Talk:Pluto

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 [1] 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. Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 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,[2][3][4] And yes, even with New Horizons they identifies Pluto as a dwarf planet, albeit while still mentioning the "controversy" further down.[5] 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)

'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. Serendi^podous 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)

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? Serendi^podous 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)

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

mxgehgsjcjdwgxjgwrygenfvhsvuducsfhhbfgshcxjcufwJRV4WHBHGUAGCUSHFBEFJJXVJDDJGTEH4JBJJXCUUET3HBTJHEJGJJjguaruehtu3uhf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.120.215 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

mhfjwbbagz xvhsayhfguicjygyuewruewrgfgr hfddfuihvyuefgugdhvubhxchuhhdirhjuzkhgfhg3jrhthjnfhfjkjdgkdjgknxkdksmnefsdjchverkebkdsxuhcxkhdgjtnktndjvcjchgjbjtjhhjdfjjhjdfuhhudfkhhjhv