Talk:Pluto/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] Not a minor planet

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

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

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

Pluto isn't a minor planet, it's a planet. 9th planet of 9.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to unsigned, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. 71.142.16.80

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Biased

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

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

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

[edit] Binary dwarf planet?

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

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

Regarding the below comment:

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

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

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

[edit] Pluto larger than Eris?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Why cant I edit this page

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

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

[edit] not a planet

didnt they come out with a definite definition of a planet and pluto did not make the cut, i am just wondering? [1] Timmsterr

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

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

Rubyandme 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accept it or not, who cares?

[edit] Why not?

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

To be a planet, an object must

1) Orbit the sun

2) Be round

3) Be gravitationally dominant in its orbit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Demoted Pluto as a Dwarf Planet and not the largest Dwarf Planet...

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

Read the news article here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Does ice cream melt?

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

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

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

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

[edit] With pluto a dwarf planet

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dwarf, Comet, or Planette?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Nix and Hydra, Moons or sattelites?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Error

In the introduction I read:

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

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

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

[edit] scientist Robert Staehle

Under Exploration of Pluto:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Internal Conflict

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

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

Svyatoslav 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] What happened to the Pluto image?

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

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

[edit] A year since Pluto has not been classified as a planet

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

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

[edit] Reconsider Pluto!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Main Pluto image up for deletion

At Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pluto.jpg. It appears that the creator of this image, Eliot Young, only allows non-commercial educational use. Since the creation of this image is based on a method described in [2], I wonder if there's any possibility for creating a free alternative, or if there's basis for a fair use claim on the image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence?

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

I'm thinking they are and David doesn't really exist. Dr Dale P Cruikshank is a well published scientist working for NASA. [3] --LiamE 11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent magnitude

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

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

[edit] Naming

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

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

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

It is named after Mickey Mouse Dog, idiots