citation properly (but still had the needed information about the sources) :/ Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Firejuggler86, point well-taken. I was still quite new back in May and I wouldn't answer an edit request this way now. I'll leave this one open for someone else to handle. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done The original source was a 65-year-old science-fiction novel written by a cryptozoologist. Cleary, not a worthy source for a FA. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
If Pluto was originally an escaped moon of Jupiter, than it wasn't knocked out of orbit by Triton. That would be an entirely different scenario with an entirely separate mechanism that would need to be separately explained. Serendipodous 14:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Misleading internal structure diagram

The structure diagram against Internal Structure shows a pre-New Horizons model (with liquid water) but uses a surface image from New Horizons and a 2006 reference. Why don't we replace the diagram with one consistent with the New Horizons data (eg frozen nitrogen over frozen water ice over rock) ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

talk archive-5 has
Model 1

Possible internal structure of Pluto.
1. Frozen nitrogen
2. Water ice
3. Rock
Model 2

Theoretical structure of Pluto by the NASA funded Lunar and Planetary Institute
Model 1 seems fine, (model 2 seems 30 years out of date). - Rod57 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The second image is WAAY older than the first, and is vastly more innacurate. Serendipodous 18:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Link to Mass first occarance of

In the sentence:

Pluto is the ninth-largest and tenth-most-massive known object directly orbiting the Sun

please link massive to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass. Not everyone will automatically understand the difference between mass and volume.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.237.77.80 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Moon names

I don't know if the following should be incorporated into the article but I think it's fascinating.

In the 1940 science fiction novelette Calling Captain Future by Edmond Hamilton, which is the second in a series of "Capt. Future" stories, most of the action occurs on Pluto.

In the story, Hamilton has Pluto with three moons which Hamilton gave the names of Charon, Styx, and Cerberus.

With the exception of the spelling of "Cerberus" vs "Kerberos," I think it's fascinating/unusual that nearly 60 years plus before the discovery of any moons around Pluto that an author could arbitrarily/accidentally pick three names that would actually be used.

What are the odds?

And, is it mention-worthy in this entry or in the "Moons of Pluto" entry?

Thoughts / comments ? 2600:8800:785:2A00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Coincidences happen every day, my friend. Never ask, "What are the odds?" because they're almost always lower than you think. It's not really surprising that the moons of a planet named after a god of the underworld would be named after creatures and places associated with the same god of the underworld. That said, it would make an interesting addtion to List of stories set in a future now past. Serendipodous 12:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

'Resolvable disc'

What's a "resolvable disc" (only mentioned once). – Sca (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you look at a planet through a telescope, it resolves into a disc, like the Moon. If you look at a star through a telescope, it still looks like a star. Ditto if you look at an asteroid, which is why they're called asteroids. Pluto is so small that it didn't initially resolve a disc. In fact it was about the 2000s before we even saw Pluto's disc. Serendipodous 17:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the wording slightly, from "resolvable" to "viewable". Pluto was eventually "viewable" as a disc, so it was always "resolvable". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Change Pluto from the dwarf planet classification to planet as it has been demonstrated the criteria used to claim Pluto is not only flawed, the body that voted to use it has violated their own criteria. 2603:7080:913F:60AF:1866:10D0:CE1A:D91D (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet

Is it still classified as a dwarf planet? Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and everything within that term that the IAU insists. Best get used to it. I don't foresee it changing at any point in the foreseeable future, but this isn't a forum; this page is to talk about the article itself. 134340Goat (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
even though California legislation bill HR 36 [3] declared that Downgrading Pluto's status would "cause psychological harm to some Californians" and had "tremendous impact on the people of California" --- poor Californians! -- Wassermaus (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
From the text: The downgrading of Pluto reduces the number of planets available for legislative leaders to hide redistricting legislation and other inconvenient political reform measures...
Not to be taken too seriously, obviously. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The term "Planet", including "Dwarf Planet" is now deprecated. The media did not use either term when describing the New Horizons flyby. "Planet" is no longer a useful term for scientific discussion, as it just creates more heat than light. Algr (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
If we're becoming a forum, let me say good luck with that line of reasoning. Imagine if geologists one day decided that the word "mountain" was defunct because there was no way to separate it from "hill". See how far that travels. Serendipodous 14:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Geologists did a much better job of defining their terms, and hence avoided the problem. Algr (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
No they didn't. They just set an arbitrary height line. If that's what you think we should have done with planets, fair enough. But I prefer definitions that, you know, define. Serendipodous 08:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I see little evidence that the terms planet and dwarf planet have fallen out of use. Plenty of media sources still use the terms,[4][5][6] And yes, even with New Horizons they identifies Pluto as a dwarf planet, albeit while still mentioning the "controversy" further down.[7] Like many, I was a bit angry about the change in designation when it happened, but that was 15 years ago now, and the newly defined distinction between planet and dwarf is clearly logical and rigorous, which the old system was not. You can't justify including Pluto as a planet but not Eris. And yes, the planet definition is clearly more objective than the mountain definition so it's a point for the astronomers there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing logical or rigorous about "Clearing the Neighborhood". It is an irrelevant over-complicated concept that has no scientific use beyond the objective of demoting Pluto. No one can explain how big Pluto's neighborhood is or why that size is relevant to anything. Is TRAPPIST-1 c in TRAPPIST-1b's neighborhood? The definition of "mountain" does not involve stuff on the other side of the Earth, and worked fine when used for objects on Mars. It would be much more clear an honest to say "Anything as large or larger than some arbitrary mass is a planet, unless it is big enough to trigger fusion by gravity." That at least communicates honest and useful information about the object. Algr (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me know when Earth's Moon is defined as a true planet and then maybe I will care about Pluto. -- Kheider (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A number of planetary scientists would say it already is, so, I suppose there's your answer. Shrug 134340Goat (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Charon, hydrostatic equilibrium, barycenter

"First identified in 1978 by astronomer James Christy, Charon is the only moon of Pluto that may be in hydrostatic equilibrium; Charon's mass is sufficient to cause the barycenter of the Pluto–Charon system to be outside Pluto." Does the fact that Charon may be in hydrostatic equilibrium have anything to do with its mass being sufficient to affect the barycenter? If so, this sentence has 2 parts and could stand. If not, it has three parts and should be rewritten. --142.163.195.229 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the semicolon with a full stop. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Relationship with Neptune

the section starting "If Pluto's period is slightly shorter than 3/2 of Neptune" ending with "The whole process takes about 20,000 years to complete" - is this something that really happens? If so, leave out the word "if". If not, change 'is' to 'were' and make the whole thing hypothetical.--142.163.195.229 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it happens. Changed to "When". Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Clear the neighborhood"? If Pluto is not a planet because it has not cleared Neptune, then why is Neptune a planet when it has not cleared Pluto? If Earth were as large as Jupiter, would Venus or Mars still exist? If Venus or Mars exists, then why is Earth a planet? "And yet it moves". (humor) 2601:1C2:500:7340:146B:EF50:F621:4A07 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Pluto is trapped in a resonance with Neptune, just as all the resonant TNOs are. The trojans are trapped in resonance with Jupiter. In both cases, the planet is the dominant member of the population. Your argument is like saying Earth is not a planet because it has a moon: if the moon is not a planet because it orbits the Earth rather than the sun, then the Earth can't be a planet because it orbits the moon rather than the sun. Technically, I suppose you could claim that, but the Earth is the dominant member of the pair, and so is the planet. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Whenever I see these arguments, I start thinking that the IAU should formally adopt Margot's criterion, both to allow the planet vs DP distinction to work for extrasolar systems, and to avoid lawyerly interpretations of "clearing the neighbourhood" when everybody in the field knows what is meant. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Be aware that "clearing the orbit" refers to the theoretical possibility of eventually dominating the orbit -- based on the mass of the object in question. It does not mean that it must have already been achieved. Earth receives 160 tons of meteor dust every day -- yet based on its mass and its orbit we say that it fulfills the criterion. There is a formula to determine whether a particular mass *will eventually* clear a particular orbit.
One objection to this criterion is that it is biased against smaller terrestrial objects with larger orbits. Example: Pluto *would be* a full planet if you brought it into the inner Solar System and plunked it between Mercury and Venus. Mars *would not be* a planet at 100 AU.
Double planet or double dwarf planet do not seem to be official designations -- yet. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox

Since I got reverted by Dhtwiki, let's discuss this:

I'm naturally aware that the common name is just "Pluto" without the MP number. However, that's also the case for every minor planet. For example, if you read 4 Vesta, you'll notice that it's always called "Vesta" outside the infobox header and the very start of the article. Why those two places – evidently because infoboxes often give the formal name even if that is not the article name. For some examples outside astronomy – see North Macedonia. Everywhere in the article it is called "North Macedonia", except one sentence in the lede where it is noted that its formal name is "Republic of North Macedonia", and the infobox heads off with that. Or China, where the same thing happens with its formal name "People's Republic of China". Or even United States, where the same thing happens with "United States of America".

(Also I feel that not having the minor planet number in the article title kind of goes against the almost-universal convention on WP where minor planets get the number regardless of whether or not they're the primary topic, e.g. 117 Lomia which Lomia redirects to, or 52246 Donaldjohanson when Donaldjohanson is a redlink. But since Pluto is by far the most famous minor planet, I can understand making it an exception.)

But at the very least, I think these precedents suggest that the minor planet number 134340 should at least be placed in the infobox, because that's where the formal name of an article subject usually goes. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The minor planet number is a detail that doesn't need to be included in the main title for the Infobox. We had this debate regarding the name of the article itself about 15 years ago, but the key point is that "136199 Pluto" is not Pluto's official name, except in the minor planet catalogue. It is also not its common name, so it certainly doesn't belong in the Infobox title. The same should apply to other dwarf planets such as Eris, we shouldn't be confusing readers by including a number that's only relevant to a few specialists.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Your logic makes sense, but my worry was that that's not how most other MP articles or comet articles do it. E.g. 2 Pallas uses the MP number in the article title and infobox header, and even Halley's Comet, which is titled by the common name, preserves "1P/Halley (Halley's Comet)" in the infobox header. But it's true that Pluto is by far more well-known than any of these, even Halley, which convinces me that leaving Pluto as an exception would not logically require us to change a lot of articles for consistency. So, I guess this is resolved for Pluto. As for the other less well-known dwarfs, I'll probably do a move request for them and see what happens.
P.S. Pluto is 134340; Eris is 136199. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I recognize Pluto's MPC number when I see it, but if I have not thought about Pluto for months I can not recall the exact MPC number on demand. Before looking at List of minor planets: 1–1000, 19 Fortuna is the highest minor planet that I can recall the number to on any given day. I do know the numbers to 24 Themis, 52 Europa, 65 Cybele, etc, but I do not think of their numbers unless I am already thinking specifically of that asteroid. -- Kheider (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't need a move request for Eris, Makemake etc, it's just an editing decision. We made the decision to move away from 136199 Eris in favour of Eris (dwarf planet) 15 years ago, so at least that part was settled. I might boldly try removing the number from the title of the infobox, having it consistent for all dwarf planets, and see what happens. (And yes, I got 134340 and 136199 mixed up, sorry... they really are awkward numbers!)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually I had in mind a move request for the other dwarfs to the MP numbers for somewhat different reasons. But that's not particularly germane to Pluto (which is a different case because of how well-known it is), so I'll discuss that elsewhere when I actually write that. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The Halley's Comet precedent is fairly convincing, but I can see Pluto being grandfathered in, since it's the only object for which the MPN was a modern afterthought. The other MP's are more problematic. 15 years ago there was a big deal about establishing DP's as a new category, and a lot of editors assumed that the IAU was going to play a role in this. But they haven't, and the issue is no longer so topical. The problem with removing the MPNs from DPs is deciding which bodies are MPs. Whose opinion do we use, since the IAU have (wisely) kept bureaucratic noses out of a scientific determination? Stern et al. count every object with a nominal diameter greater than Mimas. I know I couldn't keep track of them all, and because of measurement uncertainties, the cut-off is unstable. Grundy, Buie et al. count everything from Orcus on up (maybe now Salacia as well). If we're going by observationally established DPs, there's only Pluto and – maybe – Ceres (according to the only source I'm aware of, there are doubts about Ceres being in HE). Eris is generally assumed because it's more massive than Pluto, but that assumption was made when it was thought to be larger than Pluto as well. Instead it turns out to be denser, and denser bodies tend to have stronger 'rigid body forces'. I wouldn't be adverse to moving every TNO down to Orcus or maybe Salacia to '(dwarf planet)', except for Pluto, but I think it would be less OR-ish to move all but Pluto to MPN + name. — kwami (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should probably just make it more consistent and either make Pluto's infobox header 134340 Pluto or make the other 4 IAU dwarf planets (Ceres, Haumea, Makemake and Eris) like with Pluto, not list their number in the infobox header. In addition Pluto's infobox is colored like that of a planet, not a trans-Neptunian object like Haumea, Makemake and Eris (Ceres is colored like an asteroid belt object). We should probably make Pluto colored like a TNO or make the other 4 IAU dwarf planets colored like planets.Beanpickle (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, since the IAU considers those five objects on a level above other minor planets but distinct from the 8 objects they accept as planets, could they not get infoboxes their own colour? Even Wikipedia itself places them on a level significant enough to appear in the Solar System tab on the bottom of the page, but not other objects which are almost certainly dwarf planets under the IAU's definition, such as Gonggong or Quaoar 134340Goat (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the 5 IAU dwarf planets could get a unique color instead of the color of the minor planet population they are part of.Beanpickle (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Although the colors on minor planets refer to their orbit and not their size or status as a dwarf planet. Beanpickle (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Also Gonggong and Quaoar should probably stay how they are because even though they are very likely dwarf planets, the IAU has still not given them the official title.Beanpickle (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but the IAU doesn't even seem to have a process for awarding the official title. Tancredi recommended to them they accept Quaoar (and also Sedna and Orcus) back in 2010, and after eleven years, still nothing.
Also, the IAU gave a definition of a DP. It is a very weird situation if they have to approve objects as DPs for them to be considered so, even if scientific consensus is that they meet the definition. That's not how scientific definitions generally work. You know, the IAU has a definition of "brown dwarfs" too, and no one waits for IAU approval of brown dwarfs. Things are just called brown dwarfs if astronomers agree that they meet that definition. And maybe that's why they haven't given press releases calling objects the nth DP since 2008 when they named Haumea and Makemake under the assumption that they were DPs (because of their absolute magnitudes). So I'd argue that just because the IAU has not officially recognised Quaoar as a DP does not mean that we cannot report it as one when scientific consensus is that it is one anyway. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Since most astronomers agree on Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus and Salacia being dwarf planets, they could be considered dwarf planets, especially since Gonggong and Quaoar are measured to be more massive than Ceres.Beanpickle (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@134340Goat: Well, WP itself is sometimes one way and sometimes the other: {{Solar System}} treats Quaoar as not on a par with the IAU five, but {{Dwarf planets}} does. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beanpickle and Double sharp: I changed the color of Pluto, since that seemed a no-brainer. But where do we spell out the background colors for different classes of objects? I don't see anything at {{Infobox planet}}. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Page Display

Sumanuil I am not satisfied with any of the previous revisions of Pluto. Because in all the previous revisons, the images are flowing out of the page. I need this to be fixed. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, why does that require removing the infobox, or for that matter the protection templates? Also, what do you mean by "flowing out of the page"? If you're talking about the horizontal galleries, I don't see why that requires such extensive rewriting of the text. Just fix those. - Sumanuil (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am curious what specific changes you want to see Sumanuil. When you say "the images are flowing out of the page" what does mean? Jurisdicta (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want any specific changes, and I don't know what Neel.arunabh means by it. I just want to know what it means, and why it merits all these other changes. - Sumanuil (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, what does this have to do with removing 99k of data and replacing it with badly written, uncited material? Serendipodous 09:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Serendipodous I am talking about this particular image caption:

Composite image maps of Pluto from July 14, 2015 (updated 2019)[1][2]
A composite image of the sub-Charon hemisphere of Pluto. The region inside/below the white line was on the far side of Pluto when New Horizons made its closest approach, and was only imaged (at lower resolution) in the early days of the flyby. Black regions were not imaged at all.
The low-resolution area, with named features labeled
The low-resolution area, with features classified by geological type
  1. ^ Gough, Evan (October 25, 2019). "New Horizons Team Pieces Together the Best Images They Have of Pluto's Far Side". Universe Today. Retrieved October 26, 2019.
  2. ^ Stern, S.A.; et al. (2019). "Pluto's Far Side". Pluto System After New Horizons. 2133: 7024. arXiv:1910.08833. Bibcode:2019LPICo2133.7024S.

This image caption is really problematic. I really need this to be fixed. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the rest of the changes you made? - Sumanuil (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Link to WP-ko

Hi, friends! I happened to notice that the Korean page for this dwarf planet is not linked to its translation equivalent. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to link them. The hyperlink function is also not bringing up the page for 명왕성. The link (below) also keeps bringing up the Korean talk page even though I copied the link for the article page. Can someone please kindly link them up? Thank you! Here is the link that keeps being labelled as invalid (hence the lack of hyperlink): https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0:%EB%AA%85%EC%99%95%EC%84%B1 - Crayontulips (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like it links just fine. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Five moons — but not a planet?

Some might argue that the fact that Pluto has five moons is proof positive that Pluto indeed "clears the neighborhood of its orbit" — and should therefore be reinstated as a planet. [unsigned]

Some might argue that the Moon is made out of green cheese, so if we mine it we can end world hunger. WP follows reliable sources.
BTW, 130 Elektra has three moons but is only 200 km in diameter. No-one considers it a "planet" except in the loose sense that all asteroids are planets. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
What if someone changed the definition of "Green Cheese" to include regolith and silicates? Would you go along with that? Or point out how this made the words useless for describing anything? A term that lumps Earth and Jupiter together, but excludes Pluto, is similarly useless. Algr (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That's correct as far as geology goes, but not as far as the gravitational dynamics of the Solar System goes, I'm afraid. In terms of how they shape the Solar System, Earth and Jupiter are clearly both dominant bodies that can push the small fry around, in a sense that can be precisely quantified (see Clearing the neighbourhood#Criteria for some formalisations). Just as geologists naturally need a term to separate the round objects from the non-round objects (simplifying a bit here), dynamicists naturally need a term to separate the dominant objects from the non-dominant objects. Neither criterion is "useless" when applied in its proper context. Double sharp (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
As stated at the top of this talk page, There you go. Lemonreader (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Elektra also lacks a spherical shape — and therefore could not be a planet even if it had as many moons as Jupiter or Saturn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8B:8500:102D:ACDB:8F72:6B42:78EF (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the number of moons is irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea refuses to go away! https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/pluto-should-be-reclassified-as-a-planet-scientists-argue/ar-AASgVF5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&fbclid=IwAR2OosCF8Dnv3gNZkw5Baky6iikuyOjkwLQBfDPAnXwnzOWL4z6QlVTjb-Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8B:8500:102D:90D6:B5F7:1C54:436E (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course. To a planetary geologist, Pluto is a planet. For the "outrage", I suspect they're just worried about funding. But the article you linked to is idiotic -- I don't know if the journalist was irresponsible or if the ppl he interviewed were bullshitting him, but much of what he says is factually wrong. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The study itself is better, though. Double sharp (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

access to public edits Qtyujeje (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is Pluto no longer a Planet?

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of a dwarf planet because it did not meet the three criteria the IAU uses to define a full-sized planet. Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects.” In August 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of “dwarf planet.” This means that from now on only the rocky worlds of the inner Solar System and the gas giants of the outer system will be designated as planets. The “inner Solar System” is the region of space that is smaller than the radius of Jupiter’s orbit around the sun. It contains the asteroid belt as well as the terrestrial planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The “gas giants” of course are Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. So now we have eight planets instead of the nine we used to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownmf (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You're a decade and a half late to the party, but this is very common knowledge among astronomical circles. Please remember that a Wikipedia article talk page is to discuss the content of the article itself, not to socialize about the article's subject 134340Goat (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pluto/Archive_8&oldid=1137089346"