Talk:Pluto/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Use the CORRECT name instead of the colloquial name 2 OMG LOL please add this image 3 name 4 When is something NOT a planet? 5 Radius, Diameter differ in citations used 6 Picture 7 Free concept image available 8 Get a Different Image! 9 Planets Suck? 10 Trimming 11 Eccentric orbit? 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.2 Discussion

[edit] Use the CORRECT name instead of the colloquial name

[edit] OMG LOL please add this image

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/706/poorplutoxp4.jpg lol please someone find a way to add this image to the article, maybe under the planetary status controversy paragraph, or you can add it to the 2006 definition of planet article —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doubt we could, since a) it's probably not public domain and b) it would have to have some noteworthiness beyond just being funny. Serendi^podous 05:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's note-worthy.. Thats certinly how _I_ felt when those stuffy ba$tards took away it's status. I dont care WHAT they say, Pluto is Pluto not 2356456w465pluto or any other crap. It is and always will be a planet, and they can go to Venus.--98.18.57.173 (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to determine the availability (legally) of the photo, I support, albeit mildly, it's inclusion in the controversy section. It's just too good to pass up. atakdoug (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It can't be included; it is copyrighted. If we got the permission of the original artist, then yes we could include it, but we'd need some kind of academic rationale to do so, and I can't think of an academic reason to include it. Serendi^podous 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name

we should probably say something about when Pluto received the MPN designation 134340, since if it had been numbered in order of discovery, it would have the number of 1164 Kobolda. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved a setence from Definition of planet over here. Simpler because it's already cited.Serendi^podous 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When is something NOT a planet?

Let me see if I understand this: Pluto, and on a related topic Ceres and Eris are NOT planets because they're too small. Isn't that a bit like saying midgets aren't human? Scientists can't just change the definition of a word because they feel like it. By the original definition, if it orbited the sun it was a planet, so who's really to say Pluto isn't? Zillakilla (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the Cassini spacecraft was a planet when it orbited the Sun, and ceased to be a planet when it entered orbit about Saturn? We have to draw the line somewhere. If scientists cannot change the definitions of words, then we should restore the meaning of the word planet, not to your definition, which some scientist came up with, but to its true original meaning: "a light that wanders in the sky". The Sun and the Moon are therefore planets. kwami (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) See 2006 definition of planet - it's not the size for the sake of it - poor Pluto fails the condition to have "cleared the neighbourhood" (which is somewhat related to the body's mass, but not solely dependent). Миша13 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all a conspiricy you know. The IAU is being cleverly manipulated by dieticians who are using poor lil Pluto as nothing more than a pawn in thier campain against obesity. You see when Pluto was rightfully a planet, My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas, now My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us NOTHING! Those evil bastards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radius, Diameter differ in citations used

Information in the article differs from the citations used:

Value from Article	Value from Citation
1195 km (= diameter 2390 km) - Physical Characteristics	1195 km from Pluto Fact Sheet
2390 km diameter - Mass and Size	1145 ± 46 km (= diameter 2290 km) from sciencemag.org

Since the sciencemag.org article is from 1987, perhaps its citation could be dropped. Of course, this is assuming NASA keeps their information up-to-date. Fehlschlag (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind! Once I actually spent time carefully reading, I realized the second one is a historical citation. Guess I should always have a nice microbrew before reading. On the bright side, I learned how to use a basic wikitable..., Cheers! Fehlschlag (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Should this image be used? I noticed that the same image was removed from List of solar system objects by radius for not being a free use pic, should it also be removed from here? Sethhater123 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Sethhater123

This article can make a case for fair use, since it is the best picture of Pluto currently available. That doesn't really apply to the radius article. Serendi^podous 04:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free concept image available

I uploaded a concept image of Pluto to Commons, which I cropped from Image:Plutonian system.jpg. The image is in public domain, as it was created by NASA, and I think it should replace the infobox image of Image:Pluto.jpg, which is non-free. Regardless, it should be in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure where exactly. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A free concept image is not better than a non-free photograph. The image in the infobox should stay. Agree that the concept image should be somewhere in the article though. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like Ganymede! It's fantasy: Why should we include it? Unless we have a section on representations of Pluto in art? kwami (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer real photos. We should not give readers the false impression that we have high resolution photos of Pluto. Ganymede (moon) seems to be used often as a stand in for Pluto. But if you want fake Pluto's you can also use Iapetus (actual photo) and Oberon (with Pluto overlayed on it). -- Kheider (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fantasy. It has no encyclopedic value, and, as Kwami pointed out, it looks like Ganymede, which would be misleading. Serendi^podous 08:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get a Different Image!

Please get a different picture of Pluto. That crappy picture look like a freakin' disco ball for heaven's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronV28 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at the best science has to date. It will be updated as soon as possible... but that won't be until 2015, when New Horizons gets to Pluto. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if anyone want's a better one, why don't they build a spaceship, fly out there and take one themselves, the whiny bums! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planets Suck?

This "celestial body" SHOULD be a planet. The definition of a planet is if it owns the space around it. It is thought to be that pluto does not own the space around it, well, i disagree....I am 99% positive that if an asteroid passed close enough Pluto would suck it in (per say) because it is the 10 largest thing in within a certain area of the sun. So that brings us to the question of space Pluto should not have the same spacial area as ANY of the other planets because it is much smaller. The space it owns should be considered as 1/9 of the size of the of Earth's. It is my belief that they are giving Pluto the same formula of the AMOUNT of space owned by it as they are the other planets.Blackstar66 (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any asteroid passing too close to a larger, more massive body will be sucked in. That does not make the larger body a planet. -- Kheider (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Blackstar66 is pretty close to the reason why Pluto is not a planet. The 8 planets "own" a space that stretches all the way round the sun in their whole orbit (plus other potential orbits nearby). Pluto, on the other, is a lot smaller, and its orbit is a lot bigger. This means that the size of space that Pluto "owns" isn't big compared with its own orbit, and is therefore classified as a Dwarf Planet. A better example is Ceres: in order to be a planet, Ceres would have to "own" the entire asteroid belt. This concept of "ownership" is described mathematically by the Stern-Levinson parameter (see the table in Cleared the neighbourhood): roughly the size of the region where the body is gravitationally dominant, divided by the size of the orbit. You can see that there is a huge gap in values between that of Mars (the least dominant "planet"), and Eris (the most dominant "dwarf planet"). Bluap (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

The article is getting long. There is a fair amount that can be trimmed. In Pluto#Planetary status controversy, there is too much discussion of KBOs that do not apply to Pluto directly. "Rudolf" and "Easterbunny", while amusing, add nothing to the discussion of Pluto. It's enough to say that there are other moons without a detailed listing. The Pluto#Planet X section could also be cut, relying on the main article. I'd like to suggest that a few things be done.

1. Keep things concise and let the main articles carry the lesser details.
2. Break the KBO data into pre and post 2006 IAU sections. Any data available after the decision could not have impacted the decision making process. The newer discoveries should be subjected to a stringent "is this relevant to Pluto?" test.
3. Consider the new article Pluto's Planetary Status to focus the debate and stabilize the main article.

Novangelis (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is long, but I wouldn't say it's getting longer. It is still shorter than Uranus, and has held steady at 82-84 K since its last major expansion in November. None of the KBO data are post-2006, so that's not a problem (there haven't been any major discoveries since Eris). I agree that the EL61 info is fairly redundant and can be removed. There are already two other articles dealing with the definition of planet debate; Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet, so I don't think we need a third. I've trimmed the "Planet X" section a bit, but I don't think a proper history of Pluto's discovery can work without discussion of Planet X, since Planet X was Pluto's name for a while; it's even called Planet X on Tombaugh's discovery notes. Serendi^podous 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I failed the standard of be bold, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. I agree with everything you said, and your trimming definitely was surgical. Novangelis (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eccentric orbit?

The article says:

It has an eccentric orbit that takes it from 30 to 49 AU (4.4–7.4 billion km) from the Sun, and is highly inclined with respect to the planets. As a result, Pluto occasionally comes closer to the Sun than the planet Neptune does.

This makes it sound like the inclination is the reason it sometimes comes closer than Neptune. Isn't it really the eccentricity which causes that? Also, (almost) all orbits are eccentric. What makes this one interesting is the degree of eccentricity. Would it better to say:

It has a highly eccentric and highly inclined orbit. The eccentricity takes it from 30 to 49 AU (4.4–7.4 billion km) from the Sun, causing Pluto to occasionally come closer to the Sun than Neptune.

-- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Serendi^podous 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move