Talk:Pluto/Archive 6

message: Add a paragraph to the section titled Plutoed at the end of the entry for Pluto, as follows:
Pluto as a metaphor for devalued and distant relationships was used by Dr. [Warshak] to described alienated and estranged parent-child relationships, such as those that occur in the aftermath of divorce. He termed these “plutonic relationships.”[Reference footnote: R. A. Warshak (2010). “Family Bridges: Using Insights From Social Science To Reconnect Parents And Alienated Children”. Family Court Review 48 (1): 48-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01288.x.] Children who “pluto” a parent no longer regard that parent as part of their family. The word “plutoed” was used in the 2010 DVD, Welcome Back, Pluto: Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Parental Alienation, to describe a child’s rejection of a formerly loved parent and the status of a parent who has been devalued or demoted by their children. [Reference footnote: R. A. Warshak & M. R. Otis, Writers and Producers, T. Ready, Director. (2010). “Welcome Back, Pluto: Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Parental Alienation.” WBP Media. Available at: www.plutodvd.com and http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Back-Pluto-Understanding-Preventing/dp/B0042QDAQ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1296678966&sr=1-1] 
Rawars (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Rawars, 4 February 2011 

message: The physical diameters of Nix and Hydra should be synced between their respective articles, the description on this page and the table on this page. As it stands now, they are not. -- Henriok (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizes of Nix and Hydra 

message: someone add the category tag on the bottom for "Terrestrial planets" it seems to be missing 98.117.186.191 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a surprise since Pluto is not a planet. HumphreyW (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto is a planet. So I find it surprising. 98.117.186.191 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to this. Argue with the IAU if you want that to change. HumphreyW (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Argument from authority 98.117.186.191 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By convention Wikipedia articles follow the IAU decision. So in this case the IAU is authoritative. If you want that to change then it will take a lot of campaigning to get there. It's not impossible but highly unlikely to happen. HumphreyW (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really valid here. Pluto has been reclassified as a dwarf planet, and as such the Wikipedia article reflects that scientific perspective. The article does mention the controversial aspects of the decision. --Ckatzchatspy 23:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really the definition of the word planet is 100% scientific? I mean you could actually go to a lab somewhere and prove it, like newton's equations? 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get a consensus to add the category then it can be added. HumphreyW (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: The Solar System has been shown to be full.  You can not place an object in an orbit between the Planets Mercury through Neptune without it being perturbed out of that orbit.  Pluto has many plutino brothers that have the same dominated 3:2 resonance with "the planet" Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok we can do that at 3 am after a 10 day debate when 95% of the wikipedia community is offline  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the article Terrestrial Planets.  It clearly differentiates Pluto into a separate category, Plutoids.  There is a clear, defined difference and it is important to adhere to those differences, as defined by the IAU for consistency purposes.  Wikipedia is intended to be a place to gather knowledge rather than opinions. --Xession (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request

message: The pole identified in the article as North pole right ascension 133.046 ± 0.014° and declination −6.145 ± 0.014° is actually the south pole according to the IAU because it is south of the invariable plane. This can be seen on a star chart that includes the ecliptic, which is near the invariable plane, such as Navigational star chart, where sidereal hour angle is opposite to right ascension, which on this chart would have 0° or 0h at the right and 360° or 24h at the left. The former Report of the IAU/IAG working group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2006 stated on page 159 that the north pole of Pluto is right ascension 312.993°, declination 6.163°. However, changing to the latter coordinates would only be temporary because the current Report of the IAU working group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2009 (published ) has replaced the invariable plane with the right hand rule for dwarf planets, minor planets, their satellites, and comets, now specifying Pluto's pole on page 18 as right ascension 132.993°, declination −6.163°, near the "north pole" now in the article. They call this the "positive pole" (of the right hand rule) to distinguish it from the north pole relative to the invariable plane, which they still use for planets and their satellites. I have requested that "Positive pole right ascension" and "Positive pole declination" be added to  at Template talk:Infobox planet#Positive pole with no movement so far. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only sensible rule is that the North Pole is the one at which the values of the markings on a "star-dial" (not sun-dial) increase clockwise.  A Sun should rise, more often than not, to the East of a meridian.  To protect against the variable whims of the IAU, the term "anti-clockwise pole" should be used.  The Article ought to include the position, exact or approximate, of Pluto at the time of its discovery (perhaps as "near the nearest star which currently has its own Wikipedia article"). 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/pluto/plutodiscovery1.html says near Delta Geminorum. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pole 

message: Why is this article semi-protected?OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavy vandalism from IPs, throughout its history. Shouldn't affect you though as your registered status will allow you to edit it. --Ckatzchatspy 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection? 

message: The distance numbers no longer match the source. What’s more, we have a blatant example of false precision. Solex is a good program to check this, because each version will generate the ephemeris calibrated to two different  JPL ephemerides. Comparing DE406 and DE421 gives a difference of 29,000 km. Horizons is yet different, and in between.  There is no way we can know the semimajor axis to 1 km. I have chosen to set the semimajor axis to 39.264 AU, a number all sources agree with,  and convert to km. I handled the other two similarly. Saros136 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you use an epoch of 2000-Jan-01?  For 2000-Jan-01, Horizons gives me A = 39.49393 and Aph=49.27931. For 2010-Jan-01, I get A = 39.89974 and Aph=49.97638. Perhaps we should just use the JPL small body database and an epoch of 2006-Sep-22 (a=39.445 and Q=49.316) since this would be the most verifiable source? -- Kheider (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used J2000, which is 2000-1-1 12:00 Terestrial Time TT on Solex (Horizons automatically gives Coordinate Time CT, but they are equivalant). Here are my Solex screenshots, and the Horizons one. There is a .00020 AU, or 29,000 km, difference between the DE421 and DE406 elements displayed by Solex. That is a good rough test of uncertainty. No figure that Horizons or Solex gives could be accurate to 1 km. Saros136 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. You used the Pluto barycenter, I used Pluto. I still wonder if it would be best to just quote the jpl database. -- Kheider (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the link on the page going to Horizons got it right, so I didn't have a problem. Anyway, the most important point is that there was that we need to eliminate such false precision. Saros136 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  excess precision 

message: The text states that Brown was the astronomer who discovered Eris. He was actually one of three, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz were the others. Proper credit should be given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.69.98 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Brown discovered Eris; the other two weren't notified until after he found it. Serendipodous 21:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request May 27, 2011 

message: I do believe Pluto is the latinized name for  the Greek god of the underworld, not the Roman as it stated on the disambiguation page for Pluto. (90.198.186.192 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The connection between Hades and Pluto is complicated and finding a source that picks them apart is not easy. Serendipodous 06:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Name 

message: Something is wrong with Reference 111. ,  all over the place. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Serendipodous 06:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 111 

message: 75.121.22.131 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fixed. Serendipodous 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed: bi-model to bi-modal 

message: Nothing on this? 68.148.233.117 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the main article on Pluto's discovery. Serendipodous 13:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1914 Precovery

message: In reading the first paragraph, I got a little confused in the second sentence. May I suggest breaking it into two?
It is currently this:
Originally classified as the ninth planet from the Sun, Pluto was recategorized due to recent discoveries and is now considered the largest dwarf planet within the newly charted Kuiper belt.
There's a little ambiguity since the sentence works without "within the newly charted Kuiper belt," creating potential confusion about it being largest or second largest. Yes, there's a note there, but not everyone clicks on those things. If it were me, I would make it this:
Originally classified as the ninth planet from the Sun, Pluto was re-categorized as a dwarf planet due to recent discoveries. It is currently considered the largest dwarf planet within the newly charted Kuiper belt.
This is my first serious thought of editing a page on Wikipedia, but it's a minor edit, I thought this would clarify things a little, and perhaps fit the Wikipedia style a bit better. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmancact (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took a while to get to this, but yes I think you're right. :) Serendipodous 11:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in the first paragraph 

message: Pluto remains a planet in the Arecibo message.  This can't be changed.  Algr (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's Eris? :) — kwami (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it pretty much can't. That's because it's the NINTH PLANET. 96.24.72.98 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a dot. How could anyone tell which TNO it's supposed to be? The obvious interpretation would be that it's the largest. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraterrestrial civilizations advanced enough to know the structure of our Solar System would laugh at the inclusion of one TNO as a planetary dot, for the lack of understanding that it demonstrates. --JorisvS (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, you know, WP:NOTFORUM and everything... Serendipodous 10:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arecibo message 

message: So I'm really disappointed that I was taught in school that pluto was the smallest planet, and now I'm being told it's not, because it's too light. How can a planet one day just disappear (from a scientific perspective)? I'm just saying, for me, it was worse than saying Santa is here, then no he's not, because nobody believed in Santa anyway. Are there any more references that could be added, because even the article seems to indicate that this is a contentious point. My thought is that if Pluto is far enough out, then it's considered a planet. Twigfan (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still there, its category has merely been changed.  See IAU_definition_of_planet.  Your opinion on how a planet should be defined has no bearing. --Daniel 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's just asking for clearer support for the classification. Twigfan, the issues are discussed at definition of planet and at IAU definition of planet. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The talk page is not a forum, so it is not a place where one is free to post personal opinions. As for those "competitors", many are expected to be round (only which ones are round is still uncertain, really), some are quite rocky, much more so than Pluto, the largest have transient atmospheres, just like Pluto, and most have moons (but note that the planets Mercury and Venus don't have moons). As for Pluto being a miniature world, so are all the other dwarf planets (whether already identified as such or not). There is no justifiable way to not lump Pluto with all the other dwarf planets. --JorisvS (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification as a planet

message: May I ask, where does this paper describe the minor moons' spectral similarity to Charon? Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The moons' spectral similarity to Charon 

message: I added some citation requests into the article, because I failed to find the information in the given sources and did not see it anywhere else either. They are ,  and . Since this is a featured article, I believe that the information has to be referenced. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this needs a reference. I recall reading years ago that the albedos were basically best-fit estimates (as is generally the case). -- Kheider (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing sources 

message: The part dealing with the atmopshere of Pluto contains an untrue statement. Specifically, the sentence "The first evidence of Pluto's atmosphere was found by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in 1985, from observations of the occultation of a star behind Pluto." is not correct (as the reference [90] indeed shows).
The sentence should be replaced by "The first evidence of Pluto's atmosphere was found at the Wise Observatory (Israel) in 1985, from observations of the occultation of a star behind Pluto."
132.66.222.3 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 8 February 2012 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-a-faces.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I was wondering about the following sentence in the Nix and Hydra section: "With 90% confidence, no additional moons larger than 12 km (or a maximum of 37 km with an albedo of 0.041) exist beyond the glare of Pluto 5 arcseconds from the dwarf planet." This comes from a study done in 2006. Just below it is a small section on S/2011 P 1, which was discovered in 2011 and is expected to be larger than the abovementioned value. Now, I know this has something to do with the 'with 90% confidence' or with any of the specifics only outlined in the ref itself. It must, however, look very curious to the average reader who reads this and then about S/2011 P 1. Furthermore, I have my doubts about the usefulness of stating this (here). Thoughts? --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that we now know of even two moons "contradicting" that statement, I would remove it as outdated/disproved information, and to not confuse the readers. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've removed it. --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small moons 

message: "...This pattern is configured so that, in each 500-year cycle..."
It wasn't configured.  It is so.  In much the same way Earth wasn't designed for humans by a deity but just happens to be suitable.
I'd re-write that as "This pattern is such that, ..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.24.19 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small tweak 

message: Hello there, I've created two images based on Hubble Space Telescope's images to illustrate a realistic vision of Pluto, should it be added to the main article? The images are :File:Artist's impression dwarf planet Pluto, albedo.png and :File:Artist's impression dwarf planet Pluto.png.
:Sorry, but there's no real reason to add them: the HST image is as good as we can currently get, and unlike for the dwarf planets that are entirely points of light, it is a close visual representation (I say 'close' since it can do the main albedo features but not sharp edges) of Pluto. I feel that's an important distinction. Iridia (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I support adding one of the images (I'd prefer the first) to the main article (not the lede/infobox, of course), given that the HST images are low-resolution and don't look like "real" photographic images because of the massive digital reprocessing. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that, while I usually don't favor original artwork, etc, that in this case there is a demonstrable reason to include it based on the existing image's quality. However, if an official version was available, I'd say these get jettisoned pretty quick. I agree in specifics with Roentgenium111.204.65.34.34 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Commons has other official high resolution images such as File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-b90.jpg that are also not used in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto's artistic impression 

message: Someone needs to fix the center alignment at the bottom, looks very messy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but not sure what in the prev edit, the diff here, caused the problem. I fixed it by editing the June 24 version and manually adding in the text changes made by Serendipodous. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  22:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok this is apparently one of those strange things that happens every now and then. Now the June 26 version by Serendipodous appears normal with no unwanted centered headings or text. A glitch somewhere?...really weird. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment problem

message: Alan Stern announced a fifth moon on twitter 11 July 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I wonder why the system has so many small moons in contrast to Earth's system, since both formed presumably in the same way, by a grand collision... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. The further you are from the Sun, the larger your Sphere of influence will be. Pluto has a larger hill sphere than Earth. This is also why Neptune should have more trojans than Jupiter. -- Kheider (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a possible explanation; however, Pluto's system takes up less than a percent of its Hill sphere, and enlarging the system till Charon's distance becomes that of Earth's Moon would still put most of Pluto's moons inside Earth's Hill sphere. But maybe they were further off upon creation... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

text: IAU Circular 9253 now available: S/2012(134340)1 is 10-25 km in diameter. Iridia (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: 134340 is pluto's minor planet catalog number.  P is also acceptable as a shorthand for Pluto.  Both names are therefore correct.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the designation can be demonstrated to be in actual use in reliable sources, it is just a made-up extrapolation of a nomenclature system. (And a nomenclature system that is no longer officially sanctioned since the demotion of Pluto by the IAU). 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The proper name is "S/2012 (134340) 1" since Pluto is not a planet. But I guess Wikipedia is using the P as an improper throwback to when Pluto was a planet. -- Kheider (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is it would seem that none of the referenced sources is using this (including those on the S/2012 P 1 article). This contrasts with S/2011 (134340) 1, which was at least referred to as "S/2011 P 1" at the time (thus providing at least some justification for using the name). This time we've gone and made up a designation, and made-up designations should not be used. I recommend picking one of the naming conventions that can be backed up with references showing it is in use, either P4 and P5 or S/2011 (134340) 1 and S/2012 (134340) 1, my preference being the latter. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth moon 

message: The statement "In 1955 Pluto was calculated to be roughly the mass of the Earth, with further calculations in 1971 bringing the mass down to roughly that of Mars" seems incompatible with the data in the "Mass estimates for Pluto" table. 86.179.2.60 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a real problem. Before 1978, the mass estimates for Pluto were all wrong guesses. Even the mass of Neptune was not preciously known until the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby. -- Kheider (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states that the mass estimate was "revised downward throughout the 20th century". But the statement above would imply an increase in the mass estimate from 1948 (0.1 Earths) to 1955 (roughly 1 Earth). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It is a problem because the figures given in the two places are presented as if they were state-of-the-art estimates of their day (even though wrong), and yet they are wildly incompatible. 86.179.4.226 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a general downward trend from the original estimate of a planet several times more massive than the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies in mass estimates 

message: the sub-section labeled "Rotation" is a small paragraph and should be moved to the top of the section rather than being given its own header. It seems silly to have "Rotation" a sub-section of itself.
-no one of consequence
Ltnemo2000 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation < Rotation and orbit 

message: The table "Pluto and its satellites, with Earth's Moon comparison" contains orbital periods of Pluto's satellites around the system's barycentre, but in the case of Pluto itself there is its orbital period around the Sun. I think this is quite misleading. Its orbital period around the barycenter should be written here as well. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've fixed it here and at moons of Pluto. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital period of Pluto and moons 

message: Please change "Mark Showalter" to Mark R. Showalter
JavautilRandom (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Kheider (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 July 2012 

message: Hello, could someone remove the "S/2012 P 1" designation from the table of moons in the Near Resonances section as this designation was not actually used in reliable sources. The article itself has recently been moved after a move request to S/2012 (134340) 1 (similarly for S/2011 P 1 to S/2011 (134340) 1). 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . --JorisvS (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 2012-08-14 

message: Why is the former refferred to with P1 yet the other one gets (134340)1? Should we not use the same for both? It just seems sloppy to me. 134340Goat (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see "S/2011 P1"? This was resolved in July. -- Kheider (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pluto has five known moons, the largest being Charon discovered in 1978, along with Nix and Hydra, discovered in 2005,[21] and the provisionally named S/2011 P 1, discovered in 2011..." 134340Goat (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the remaining instances. --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  S/2011 P1 and S/2012 (134340)1 

message: In the fact box, Pluto's eccentricity is 0.24880766. But using aphelion and perihelion, it should have been ~ 0.2446. For the "proper" planets, the eccentricity discrepancies are ignorable. Why the relatively large discrepancy in Pluto's case?
84.215.19.207 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: perihelion is 7,376 Gm, aphelion is 4,437 Gm giving e = 0.248... HumphreyW (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the values in the infobox. HumphreyW (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At an epoch of 2000-Jan-01 12:00, the Pluto barycenter has EC= 2.446716640576734E-01, QR= 2.965737037208183E+01 (perihelion), AD= 4.887104955031421E+01 (aphelion), and A = 3.926420996119802E+01 (semi-major axis). In some parts of the infobox we are using JPL Horizons object barycenter as seen from the center of the Sun (as we are doing for all the "real" planets), and in other places we appear to be quoting mean values from Williams. -- Kheider (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Great! Now shouldn't the semi-major axis be 5,906,375,000 km? Or isn't it that simple? I'm trying to understand this stuff... 84.215.19.207 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on rather you want to use instantaneous J2000 osculating values or mean values. For all the major planets we use instantaneous J2000 osculating values. If we migrate away from using J2000 values we will need to change the epoch to mean. -- Kheider (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I have reverted back to the JPL Horizons values to match how we are doing the major planets. There also was no |orbit_ref line in the infobox. At least the section is now referenced. I have listed the J2000 eccentricity and the mean eccentricity. -- Kheider (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eccentricity discrepancy 

message: I can't verify this yet, as I don't have access to the full journal cites, but I'm pretty sure it was WH Pickering, not Lowell, who captured pictures of Pluto while searching for a ninth planet. Certainly the paper linked to is discussing Pickering, not Lowell. If anyone with full access could check this I would be very grateful. Serendipodous 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hoyt's article does not clearly state that it was either Lowell or Pickering. It only mentions that the plates were exposed on March 19 and April 7 1915, before Lowell death. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lowell vs Pickering

message: So what's the sigma in H? Can't use it to calculate anything without more info than this. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sigma? You should use it I think: Absolute magnitude#Solar System bodies (H). SenseiAC (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  H 

message: The animated GIF looks like it gets mangled a bit from scaling. Is there any way to fix that? 212.9.31.12 (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated GIF 

message: Wouldn't Pluto also be classified as a planetoid? it's a small planet and technically it's smaller than the Earth's moon, which is abuot the size of a large planetoid.
Alien  Arceus  10:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "planetoid" does not have an official definition. Serendipodous 11:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Pluto is not officially considered a planetoid, so no, do not add it. Serendipodous 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Historically planetoid has been used to describe asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Pluto could be described as an evolved Planetesimal.  We don't have a category for that that though so no point in adding it.... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: other possible classification

message: The section "Other factors"  says:
"when Pluto most closely intersects the plane of Neptune's orbit, it must be at its farthest beyond it. This is known as the 1:1 superresonance and is controlled by all the Jovian planets."
Many readers  won't know what  "Jovian planets" means  here.  Jovian planets redirects to Gas giant, which is about gas giants  in general and doesn't seem quite right for the usage  here -  "planets that control Pluto's orbit."  
Can we do anything  to clarify this?
As always, I'm not asking for clarification here in Talk - I think that we should add clarification in the article  itself.
- 186.221.129.156 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "most closely intersects" is a meaningless phrase. Either it intersects it, or it doesn't. It can, of course, be "most close to it".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I couldn't figure out how to make it clarify the sentence before it, so I've removed it. --JorisvS (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't any orbital period be relative to the barycenter?  Anything else should be parenthetical.  — kwami (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   I think that we need to clarify the term "Jovian planets" in the article 

message: The new image of Pluto is an "artist's impression" and is not justified in the lede. We simply don't know what Pluto looks like apart from the low-resolution Hubble photos, which should be retained. In particular, the caption under the graphic ("Computer-generated map of Pluto from Hubble images, synthesized true color[a] and among the highest resolutions possible with current technology") is simply false, because this is not possible with current technology---it's just someone's original fantasy. --130.102.158.19 (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The original image was swapped out a week ago. No one noticed. Serendipodous 07:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Good catch!  That's the first time I've ever seen such high-quality violations of our original research policy in a photo.  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: All the other sources I found, including NASA, including THIS VERY PAGE (in the text area), say that Pluto's orbital period is 248 years. Yet the facts column on this page shows 246 years (and a matching number of days). Where was this information taken from? What is the true orbital period?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirams (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where those values originated from, I've updated the figures in the infobox with values sourced from NASA. Reatlas (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The orbital period of an object depends on the epoch (date) used to define it. For objects beyond the orbit of the gas giant planets, the orbital period also depends on if you calculate a heliocentric or barycentric (Sun+Jupiter) solution. The infobox seems to use J2000 values and the barycenter of the Pluto-system (MB=9).  J2000 heliocentric is 246.03 years, while the J2000 barycentric value is 247.97 years. If you use an epoch of 2013-Aug-26 with a pluto-center (MB=999) and heliocentric solution, you will get an orbital period of 243.67 years. --- Kheider (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could say 246-248 years, and add what you just said in a note? With a citation of course. Serendipodous 07:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified note B to explain why we list an orbital period of 248 years. As reference 6 and note B were written, the correct answer would have been 246 years. -- Kheider (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital period? 

message: Can we finally get rid of the silly number names?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/02/pluto-smallest-moons-officially-named/
*P4 --> "Kerberos"
*P5 --> "Styx"
-MarsRover (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pluto moon names 

message: Please change this sentence:
"This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it an as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid)."
to:
"This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid)."
because the "an" is unnecessary/incorrect in the original sentence.
Thank you,
David.
87.194.26.108 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  21:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 31 August 2013 

message: Shouldn't PLUTO redirect to Pluto (or at least Pluto (disambiguation))? I happened to have my keyboard caps lock on when typing into the search box and was surprised when I arrived at an article about a military operation instead of at the expected article about the planetary body. Lambtron (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - Yes, I agree - PLUTO now redirects to Pluto (disambiguation) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "PLUTO" redirect to "Pluto"?  

message: Is pluto really the largest object in the kuiper belt?
what about Eris?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspaasBekklund (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris is actually part of the Scattered disc Bluap (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Eris spends most of it's time in the scattered disc and Wikipedia technically treats these as two different regions. -- Kheider (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris's orbit as a whole lies outside the Kuiper belt, even though it sometimes comes as close to the Sun as the Kuiper belt. --JorisvS (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Read further.  — kwami (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Makemake is a classical Kuiper belt object, and may be the largest of the classical Kuiper belt objects. Pluto is not a classical Kuiper belt object: it is a resonant Kuiper-belt object. Double sharp (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Oh my heck. What is the most current estimate of the size and mass of Eris vs. Pluto, with references, please? Among the citations in the article on Eris, it says they may be the same size. This article itself says Eris is 27% larger. Halp! :) --RichardAlexanderHall (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Size and mass are different things; thing ton of lead vs ton of feathers. Serendipodous 03:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

text: We can't have an article that begins: Pluto (...) is possibly... (my italics). Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Object in the kuiper belt? 

message: Recently, all references in the article to Earth's Moon were changed to simply read, "the Moon", with the claim that the change "removed tautology". In an article about a body elsewhere in the solar system, where the text makes reference to many different moons, it strikes me as fully appropriate to specify "Earth's Moon", even if arguably redundant/tautological — a position that IMHO sacrifices clarity and accessibility, especially for the casual reader, and gains little if anything for the trouble.
I just don't see the benefit of turning passages like these:
Like other Kuiper-belt objects, Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice and is relatively small, approximately one-sixth the mass of the Earth's Moon and one-third its volume.
Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is much less massive than the terrestrial planets, and at less than 0.2 lunar masses, it is also less massive than seven moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Earth's Moon, Europa and Triton.
Into this:
Like other Kuiper-belt objects, Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice and is relatively small, approximately one-sixth the mass of the Moon and one-third its volume.
Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is much less massive than the terrestrial planets, and at less than 0.2 lunar masses, it is also less massive than seven moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, the Moon, Europa and Triton.
(I do agree with the removal, done in the same edit, of "the" from references to Earth. "Earth's Moon" > "the Earth's Moon" > "the Moon".)
...But I'm curious what the Consensus would be regarding these changes. --FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly minor edit; you can change it if you want, I don't think anyone would mind. Usually these things don't need discussion unless the original editor cries foul. Serendipodous 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tautological" references to Earth's Moon 

message: Hello, I came across a recent article updating on the New Horizons exploration. http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/small-bodies/nh_opnav_pluto-charon_2014-07.html I would like to be able to add the image into the Explorations section as well as providing a description about the image.
FatalGravity (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: - - You are advised to upload an image first using Upload Wizard to make it usable in any Wikipedia article. See also, Wikipedia uploading images. Please note that the image/s you upload, should not be copyrighted, otherwise must meet Wikipedia non-free content standard. -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Would like to add an update on the Exploration of New Horizons exploration=

message: It's my understanding, after speaking with someone at Lowell Observatory, that Tombaugh actually took images on the telescope every six days--not every two weeks like this page states. In fact, in the sentence regarding the "discovery" of Pluto upon viewing the Jan 23-Jan 29th plates, those dates are six days apart and not two weeks as the previous sentences imply. 71.223.64.219 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two weeks figure isn't in the source, so I'll take it out. Serendipodous 10:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Weeks vs. Six Days 

message: First of all, to demand an absolute statement of truth about anything is ridiculous. It's possible that we might find a KBO larger than Pluto, but then it's also possible that we might find an asteroid larger than Ceres. Of course, we haven't found one in 200 years but still you can't absolutely rule it out, just as you can't rule out Russell's teapot. As for locating a source, that's difficult, if not impossible. Why? Well, aside from what I just said, most of the major astronomers tied to this issue use a different definition of "Kuiper belt" than Wikipedia does. For instance, here is Mike Brown talking about the end of the survey. He says that it is possible that 1 or 2 large objects may still be found, but he isn't talking about the Kuiper belt as described on Wikipedia; he's talking about the Kuiper belt+scattered disc, which could very well have large objects left to find. In fact two have been found in the scattered disc since then. So why does Wikipedia use a definition of the Kuiper belt that excludes the scattered disc? Because the IAU does. So we're at odds with most sources we could locate. It's a frustrating situation, but there you go. Serendipodous 20:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest object in the kuiper belt

message: I will readily admit that there are greater and lesser truths here. But the least of the truths is claiming that we know for sure that Pluto is definitely the largest Kuiper Belt object. We don't know, and we won't for quite a while. The Ceres example is very weak. Radar Astronomy can be very effective for nearby regions like the asteroid belt. I have no problem with the claim that Ceres is the largest object in the belt. Plus the presence of Jupiter ensures that there is nothing hidden out there. But none of these points works very well in the Kuiper Belt. Both radar and optical astronomy have shortcomings that far out. You should know the math of the diminishing returns per distance. We will simply never know until we go there, and do a detailed survey. Saying that Pluto is the largest known object just seems like such an easy way to cover all the bases, keeping Wikipedia as factually accurate as possible. But you (and others) have fought tooth and nail to keep the word KNOWN out of that sentence, and now you are fighting just as hard to remove the citation note. Your zeal for this reminds me of the 16th century Catholic hierarchy. Why are you fighting so hard for a fallacy? It's time to admit that our knowledge is limited, and will remain so for quite a while. Saying that is the largest KNOWN object out there is the greatest truth.
Will102 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you call talk page discussion "reasonable" is a tacit acknowledgement that your behaviour up to now has been unreasonable. And it still is; how could I possibly find a source that specific? You're asking to prove a negative. At some point, you have the option of saying things are definite. I mean yes, we could say, "The Sun may rise tomorrow", or "The house is white on the side I see". But at some point you have to make the call. Serendipodous 07:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If y'all are interested, I don't have a source for it, but I recall that it was said at a recent astronomical meeting that, statistically given the various detection limits and existing surveys, that there still could be maybe one or two Pluto-ish sized objects we haven't found yet.  So largest known KBO is playing it safe.  In a few more years we can drop the "known," though (e.g. LSST would have a 100% detection rate of Pluto sized KBOs).  Sailsbystars (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What definition of the Kuiper belt does it use? Serendipodous 07:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Traditionally Oort cloud comets have been objects on multi-million year orbits with aphelion approaching ~50000AU from the Sun. Claiming dwarf planets such as Sedna/VP113 with aphelion well inside of 1500AU are inner Oort cloud objects is kind of comical and demonstrates how worthless these semantics can be. -- Kheider (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was confusing TNOs and KBOs with my earlier statement.  So long as we're just describing the Kuiper belt we should be fine saying Pluto is the largest.  On the other matter brought up here, I expect we'll get some refinement in the definition of Oort vs. Scattered disk after LSST is able to better characterize those populations.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS) would also help greatly with understanding planetary migration, the Kuiper belt and the Scattered disc. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I think so.  I went ahead and removed it. Having read up a bit more, the only place in the Kuiper Belt where we might have missed something is in the parts of the galactic plane avoided by surveys.  It's a small enough number,though, that Occam's razor outweighs Russell's teapot. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the surveys have been going on for 10+ years, I think we can be confident that an object larger than Pluto within ~50AU of the Sun would have moved out of the galactic plane by now. Such an object would also be bright enough that people specifically studying the galactic plane might have noticed movement in time lapse images. -- Kheider (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 years is only 4% of Pluto's orbital period. And there is a diagram at the top of the Kuiper Belt page that shows a huge gap in the known KBOs in the direction of the Milky Way that is much larger than 4% of the belt.Will102 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is from 2007 data. Do not revert against consensus until you have reached agreement with others on the talk page. Serendipodous 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a picture using 2014 data. The dwarf planets in the outer solar system are labelled, as is "PT1" (New Horizons potential target for 2019). Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The problem with this argument is that an object as big and close as Pluto would still be a bright target even if it was taking years to cross the galactic plane. And yet no-one has accidentally stumbled across this unknown Pluto-sized/distanced KBO in the last 50 years. Such an object would move from one constellation to another in less than 20 years. -- Kheider (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: As far as Pluto is concerned: We can very confidently safely state with ~99% confidence that several allsky surveys by different groups have failed to detect any new Pluto-sized object in the main Kuiper belt. There are probably many Pluto-sized objects yet to be to discovered in the Scattered disc that are currently more than say ~100AU from the Sun and thus evading discovery. But there is no reason to assume a bright Pluto sized object has been missed by numerous surveys within the traditional Kuiper belt region roughly 30-50AU from the Sun. We can be ~99% certain that any discovered object larger than Pluto will fit Wikipedia's usage of the term Scattered disc object. Any object detected in the Oort cloud would not be a Kuiper belt object. Jupiter is safe because any object in the Oort cloud would not be a planet. (Something more massive than Jupiter would have a smaller volume at that distance.) And for reasons I do not always agree with, the Oort cloud use to be regarded as 20000+AU from Earth, but now-a-days, the "inner" Oort cloud has moved into ~1500AU. -- Kheider (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not just let it be the largest KNOWN object? 

message: We can safely state that Pluto is the largest KBO currently within 50AU of the Sun. We can also state Jupiter is the largest planet (currently within 26000AU of the Sun). WISE failed to prove there is NOT a 1.1 Jupiter mass object 30000+ AU from the Sun. Does anyone seriously want to claim Jupiter is merely the largest KNOWN planet? At some point you have to be logical. So the questions are:
*How does Wikipedia want to define the Kuiper belt and Scattered disc? Four billion years ago the Kuiper belt only extended to around 50AU from the Sun.
*Does the scattered disc extend to the core of the Oort cloud and where exactly is the heart of the Oort cloud? -- Kheider (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally Oort cloud comets have been objects on multi-million year orbits with aphelion approaching ~50000AU from the Sun. Claiming dwarf planets such as Sedna/VP113 with aphelion well inside of 1500AU are inner Oort cloud objects is kind of comical and demonstrates how worthless these semantics can be. -- Kheider (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was confusing TNOs and KBOs with my earlier statement.  So long as we're just describing the Kuiper belt we should be fine saying Pluto is the largest.  On the other matter brought up here, I expect we'll get some refinement in the definition of Oort vs. Scattered disk after LSST is able to better characterize those populations.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS) would also help greatly with understanding planetary migration, the Kuiper belt and the Scattered disc. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I think so.  I went ahead and removed it. Having read up a bit more, the only place in the Kuiper Belt where we might have missed something is in the parts of the galactic plane avoided by surveys.  It's a small enough number,though, that Occam's razor outweighs Russell's teapot. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the surveys have been going on for 10+ years, I think we can be confident that an object larger than Pluto within ~50AU of the Sun would have moved out of the galactic plane by now. Such an object would also be bright enough that people specifically studying the galactic plane might have noticed movement in time lapse images. -- Kheider (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 years is only 4% of Pluto's orbital period. And there is a diagram at the top of the Kuiper Belt page that shows a huge gap in the known KBOs in the direction of the Milky Way that is much larger than 4% of the belt.Will102 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is from 2007 data. Do not revert against consensus until you have reached agreement with others on the talk page. Serendipodous 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a picture using 2014 data. The dwarf planets in the outer solar system are labelled, as is "PT1" (New Horizons potential target for 2019). Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The problem with this argument is that an object as big and close as Pluto would still be a bright target even if it was taking years to cross the galactic plane. And yet no-one has accidentally stumbled across this unknown Pluto-sized/distanced KBO in the last 50 years. Such an object would move from one constellation to another in less than 20 years. -- Kheider (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: As far as Pluto is concerned: We can very confidently safely state with ~99% confidence that several allsky surveys by different groups have failed to detect any new Pluto-sized object in the main Kuiper belt. There are probably many Pluto-sized objects yet to be to discovered in the Scattered disc that are currently more than say ~100AU from the Sun and thus evading discovery. But there is no reason to assume a bright Pluto sized object has been missed by numerous surveys within the traditional Kuiper belt region roughly 30-50AU from the Sun. We can be ~99% certain that any discovered object larger than Pluto will fit Wikipedia's usage of the term Scattered disc object. Any object detected in the Oort cloud would not be a Kuiper belt object. Jupiter is safe because any object in the Oort cloud would not be a planet. (Something more massive than Jupiter would have a smaller volume at that distance.) And for reasons I do not always agree with, the Oort cloud use to be regarded as 20000+AU from Earth, but now-a-days, the "inner" Oort cloud has moved into ~1500AU. -- Kheider (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2014 re-visit 

message: Just curious, what possible rational can you have for not allowing a citation tag to remain and possibly cited ?  Mlpearc (open channel) 16:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Does a citation tag really need consensus ?  Mlpearc (open channel) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not pretty. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is that the citation tag is disruptive. We can be very confident Pluto is the largest KBO within 50AU of the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation tag was causing confusion, as others tried to "fix" it without knowing the problem. It may someday be possible to find a source that answers Tim's claim, but, given the fact that the definition of the Kuiper belt itself is still disputed, it's unlikely in the near future. Yes we don't know definitively that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt, but we also don't know definitively if Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System, or if the Sun is the Solar System's only star, and we feel comfortable making the claim in either case. Serendipodous 16:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds more to me that the problem is a conglomerate. You'd think with a scientific article and presumably scientific editors are always open to possibilities, this seems a little closed minded. Oh, can you please expound on why a tag placed by an editor is disruptive ?  Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that we should say that "Jupiter is the largest known planet in the Solar System", or that "The Sun is the Solar System's only known star"? Serendipodous 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: It is unreasonable to expect to find an object larger than Pluto currently within ~60AU of the Sun. Since the definition of the Kuiper belt can vary, about the only reasonable compromise (that does not mislead the reader) is to change the lede to read, "the largest Kuiper belt object currently within 48AU of the Sun" (then it does not matter if someone includes SDOs as part of the definition of the Kuiper belt.) -- Kheider (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: That phrasing implies that the KB is larger than 48 AU, which, according to our definition, it isn't. And it won't stop Tim adding the cite tag again. Serendipodous 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Talk:Pluto#March 2014 re-visit had 3 editors agreeing that the tag did more harm than good. -- Kheider (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I for one would like to know when we threw out the requirement for claims to be sourced to a WP:RS rather than just relying on the way of expert editors. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done)  18:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to have my question answered: should the article on Jupiter be amended to say that it "is the largest known planet in the Solar System", or the article on the Sun amended to say that it is "the only known star at the center of the Solar System"? Serendipodous 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not ? it's not false, are you sure Jupiter doesn't already say that ? information in a Encyclopedia who'd a thought.  Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I checked, it does !  Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, but where? Serendipodous 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The lede of Jupiter says, "Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet in the Solar System." -- Kheider (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Link please.  Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA's no object larger than Jupiter exists out to 26,000 au The Pluto issue is somewhat of a unfalsifiable claim and depends on whether an astronomer considers the scattered disc to be part of the Kuiper belt. Wikipedia treats the Kuiper belt and scattered disc as separate regions. -- Kheider (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Tags on well-watched articles with active talk pages are inherently disruptive (whether it be citation needed or that useless "neutrality" tag).  There was a discussion on these pages and there seems to be a decent bit of evidence that it's extremely unlikely that there are any objects larger than Pluto in the Kuiper belt.  I removed based on that consensus, but even without that consensus, the tag does nothing but stake out a viewpoint in our article.  The better solution is talk page discussion over the phrasing, which is ongoing.  I agree with Serendipodous's summary below and with the full protection.  Edit warring a tag into an article is pretty much the most useless thing one can do on Wikipedia.    Sailsbystars (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Under Pluto#Origins Wikipedia does state, "Though Pluto is the largest of the Kuiper belt objects discovered so far" But this statement has been in the article since March 2007 which is 2 years before Mike Brown's team announced 2007 OR10 in 2009, and 7 years before Scott S. Sheppard's team announced 2012 VP113 in 2014. This statement should also be adjusted to match the lede. -- Kheider (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Suggested edit: in the table showing Pluto's radius, include the value of 1180 km determined by 
	Zalucha, Angela M.; Gulbis, Amanda A. S.; Zhu, Xun; Strobel, Darrell F.; Elliot, J. L. (2011). "An analysis of Pluto occultation light curves using an atmospheric radiative-conductive model", Icarus, Volume 211, Issue 1, p. 804-818  Azalucha 
:: Couldn't see any reason not to add it to the table.  Sailsbystars (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 10 July 2014 

message: One interesting and potentially important aspect of Pluto that's omitted in the Wikipedia page is the possibility of life in the potential subsurface ocean, which has been discussed in published literature and in recent media articles. I suggest that this topic should, at a minimum, be mentioned. One place would be at the very end of the Structure section, where the issue of an subsurface ocean is raised. In any case, it's inappropriate not to mention life on Pluto when planetary scientists (including Alan Stern) are talking about it (see link below) and when it has been discussed in reputable books (see citation below).
Suggested text at end of Structure section: "...Because a subsurface liquid ocean is a possibility, some scientists have speculated that life might exist there [1][2]"
The suggested citations where subsurface life on Pluto is discussed by planetary scientists are: 
1. "Pluto and the Other Dwarf Planets Could Have Astrobiological Potential", August 22, 2014:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/08/pluto-and-the-other-dwarf-planets-could-have-astrobiological-potential.html 
2. Catling, David C. (2013). Astrobiology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 108-9. .
--Charliecat1 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request, August 26, 2014 

message: The obits don't intersect at all (even though in 2D projections it appears they do) so there's no way Pluto and Neptune could ever collide, orbital resonance or not. Bizzybody (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the article says that over billions of years, the relative positions of Pluto and Neptune alone are not enough to protect them from collision. Serendipodous 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital resonance? 

message: Due to the recent findings from International Astronomical Union (IAU), the definition of a planet has been established to have three requirements. A) it orbits a star, (b) has enough mass for its gravity to overcome external forces to acquire a near-spherical shape, and (c) it doesn't have bigger objects in its neighborhood.
Because of this development, Pluto is being reconsidered as a planet once more. 
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/44734176.cms
Thejoshrules (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto has not been a planet since 2006 since it fails rule #3. Pluto is one of numerous Plutinos controlled by Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That source does acknowledge that it was just the vote of the audience. No new ground was covered, and this not even a contribution to the debate on the definition. And the third criteria is not it doesn't have bigger objects in its neighborhood. It is the more demanding  clearing the neighborhood standard. Saros136 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014 

message: All this talk again about Pluto's "changed status". But people, you should realize that in actuality its status didn't change in 2006, only its classification. Likewise, it never got "demoted" (which is a status thing), only reclassified based on the evidence that had become available. --JorisvS (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status vs. classification 

message: Someone help me understand the information in the sidebar to the article:  It quotes a "Mean anomaly" as a certain value (14.86012204°).  But doesn't the mean anomaly change with time as the planet moves in its orbit?  Is this value updated on the page periodically?  I was actually looking for the "mean motion", which is not shown, but I guess this can be calculated from the orbital period.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mean anomaly is the angle between the perihelion of the orbit and the position of the object (objects in generak; Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet) within its orbit at a specified time (the epoch). Mean anomaly is meaningless without an epoch specified. --JorisvS (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so what does this 14.86012204° represent if no time is specified?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. In this article, the epoch is J2000, which is 12:00 on 1 January 2000. If Pluto had a circular orbit, this would mean that on 12:00 on 1 January 2000 Pluto was 14.86012204° beyond perihelion. However, Pluto's orbit is eccentric and mean anomaly increases uniformly during the orbit, so that Pluto was 14.86012204/360 of its orbital period beyond perihelion at that time. --JorisvS (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean anomaly 

message: "This "movie" of Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, was taken by NASA's New Horizons spacecraft as it raced toward Pluto in July 2014. Covering almost one full rotation of Charon around Pluto, the 12 images that make up the movie were taken July 19-24 with the spacecraft’s best telescopic camera – the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) – at distances ranging from about 267 million to 262 million miles (429 million to 422 million kilometers" http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=102 
It is a pretty relevant image to add and I'm surprised it isn't in the article. My account is still unconfirmed, so I can't add in this page (the page is protected). If anyone can do that for me, that'd be great. PM ME URANUS (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . I've also copyedited the accompanying text. --JorisvS (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'll add that image in a few other pages, if it seems fit. Feel free to modify the caption if it is necessary. My first language isn't English so I mix words up sometimes. PM ME URANUS (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for someone to add this image 

message: Remove comma after "Arizona" in section Discovery, paragraph 2, sentence 1.
Please change 
:In 1906, Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, in 1894, started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".
to 
:In 1906, Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1894, started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".
Mwhidden (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  Mlpearc (open channel) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected Edit Request December 29, 2014 

message: After a long time a new NASA's spacecraft for the first time is reaching Pluto. Many picture are going to be taken. In some months the spacecraft will reach the Kuiper belt. Pluto is the biggest thing in Kuiper belt. More information can be obtained here:
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-nasa-spacecraft-pluto-camera.html
MansourJE (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New horizon NASA spacecraft approaches Pluto 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: - Clearly the consensus is to retain the current title; discussion closed early per WP:SNOW. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto →  – Pluto is included in the dwarf planet series, of which all but this article include the parenthetical "dwarf planet" this move is to make this page align more accurately with the information included and jive with the other pages of similar interest. Xenocide321 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Just saying that I understand the point Xenocide321 was trying to make. Eris (dwarf planet), Ceres (dwarf planet), Haumea (dwarf planet), Makemake (dwarf planet), all have (dwarf planet) in the name. Pluto doesn't have it, so it might cause some confusion because it makes seem that Pluto is a planet Tetra quark (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 January 2015 

message: FWIW - NASA-TV (Tuesday, 04/14/2015 - Two Briefings => @1:00 & @2:30pm/edt/usa) - panels of experts discuss "New Horizons spacecraft flyby of Pluto". - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html NASA-TV] (04/14/2015-TwoBriefings@1:00&@2:30pm/edt/usa) - [[New Horizons|New Horizons spacecraft]] [[Space probe#New Horizons|flyby]] of [[Pluto]].