Talk:Pluto/Archive 2

message: For some reason, several headings were lumped under "Astrology", and the "Discussion Regarding Article Edits/POV" was empty.  I'm pretty sure "Astrology" was in fact, supposed to be *under* "Discussion Regarding Article Edits/POV", along with all these other headings that were under "Astrology". I have made it so, I hope no one minds. Tzepish 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Layout Change to the Talk Page 

message: Pluto was labeled as scorpios planet
What will happen now?
Do metaphysicist have togoback to a workshop; rather how will they update their education?--Howmee 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: The 'discovery photographs' of Pluto need an arrow to show which of the 'stars' is Pluto, because I can't see any difference between them! The Singing Badger 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you can't see any difference is....because Pluto isn't on the lower one! Oops. For some reason, the bottom plate has been cropped above where Pluto is. See this photo.Richard B 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery photograph 

message: Should it stay or should it go? Starks 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ninth planet RfD'd. Femto 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ninth planet" redirect? 

message: Someone is trying to modify the intro to be a "some people say Pluto is a planet and some don't" thing, which just looks terrible. It's defined as a dwarf planet; we can say (in the appropriate places) that some people still consider it a planet, and we can say that it was historically one, but we can't claim that this is ambiguous. Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's too early to even say "some people still call Pluto a planet". The most NPOV thing we could say and still be accurate is that some people have objected to this reclassification. We'll have to wait a while to see whether the usage acutally changes. --Aelffin 16:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage will inevitably change.  Look at Ceres ... it was redefined as not being a planet in 1850 and we never looked back (well, except for very briefly in 2006).  --Cyde Weys 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not inevitably. 1 Ceres was called a planet for a shorter period of time and with less popular interest in an age of lower literacy. Pluto has been a planet in film and literature for 76 years in a more literate age. People, me for one, will stick with it as such.--T. Anthony 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the usage stays the same. It won't be the first time the public didn't understand scientific terminology. See evolution, organic, there, their, and they're for other examples. --Aelffin 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't seriously compare this to evolution. Natural selection can be shown by the fossil record and the relatedness of species by genetics. You can't show what is or is not a planet in the same way, you can only make definitions which may or may not be accepted. It's like the definition of Megafauna or Continent there are many cases open for debate.--T. Anthony 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can show conclusively that the eight universally accepted planets dominate their orbits while Pluto is one of many objects that is dominated by a particular orbital resonance with Neptune. Whether that's a good criterion for planethood is up to you, but I think if you hand-pick certain Kuiper Belt objects to be called planet based on a trivial size limit, then things would get rather sloppy rather quickly. The IAU Executive Committee didn't think the particular terminology was important, so they tried to match up the term with the public (mis)understanding of the word. But the astronomers who make up the IAU General Assembly decided it would confuse things in scientific circles if they suddenly and arbitrarily made a new definition. So, they rewrote the proposal to reflect current scientific usage. Clear and non-arbitrary nomenclature is important to the process of science, like it or not. --Aelffin 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MiguelMunoz did fairly well on making me reconsider. I'm not sure I've changed my mind, but I'm considering it. However the one point stands. You can't compare nomenclature to evolution or things that can be basically proven as fact. Nomenclature is important and useful, but it's not a scientific reality the way natural selection or quantum mechanics is. It's a matter of convention in order to make coherent communication in science easier. We could have a solar system with a hundred or a thousand objects called "Planets" and although it'd make things more difficult it would not negate science. We could also quit calling anything a planet and declare the word "planet" to be an obsolete notion of the ancient Greeks. A convention of astronomers however can't declare that Pluto doesn't exist or that it's made of guacamole or that it was created by God 6,000 years ago. Facts are facts, but nomenclature is more about communication. Added to that the facts are that the Gas Giants are already greatly different than the terrestrial planets so having different kinds of objects be called planets is already done. To compare this to evolution, where there's evidence with relationships being long established, is misleading.--T. Anthony 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolutionary relationships appear to go back many millions of years and have only recently become well-established by modern phylogenetic analysis software. Orbital mechanics, on the other hand has been well understood since Laplace concieved of the restricted three-body problem in the 18th century, and the orbital relationships that obtain as a result of these calculations appear to go back a couple of billion years. Evolution and planetology are different, but they both use non-arbitrary classification techniques to clarify communication about the relationships between the objects they deal with. That being said, you're basically saying the same thing as I am: the particular conventions of nomenclature are not factual necessities, but are chosen by scientists to facilitate communication. However, we seem to have a different understanding of the word "arbitrary". If terms match up to natural categories, they are non-arbitrary; if they fail to do so, they are arbitrary. Sure, nomenclature is a matter of convention; we could call forks spoons and dogs cats, but if the terms consistently match up to observable features, then they are non-arbitrary. If, on the other hand we call chihuahuas, lynxes, and Indian elephants "cats" while we call St. Barnards, ocelots, and African elephants "dogs", then we are not matching up our words very well to a coherent classification scheme. Likewise, if we call a small body in an orbit locked in resonance with a larger object by the same term as we use to describe the larger object, well, that would be confusing. Case in point. Moreover, there's a long and established history of calling large, dominant objects "planets" and also a long and established history of calling small members of large families of objects by their own family name. The new definition matches not only observable criteria, but also long-held scientific convention. --Aelffin 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV attempts 

message: I saw somebody tried to put this page on semi-protection. Considering the incessant vandalism, maybe this is a good idea. --Aelffin 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semiprotected it. Let's try lifting it after a few hours... Shimgray | talk | 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: "From its discovery in 1930 until 2006 it was considered the ninth and smallest of the planets..." I don't think so. Here's what it says later on: "The discovery [of Charon in 1978] also led astronomers to alter their estimate of Pluto's size. Originally, it was believed that Pluto was larger than Mercury..." From 1930 to 1978, was it considered smallest or second smallest? Art LaPella 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My old 1968 astronomy textbook says Pluto has a radius of 3000 km, bigger than Mercury. So I'll change the second paragraph. Art LaPella 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we should cite the all-important study on this (Dessler, A.J., Russel, C.T., 1978. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. 61:690)... Shimgray | talk | 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: This page just got moved to Pluto (dwarf planet); I've moved it back. Please discuss any such moves; using this as the primary title was decided on long ago. Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's unneccisary disambiguation anyway. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too concur.--Jersey Devil 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if Pluto isn't a "true" planet, it remains the most important of Plutos.--JyriL talk 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charon is a dwarf planet too or a moon? It can't be a moon since it does not orbit Pluto. double dwarf system? --Noypi380 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagemove 

message: http://www.ldolphin.org/unruh/planet/ch4ph.html
--Gbleem 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elaborate please. 70.177.71.206 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: There's a suggestion on the article page to smallen ze article... my suggestion is to split off a Pluto and Charon article, that is similar to the Earth and Moon article. Zzzzzzzzzzz 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallen ze article 

message: The section "International Astronomical Union meeting" overlaps the section "Demotion to a dwarf planet" they discuss its demotion and I believe that this should simply be another piece as it would complete the timeline (doubt to fact). Deathbob 05:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine 2 sections? 

message: A question for Wikipedians: is it appropriate to make a mention of the politics behind the vote? E.g. the cite of 4% of members in the room when they voted. I have no personal stance on this. I am just curious if this is appropriate for inclusion. If it is, then great. If not, then, well...  Dsf 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably more appropriate to have details in the article on the debate itself (2006 redefinition of planet); just say something like "was decided by / was voted by) the IAU General Assembly..." Shimgray | talk | 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least it should be moved out of the introduction, where it seems out of place. -DoctorW 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. I agree with a move of that part since there is already a discussion of reclassification process itself elsewhere, where it is a better and more natural fit. No outright deletion, just a relocation. Doing so momentarily. Dsf 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAU Politics in Wikipedia article 

message: Every time I refresh the watchlist this seemed to be being revandalised; just about every edit in the last couple of hours has been reverted. I've semiprotected it again, to give people a break from continually wiping up crap; might want to unprotect it again in a few hours. Shimgray | talk | 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!!! --Alex talk here 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Hi, I'm a new editor and want to add this to the article.  If I forget, which I am prone to do, Im putting it here for you to discuss or possible add.
On August 24th 2006 John Gibson wrote an editorial regarding the then recent descision  ofthe removal of the celestial object Pluto's planetary status.  Instead of presenting scientific evidence against the unkown organization responsible for Pluto's declassification, Gibson argues that "It's been a planet all my life.  I learned that in third grade."  Furthmore, John Gibson admits himself "I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly.  The headline was all I needed to see to know I'm rejecting this attempt at revisionist history."  Critics of Gibson argue that this article is a metaphoric example of how conservative traditonalist sentimentalism effects our everyday lives. 
Spazik007 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Gibson

message: Was:At the moment this may seem trivial
But isn't there another symbol for pluto that resesmbles those used for mercury and venus?  Is it used anymore?  Shouldn't we resprent both symbols at the top of the page?
Whatcanuexpect 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "symbols" section below - there's one common astronomical one, one astrological one, and at least one long-abandoned one that looks like neither. Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: I'm sitting here with a 1932 astrological handbook on my desk. Leaving aside their touching faith in Pluto as a source for astrological significance (how did they cope before 1930, one wonders?), the interesting detail is that it uses a symbol I've not seen before. They don't use the PL monogram, unsurprisingly, but they don't use the "circle in trident" symbol here.
Rather, it's a circle with an arrow to the top right - like the symbol for Mars - but with two parallel lines running across the shaft of the arrow (I can only describe it - too small to photograph cleanly). They're using it in text with the other symbols, which suggests they at least considered it standard enough to cut a punch for the symbol. Has anyone encountered this one anywhere else? Shimgray | talk | 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this?  (I just drew that based on your description.)  Seems familiar, but not for Pluto.  Symbols.com doesn't list it. DenisMoskowitz 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much; slightly "stubbier" and the lines are closer together, but that's probably just an artifact of the small printsize. It is familiar, but I'm damned if I can think where... I've seen Mars-with-one-bar before, as a male-and-female symbol, but not two. Shimgray | talk | 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, who is the author of the handbook?  I recall seeing the same or similar symbol when leafing through a work from the same period and being surprised. I don't recall who the astrologer was, but it was someone notable such as Elsbeth Ebertin or Koch.  Zeusnoos 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raphael's Almanac 1933; don't know who actually wrote it. Shimgray | talk | 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a different source from the same time period, I think this symbol must have been an early version of the astrological symbol for Pluto.  It apparently did not catch on since astrologers then primarily used the floating circle in a cup beneath a cross. Zeusnoos 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 2 

message: The symbol for Pluto here is different: Alchemical_symbol#Seven_Planetary_Metals. Why is the one in the article different? Should we include both? Why are there variations on planet symbols and who decides which ones are official, etc.--Sonjaaa 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astronomers use one; astrologers use another. Simple as that. We already refer to the non-standard astrological one. As to "who decides", no idea... but I suspect the IAU will assume that role. Shimgray | talk | 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  symbols 3 

message: Jesus H. Christmas! We can send men to the moon, locate small planets orbiting stars billions and trillions of miles away, perfectly map our galaxy, and have our pet's medication delivered to our door -- but we cannot get one clear picture of Pluto!?--Mdriver1981 02:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the worst picture of anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Caesar 03:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the best picture that exists! It is a long way away... We could run with the slightly older, slightly worse resolution, but not quite as hideous, :Image:Plutoncharon1.jpg; :Image:Pluto artistimpression.gif is detailed, but heavily conjectural. Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the current image is not a photograph. Even Hubble can't take images at that resolution. The image has been synthetized from brightness curves in two colors during mutual eclipses of Pluto and Charon which occurred between 1985 and 1990. (BTW, why those eclipses aren't mentioned in the article?)--JyriL talk 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it me or does this (:Image:Plutoncharon1.jpg) just look like a disco ball? Are there any plans to send a mission to photograph Pluto? Or is there one already in progress? Alexj2002 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, just read that section of the article. 8 years until we get a proper photo... Alexj2002 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you think Pluto isn't spherical? Shsilver 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? I always thought it was "common knowledge" that is was peanut shaped! Not sure where I picked that up. Never mind Fracture98 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluto Image

message: The headline picture looks extremely pixelated on my monitor.  Is this a common problem? (For other users, I mean)EarthGuardian 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the most detailed image NASA has gotten so far, I believe. --WillMak050389 04:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headline image

message: As seen in the article's history, there has been an idiotic edit war over the content of the intro, the latest change which was here. Apparently, my changes were seen as werong by another user, who had reverted me many times. I had made those changes to fix the various grammatical errors, redundancies, and diction, but there appeared to be ownership issues by the other editor, who feels that my version of the intro was The Wrong Version. I would like to subject these edits to the scrutiny of other editors of this page, to see what is better. Ryūlóng 20:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes to the introductory paragraph 

message: The intro is a bit too long and should be trimmed down a bit.  For instance, in an article about the planet, it isn't necessary to mention the New Horizons mission in the intro.  --Cyde Weys 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro is too long, some things need to be cut 

message: As we know that first few dwarf planets are just begining, there is going to be few dozens and perheps over hundreed of them in near future. We also know that on Wikipedia many objects whose name have origin in Greek Mythology, have their pages starting on disambiguation page, like for example: Titan, Charon, Ceres, Juno, Vesta and other objects in space.
One of the benefits is that we will have less vandalism on Pluto page.
Homo cosmosicus 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a disambiguation page.  Incidentally, please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, so people don't have to search to find them.  --ajn (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that search for Pluto brings user to the dwarf planet Pluto, not to the Pluto disambiguation page, in the case of other space bodys, as mentioned above: Titan, Charon, Ceres, Juno, Vesta and others, search brings you either to their respective disambiguation pages, or to ancient god name they are named after. Homo cosmosicus 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And other planetary bodies don't.  In the absence of a number for Pluto (e.g. 1 Ceres), I don't see why it's necessary for Pluto to go to the disambiguation page rather than this one.  There is a link to the disambiguation page at the top of this article, and as Ryulong says it's far more likely that someone looking for the name is looking for the planet rather than Disney's dog or the Roman god or the left-wing publishers.  --ajn (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First, new discussions go to the bottom of sections. Second, vandalism to Pluto will not change depending on where it is moved to. It is because of the prevalence of the planet in the news as well as being on the front page of Wikipedia that causes this vandalism. Also, Pluto has a disambiguation page, as do other similar items regarding articles with similar names. And it does not have to be disambiguated to be Pluto (dwarf planet); this Pluto is the most widespread of any other Pluto, probably even more than Mickey's dog. There is also another conversation on this page concerning the (dwarf planet) disambiguation. Ryūlóng 09:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Pluto (dwarf planet) to disambiguation page 

message: The sentence: 
"Pluto and its largest satellite Charon have often been considered a binary system because they are more nearly equal in size than any other planet/moon combination in the Solar System, and because the two bodies orbit a point not within the surface of either. Two smaller moons named Nix and Hydra were discovered in 2005." seems to imply that Pluto is a planet, by the reference to "Other planet/moon combination".
As this appears prior to the first reference of that Pluto used to be considered a planet, it might look a bit odd.
Best regards
18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dropping "other" should fix this, right? —ptk✰fgs 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor comment to wording in intro: 

message: === Wikiproject Echo ===
There are many similarities between the French and English articles, including numerous passages which are translations of one another.  It seems that borrowing of content has already happened.  As it stands, it does not seem that there is any additional content in the French article that could be added to the English article. -- Curps 14:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres more in the German Wiki. I don't know anything in that language though, but it's there.--Planetary 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions on Translated versions

message: There are many similarities between the French and English articles, including numerous passages which are translations of one another.  It seems that borrowing of content has already happened.  As it stands, it does not seem that there is any additional content in the French article that could be added to the English article. -- Curps 14:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres more in the German Wiki. I don't know anything in that language though, but it's there.--Planetary 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Echo 

message: Was at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum today (8/25/06)--the day after Pluto's "demotion"--and there was a black ribbon (a mourner's sash) across the section devoted to Pluto in the Exploring The Planets exhibition and a large "In Memoriam" placard on a stand (titled something like the above) explaining the "loss" of Pluto.  Glad to see that they were ready and have a sense of humor about it.
Of course, the symbol for Pluto was blacked out at the entrance to the exhibition, but otherwise references to Pluto and to "nine" planets remained throughout the exhibit.  I was tempted to buy up the posters from the gift shop that still listed Pluto as a planet.
70.17.111.234 01:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are overreacting over this. To think that so many people have such an emotional attachment to a piece of rock 5 billion miles from here that they'll never see in the first place. Besides, it's just a name. PLuto is still there. It's not gone. People are acting like the IAU blew up Pluto. The Wookieepedian 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! I don't see the huge deal.--Kimbalee1 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not like they risked an outcry in order to save the environment, protect us from asteroids, explain the origins of the Universe, improve interest in astronomy, or even better understand KBOs. They risked outcry to create a consistent nomenclature, there's nothing romantic or noble about that. Sometimes creating outcry is for a good cause, other times it just kind of happens. This is more the latter. It's understandable to want to make them into latter-day Galileos, but it's also unreasonable and silly.--T. Anthony 10:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, you should have bought the poster anyway. It might become very valuable in the future! --Ixfd64 04:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Memoriam: Pluto 1930-2006 

message: Pluto STILL is a planet. It is a type of planet. Just like a HUMAN is a type of mammal. That doesn't mean humans aren't mammals. A dwarf planet is a TYPE of planet. So to say that Pluto isn't a planet is simply WRONG.
: And yet the IAU definition of "planet" SPECIFICALLY excludes Pluto. Mammals, however, still clearly includes humans. That is the difference. Aprogressivist 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did; see the changed entry for Sailor Pluto Lothar76 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since Sailor Moon herself is not named after a planet either, I don't see any problems here.
Must suck to be pluto right now... should the Pluto article be nominated for deletion? No longer notable... Hejog 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary.  It's so notable that they had to invent a new class of solar system objects (Dwarf planets) to account for Pluto! Bluap 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The controversy and reclassification of Pluto's status gives us MORE to talk about, not LESS; hence it fully deserves this article. Aprogressivist 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why delete it? Varuna and Ixion are comparatively insignificant, yet their articles are chock-full of stuff.PhoenixSeraph 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Hejog was joking... --Ckatzchatspy 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, just call Uranus Pluto and the problem is solved. I'm totally not joking dude. --Aelffin 16:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone's still gonna call it a planet. It's like the SkyDome]... no one's gonna call it the Rogers Centre (doesn't that company have its name plastered on enough stuff?)
BNLfan53 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't mind so much if Mondays no longer existed... -- Arwel (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know what you mean --Alex talk here 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't it politically incorrect to call it "dwarf" planets? Shouldn't they be called diameter challenged planets instead? 129.78.208.4 05:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No dwarf is a proper term for little people or things. Although in a rare double-whammy move maybe they'll declare that as dwarf planets are not planets dwarf people no longer count as people:)(I'm 3 foot 5 so I can get away with that)--T. Anthony 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This just in; Z now no longer a letter! It has been downgraded to "superfluous lexigram". Also being considered are C, Q, and X. A draft resolution is expected. ;)   (SoniK Traveler 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Q, X, and Z are legitimate letters.  We could do without C, though.  S and K are good enough to replace everything that C does.  While we're at it, 'TH' shuold be it's own letter.  --Arctic Gnome 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Planet Anymore!

message: See this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
It seems to me that the issue of Pluto's status remains controversial. Aprogressivist 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YAY!  Glad to see this decision is being fought! :) Shador5529 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt

message: This is from an astronomy mailing list:
"So ... just wait til 8 a.m. CEST Wednesday - and be prepared to be surprised
(those planetary astronomers here in Prague who have heard about the
ideas put forward in the resolution certainly were).
The resolution, several articles and a detailled Q&A will appear at
http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius and also at http://www.astronomy2006.com
(including some illustrations as well).
D. from the IAU GA" 
Zeusnoos 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pluto-Charon binary are the tenth and eleventh planets of the Solar system. Pluto recently survived a challenge to its status as a planet and since Charon was of significant enough mass to force Pluto's barycenter with it above the plane of its surface, Charon was redefined as a planet instead of a satellite. Hopquick 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, they will be tenth and eleventh when this passes... but it hasn't yet. Here's my attempt at a summary of the draft proposal from the IAU. Shimgray | talk | 09:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When Pluto/Charon are the 10th and 11th, who stole the ninth? Or will Luna be promoted as well? ;-) --Stephan Schulz 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceres gets promoted too, as does UB313. They've twelve more possible candidates in the outer system, and explicit options on three large asteroids pending further study. Shimgray | talk | 09:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I almost cried when I saw Ceres on the lists of planets.  I was more enthusiastic about Ceres than even Pluto.  This is an awesome day.  The Heavens reveal that we don't yet know everything.  ^_^ Hopquick 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Template:IAU potential planet was removed. Because it was considered "hideous" by one. I think that because it's planet status is uncertain, that it is warranted? comments? McKay 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the current proposed definition, which has not been finalized, does affect pluto in that it changes it's status. But the real reason I'm putting it here, is that there are other definitions under some level of consideration, some of which would eliminate pluto from having planetary status. Presuming that the currently proposed definition is the one that will be chosen makes wikipedia a crystal ball WP:NOT. The template used the phrase "exclusion" as a parameter, signifiying that the planet is being considered for exclusion. McKay 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template was hideous.  It was also pointless, because we have better pre-existing templates for this kind of thing. HenryFlower 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure the template was hideous, what could be done to improve it? Also, the infobox template that I created has more information that might be valuable. I'm thinking that a WikiProject might be created, and an infobox template might be the best place to start. When the final decision is made, there will need to be changes to dozens (hundreds) of articles. McKay 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a template for articles related to current events: :Template:currentrelated.  We don't need to re-invent the wheel (especially when the new version's a triangle).   Yes, changes will be needed on all the affected articles: by all means make sure they're co-ordinated.  But ugly, pointless templates won't help with that. HenryFlower 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Space.com news article--JyriL talk 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  update from IAU and websites to watch 

message: Many very educated men just screwed up nine planets. Evertype 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that wouldn't work... --Alex talk here 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why not? 131.111.8.102 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No P anymore... :'( --Alex talk here 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it does (with a slight modification): "Many very educated men just screwed up nine...(silence)" --Ckatzchatspy 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think those are mostly too peppery for schoolkids. "Many vocal entertainers meet jazz singers under nightclubs", "Millionaire Venezuelans enjoyed Monaco's jaunty scenes until nightfall" or something. A mnemonic is easy to create.--T. Anthony 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that "Many very educated...nine planets" works very well because of the ironic effect... Linguofreak 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new mnemonic? 

message: Just heard on FOX News that Pluto is no longer a planet. Martial Law 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! First time we hear about this! And this also has to be the first time that FOX got something at least somewhat rightcorrect! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Ain't it the truth? The Wookieepedian 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: After carefully analyzing resultion 5A ( the one that excluded pluto from the other 8 ) i noticed a serious flaw. Why is neptune a planet and pluto not?
To put it simply the reason pluto isn't a planet is because neprtune crosses its path. I saw now significance in this but i figured they knew what they were talking about. But, the resolution failed to give explanation on why neptunes a planet, if it also crosses the path of pluto. One line cannot intersect the other line without the other line intersecting it? i mean its like thinking about a plus sign. + can u say that the line going down intersects with the line going across, but the line going across doesn't intersect the line going down? PLEASE correct me if i am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.107.246 (talk • contribs) 
::I have heard on NPR that the IAU definition includes a footnote that Neptune is a planet.  Alphabetagamma 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section headed 'Clear its Orbit???' a few lines above your post. The Singing Badger 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish you the best of luck understanding planetary orbits without understanding algebra.  But for starters you can go to clearing the neighbourhood.  The basic idea is that a few billion years ago, there were no planets, just a big disk of gas and dust. Over time, a fundamental force called gravity made all the bits of gas and dust want to stick together.  This was complicated by the problem that the entire disk was also spinning at the same time. Oh, and there was a big flaming nuclear fire in the middle of all that as well, pulling everything in, but also spitting radiation out.  Just to make things more complicated and require algebra. Over time, some of the gas and dust clumped together enough to scoop up other clumps as they spun.  Etc. for billions of years.  The end result was a handful of really really big clumps of junk (planets) which tend to orbit in fairly clear space because they sucked up some junk and slingshotted out other junk, some small bits of junk which follow those planets around like groupies (trojans and plutinos, etc.), and a bazillion other clumps of junk which are still all jumbly. Only the really big clumps that have cleared out a lot of space are now considered "planets". Derek Balsam 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 planets? 

message: As for demoting Pluto, all I can say is: "And yet it moves." But that means we can call Xena Xena, right? What's the convention on naming dwarf planets?
I read once (I wish I could give you a reference, but I can't remember; I hate myself) that Mercury couldn't "clear it's orbit", and the only reason its orbit is clear is due to its close proximity to the sun. Can anyone find this agian for me? Or disprove it? Because, if that's true, then we should demote Mercury, too.
:We are not demoting anything, the IAU decided to recategorize Pluto as a dwarf planet. Mercury has cleared its orbit because it is large enough and far enough away from the Sun that there is nothing that would prevent it from clearing its orbit. And based off of recent namings of planetoids past Pluto that dwarf planets will probably be named after death deities (Pluto/Hades being gods of death, as are Quaoar and Sedna). Ryūlóng 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and "Xena" is only a temporary name; it's also been suggested that it be named Lila. For all that is known, it can be named Osiris or Anubis or after any other death deity. Ryūlóng 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet? 

message: I have just heard this news only 3-4 hours after it was announced and having come here to see what I could edit into the article, I see that it has already been done in a fairly well-documented manner.  Bravo to the early editors on this interesting astrologicalastronomical news.  Here is another source from the BBC on the topic if anyone feels it necessary to add without being superfluous to the article.  ju66l3r 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections on the debate re. Plutos planetary status needs to be updated further. -- Egil 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astronomical, not astrological. GBC 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh.  Thanks for the catch, I'm a little hopped up on Advil Cold & Sinus right now. :/  ju66l3r 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto demoted 

message: So Pluto has been classified as a dwarf planet. So what? A "dwarf planet" is still a planet by virtue of including the word "planet." Sure, it can't in scientifically correct speech be referred to as an unqualified "planet," but it still contains the word. It might be better just to drop the use of unqualified "planet" altogether: There are significant differences between Mercury and the larger rockballs, between the rockballs and the Gas Giants, between the Gas giants and the iceballs, and between the iceballs and Mercury. And it's hard to tell whether Ceres is best thrown in with Mercury or the asteroids. So it might not be good to refer to any object as simply a "planet," but rather, "icy dwarf planet," "gas giant," "rocky dwarf planet," "habitable terrestrial," etc.
Linguofreak 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a dwarf planet is not a planet, it is a separate classification.  There's actually a bit of backlash against the new terminology precisely because it has the potential to confuse people, as it did you.  --Cyde Weys 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't confuse me, my primary point is really just this: It's all much ado about nothing. The people who don't want to call Pluto a planet can be satisfied, because, after all it is a dwarf planet. And those who want to call it a planet can be satisfied, after all it is a dwarf planet. I am quite aware that the IAU wants it to be a seperate classification, but I also know that in the long run, that really won't influence much in the public mind. So seeing as we've been given a nice broad term that can be interpreted either way, and seeing as it doesn't really matter what we call it (it will after all, still have the same mass, radius, etc.) we should make the best of that and each interpret the term as we wish. But if the IAU wants to avoid all confusion, it would be better to use a single word term like subplanet to emphasize the difference. Linguofreak 00:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is apparently not clear to even all scientists judging by Jocelyn Bell Burnell's statement that "It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist,"--T. Anthony 10:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmh. You could argue that... but when the IAU voted on 5B, it was pretty clear (to me) from the framing of the debate that they intended "eight planets" v "eight classical planets" to be the decider as whether or not "planet" was an over-arching group or a specific term... and we just got the specific term. Shimgray | talk | 10:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: From "Nature":
"Demotion
Instead, Pluto is one of a new category of object to be known as 'dwarf' planets (which, not to be confusing, don't fall under an umbrella term of 'planets', and must, by definition, be written with single quote marks around 'dwarf'). These objects satisfy the other criteria, in being round and not a satellite. Ceres, which lies in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, is also now a 'dwarf' planet.
'Dwarf' planets in Pluto's neighbourhood, including the object nicknamed Xena (UB313), will be given a category of their own. But the IAU's most recent suggestion, that these be named 'plutonian objects', was narrowly voted down, by 186 votes to 183."Selfishjeans 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Formally, "planet" is not a set including dwarf planets; the IAU explicitly voted against having "dwarf planets" and "classical planets" instead of "planet" and "dwarf planet". Saying "let's not use unqualified planet" goes entirely against the point of the new terminology, which is to differentiate types of bodies. (I don't much like it, but there you go) Shimgray | talk | 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One suspects that "dwarf planet" was chosen in part because it preserved the sentimental attachment to "planet" for Pluto, while being technically distinct. There have long been bodies called minor planets, though the general public may not have known; this term was discarded with the new decision. (Does this mean the Minor Planet Center will be renamed? How about the Minor Planet Circulars?) As for what the general public will do (or journalists, or politicians), who knows. Science and known facts have only a limited influence. --KSmrqT 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the general public would have their own common vernacular. We called it the neutron bomb, the military called it the enhanced radiation warhead; the movies called them the Russians, even while for 84 years they were officially the Soviets; some movie makers use the term "galaxy" for a group of stars or even one solar system (Battlestar Galactica (original) did that, so did Lost In Space); some movie makers might refer to a group of stars, in the context of space flight, as a constellation, even though once you get out there, most of the stars in a constellation are hundreds of light years apart and don't resemble that constellation at all! So, for us general public, Pluto can still be a planet, it just doesn't fly... or orbit... with officialdom of the IAU. GBC 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's all the fuss? 

message: There is so much misunderstanding in the popular press and the blogosphere about when we call a planet "round" and what it means to "clear its orbit," that I expanded on that section in the main article. I didn't bother to put in references, because the information all comes from the same sources already cited, but if somebody feels this is important, let me know here and I can add them. -- MiguelMunoz 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Clarification 

message: :Ive heard that it will happen at some point in the future.can anyone confirm?
::Deny: Pluto is locked in a 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune. This means it orbits the Sun twice for every three orbits of Neptune. Neptune's gravity locks Pluto into that orbit. This prevents Pluto from ever getting anywhere near Neptune. -- MiguelMunoz 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To add a few numbers to that, due to the orbital resonance the closest Pluto itself ever gets to Neptune is 18.9 AU. By contrast, Pluto's closest approach to Saturn is 19.6 AU. Bryan 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is incorrect. See Orbital resonance. JoshuaZ 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collision with Neptune Inevitable

message: I believe I recall reading once that Pluto's atmosphere extends far enough to be shared with Charon. Is this true? Linguofreak 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not a double planet. Neither Pluto or Charon is a planet. Pluto, however, is a dwarf planet. In the original definition of a planet draft they both would have been planets. You're correct in that Pluto's atmosphere is expected to freeze when it moves further from Sun. One probable reason why  is so bright is that it its Pluto-like atmosphere is now frozen.--JyriL talk 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I'm curious about the "prototype of a yet to be named family of Trans-Neptunian objects" claim in the intro. I thought IAU was going with classifying it as a "dwarf planet" and the type specimen of a Plutino? The sentence is confusing to me, but I don't see how to clarify it. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were going to pass a resolution saying "This is the first of a class of TNOs we will call 'plutonian objects'". Only the first half of this passed; we now have it resolved as the first of a new class of TNOs, the name of which has not yet been decided on (it'll go to an IAU committe, I guess). Plutino was already in use to mean something with a specific resonance, and isn't what they mean - this new class is "big TNOs like Pluto" not "TNOs with orbits like Pluto" Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Many thanks! --Grahamtalk/mail/e 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "prototype of a yet to be named family"? 

message: The Wall Street Journal article on this mentions how quickly the Wikipedia entries were updated.
AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal mention 

message: "as well as a moon (nicknamed "Gabrielle"), discovered in September 2005. Trans-Neptunian object 2003 EL61 (nicknamed "Santa") has two moons (one of which is nicknamed "Rudolph") and is the fourth largest TNO behind 2003 UB313, Pluto, and 2005 FY9 (nicknamed "Easterbunny")."
Can we get some proof for this? How do we know it's not just vandalism? --Kiwi 22:11, 25 August 2006
:If Gabrielle, Santa and Rudolph, and Easterbunny don't convince you, they are at least a good place to start researching the subject. Art LaPella 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Santa?

message: I know as a fact that the orbits of Pluto and Neptune intercept one another and in intervals, the two switch positions in the Solar System: didn't this change occur around the year 2000, thus making Pluto eight in order? Articles keep on addressing Pluto's former status as the ninth planet.
Planets aren't ordered by whatever distance they happen to be from the Sun at the exact moment.  They're given an overall numbering.  And in the overall numbering Pluto is indeed the ninth planet (or was).  --Cyde Weys 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC
:No, Pluto was inside the orbit of Neptune between 21 January 1979 and 11 February 1999. -- Arwel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha, talk about confusing facts. Thank you for the clarification. --Talv 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Was. Now, planet order is finally consistent. --Aelffin 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At present: wasn't Pluto the Eight planet? 

message: Hbdragon88: Can you tell me why you reduced the capitalization of some of the titles? Main headings are traditionally set in "Title Case," Which means capitalizing all words except prepositions, articles & conjunctions. -- MiguelMunoz 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on Wikipedia.  See WP:MOS#Headings.  --ajn (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typography

message: Was:Editing
I cleaned-up and edited this Talk page a bit to tighten up the spacing. Also removed some unsigned comments about the planetary statis or lack of. This is not the place for a discussion group on the subject, and if you won't sign your opinions, then they go bye-bye. CFLeon 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a broom to the talk page too. Electrawn 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk on Pluto:Talk

message: Under the headline, "Planetary status controversy," there's a 'citation needed' tag. Is this really necessary to cite a source for something that's pretty common knowledge? I guess we could quote one of the thousand news articles that makes this claim, if necessary. Here's an AP article, for instance:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/08/24/state/n015101D65.DTL
Or we could use the NASA pluto page:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Pluto
Thoughts?--Trypsin 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the citation request may be for the notion that the controversy has existed "since the discovery of Pluto in 1930", ie that it's been a controversy over the whole "lifetime" of Pluto rather than just in recent years. That's something I'm not sure of myself. Bryan 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the way I read it also. If there has, in fact, been controversy over the whole "lifetime" of Pluto (not my area), then keeping the wording and providing a citation would be best; otherwise, rewording would be a better solution. -DoctorW 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pluto as a planet controversy erupted after Charon's discovery in 1978, however, I imagine there was debate even before then considering Pluto's orbit eccentricity and size. Electrawn 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation really needed? 

message: What do people think about moving the "symbols" paragraph from the intro to the body? It seems a little less important / more peripheral than the other introductory material. Perhaps it could become the first section. -DoctorW 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing against Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110154),
the symbols are relevant to the article summary. They symbols pararaph probably should be condensed to one or two sentences and expanded on later in the article. Electrawn 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have the symbols in type, with a unicode template for IE, and with images as alternates, rather than forcing everyone to display the images? kwami 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move "symbols" paragraph from intro to body?

message: This article mentions the influence of "Dr. Percival Lowell." Some quick research (including Lowell's own wikipedia page) gives no indication he was ever awarded a doctorate and, despite founding an observatory, was in many ways really an amateur astronomer. Can anyone confirm if he did recieve one and provide citation, or should this be removed? --71.205.107.102 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter it he got it or not. We don't use academic titles in article text. Pull it. —ptk✰fgs 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.space.com/spacewatch/050311_pluto_guide.html References Dr. Lowell. Whether that is correct or not could be answered by Percival Lowell. Electrawn 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Lowell? 

message: I thought it might be interesting (and perhaps even a bit consoling to the "Pluto is a Planet" faction) to include a reference to the Pioneer plaque and Voyager record which will perhaps be the longest-lasting "memorials" if you will to Pluto's planetary status. 23skidoo 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneer plaque and Voyager record 

message: On my PC the Pluto article appears to be poorly laid out, like some of the paragraphs with margins a few inches in from the left, but mostly looking normal. Does anyone know if that's just because of my browser, or is it a real problem? Kris 18:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at rearranging pictures and such, however, a better web editor is needed. The Contents box and Infobox provide big challenges. Perhaps a gallery is needed, but pictures/layout are not my general expertise. Electrawn 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Could anyone elaborate on this? It's just a statement at the minute, but what's the rationale? Is it because Neptune technically didn't clear Pluto and Charon from its orbit? Xanthine you need to include a reference if possible. Kris 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut the edit down to a simple statement of Stern's views (Xanthine did give a reference to the New Scientist website, where Stern expands on this).  This is not the place for people to construct their own arguments about why the IAU is or is not wrong.  No original research, remember.  --ajn (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You really need to read WP:NOR.   This has nothing to do with an "anti-Pluto bias", it's to do with accurately and neutrally reporting the current situation and the responses of notable, informed people.  If you mean there's a bias against people writing speculative wishful thinking which happens to reflect your own opinions, you are quite right, there's a bias against that.  Wikipedia is not a blog or discussion board, it's not a place for people to spout off about subjects they are cross about.  There has been far too much of that going on in this article.  --ajn (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned a lot of bias (inadvertly introduced some too) but we are starting to see irrelevancy and bias creep in the article again. Electrawn 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by Xanthine 

message: I cannot help noticing that the lede (and much of the rest of the article) talks a lot about how it is classified rather than what it actually is.  I appreciate we have little idea about its composition, but can't we at least say it is composed of rock and `ice'/frozen methane (as opposed to say gases—excepting the tiny atmosphere), preferably in the lede.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical characteristics 

message: Is the photo really necessary for the article?--Nixer 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  More importantly, I feel that while we might be able to claim fair use of the photo in the article about the girl, but I do not believe that a fair use is justified for the Pluto article. Bluap 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo of the girl