Talk:Pluto/Archive 7

message: There has been confusion, at my college even, about the way the article opened previously by stating that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt but without mentioning Eris until the issue of mass came up. As far as scientists know at the moment, Eris is a slightly larger Trans-Neptunian Object. Most people (the students here, and the professors haven't mentioned it once during classes!) do not know about the Scattered Disk, and think of all TNOs as either Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud objects. Some scientific articles even still list Eris as a KBO, not just a TNO. The earlier wording made it SOUND AS THOUGH it were trying to say that Pluto was the largest TNO because it didn't (and still doesn't at that point) say anything about a Scattered Disk. The following statement about mass did mention Eris, but made it sound like Pluto was known to be larger than Eris, just not as massive. There is more information much later, but at that point in the reading the old wording seemed misleading. It would seem unnecessary to break down the definitions of KBOs and SDOs right in the first sentences of the article, so to clarify and avoid confusion I have slightly modified the opening wording to say that Pluto is the second-largest dwarf planet, and THEN that it is the largest KBO. This sticks to all the same facts, but orders it so as to keep relevant information easier to read and understand. MXVN (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The definitions are broken down in the handy footnote right after the first mention. Serendipodous 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The scattered disc is really a quite distinct population. That said, the Kuiper belt consists of several distinct populations, with the hot-classical population possibly more closely related to the scattered disc than the cold-classical population. As for Pluto vs. Eris: Eris is 27% more massive than Pluto, but Pluto is possibly the larger of the two (we'll know for certain this summer after New Horizons has flown by. You should tell your teachers that you've learned that what they teach is too incomplete to paint a correct picture of the situation and that they should get their terminology straight: the Kuiper belt is just one region of the entire trans-Neptunian region. --JorisvS (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Lines

message: Also wondered, what about the possible polar ice cap? I did a search of the page for "ice" and didn't find it. Is it mentioned?
I'd have thought there was enough attention in the news for this hypothesis to be worth a mention, even though of course whatever we write now is liable to be changed within a few weeks, what do you think?
NASA's Best Photos of Pluto Yet Show Possible Ice Cap (Video)
Pluto may have ice cap at pole
Just a suggestion again. Robert Walker (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll know for sure in 50 days, so maybe just wait. Serendipodous 12:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay :). Robert Walker (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible observation of polar ice cap

message: NASA-Audio (Wednesday, June 3, 2015@1pm/edt/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss latest "surprising" findings by the Hubble Space Telescope of the Moons of Pluto. - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio NASA-Audio] (06/03/2015@1pm/edt/usa) - [[Moons of Pluto]] - "Surprising" Finds. 

message: The article (currently) says "£5 (equivalent to £282, or $430 USD in 2015),", whose code is "equivalent to £, or $430 USD in )", which looks like the current value in pounds is updated automatically, but not the current value in U.S. dollars. I'm not familiar with these templates, but is there a way to get the US-dollar version to also update automatically using these and maybe another template? --JorisvS (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating inflation 

message: The original about Pluto's density and composition said "Observations by the Hubble Space Telescope place Pluto's density at between 1.8 and 2.1 g/cm3, suggesting its internal composition consists of roughly 50–70 percent rock and 30–50 percent ice by mass.". However, its density is known much more precisely than that (which I have corrected), but this means that the mentioned rock and ice fractions do no longer correspond to the density value. Pending a proper source for these, I have hidden this part. Does anyone know of a source that can be used to this end? --JorisvS (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that precise answer is correct; the only way to determine density is to divide mass by volume, and we don't know what Pluto's volume is, because we don't know what its radius is, thanks to its atmosphere. Serendipodous 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We may not know it exactly, but we do have a good estimate, as the uncertainty in the density shows: . The most difficult part would be which densities to use for the components. I've think I've seen 1 and 3.5 g/cm3 somewhere. This would give the equations 3.5a+b= and a+b=1, and hence a rock fraction of a= and an ice fraction of b=. However, I don't know if these densities are much good, and hence not how accurate the calculated composition would be. --JorisvS (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock and ice fractions 

message: While that is tidier, it does mention Pluto's position in the Kuiper belt before Pluto's position in the Kuiper belt is properly explained in the origins section. Serendipodous 18:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We could move it if that makes more sense. Then again, "History" sections tend to be the first section in articles. Ours does say "From 1992 onward, many bodies were discovered orbiting in the same area as Pluto, showing Pluto's place within the Kuiper belt", which should be enough for readers to understand the point, IMO (although it could be phrased better, I'll do that in a minute). --JorisvS (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining the history section 

message: Anyone want to venture they're a crater chain from the impact of an inner moon? — kwami (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  equatorial spots 

message: NASA-TV - Pluto Flyby - Updated Schedule (7/8/2015) of Media Coverage. - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ NASA-TV] - [[New Horizons|Pluto Flyby]] - Updated Schedule (7/12/2015) of Media Coverage 

message: I notice this article is a bit lacking in description of what it would be like for a human to look at the landscape.  There is reasonable detail at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/common/content/FAQ.php , but it has some issues.  To begin with, it uses a figure of 900 times dimmer than sunlight but 300 times brighter than moonlight that seems to disagree with the million-to-one ratio we have at moonlight.  More to the point, I keep thinking there must be some kind of comparison we can use, maybe from around sunrise/sunset or from a particular near total solar eclipse that we have pictures of.  I'm not sure - just feel like there must be a better didactic approach.  And then there's the issue of the eye damage.  Wouldn't it do terrible eye damage if you simply looked at the Sun from somewhere as far away as Pluto?  I'm thinking the pinpoint of light is just as hot as when seen from Earth (inverse squares cancel out...) and the relaxed irises in low light are a danger, just as when people watch a near total solar eclipse here.  Also, the way the source I cite puts it is "In the dim Pluto daylight, the astronaut may be able to see that the landscape has a yellowish or pinkish color..." which unfortunately is unclear whether it is hard to see color in the ambient light or if they simply didn't know at the time what color Pluto would be.  I sometimes feel like colors are ever so slightly visible in moonlight - I think that at even 300 times brighter they should be unmistakeable??  Anyway, we need all this sort of stuff from some usable reliable sources for the article - it can't just be original research. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like NASA has followed up on this at http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/plutotime/ - you can find out your own twilight time that has light similar to that of Pluto.  But it doesn't talk about the eye damage. Wnt (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical human perspective of the Pluto landscape 

message: From today's NASA news conference, according to Alan Stern, it appears Pluto's radius is slightly larger than previously thought: 1185±10 km. RandomCritic (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius 

message: NASA Link: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/how-big-is-pluto-new-horizons-settles-decades-long-debate
It is now estimated that Pluto is slightly larger the Eris.
If this is true, hopefully, it can be added to the Wiki soon.
InterfaceManager
:The article only definitively corrects estimates of Pluto's diameter; I've changed the Mass and Size section of the page to reflect that, but there doesn't seem to be any mentioned change in Pluto's predicted mass (in fact, it uses the new found diameter to state that Pluto's density would be slightly lower than predicted, implying no or little change in predicted mass). Greengreengreenred 19:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto Is More Massive Than Eris?: Confirmed 

message: Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is the largest known dwarf planet in the Solar System, which was confirmed on 13th July 2015 by the NASA's New Horizons space probe that Pluto is 1.89% large than the scattered-disc object Eris. It is the ninth-most-massive known body directly orbiting the Sun. It is probably the largest object in the Kuiper belt
Mpjacko (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "largest" is too vague. Pluto has a slightly larger diameter, but Eris is more massive. Serendipodous 20:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015 

message: Does the current infobox image look weird to anyone else as a thumbnail? It looks very dark to me. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW - the PNG images look ok atm on our computers - mostly, latest versions of Chrome/Firefox/Opera/Safari & Windows xp/vista/8.1 & related - hope this helps in some way - iac -  Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG issue? 

message: Principal Investigator Alan Stern confirmed that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt. 
* Primary source:
**
* Other sources:
**
**
**
National Geographic also wrote that Eris is still more massive. While The Planetary Society reported that Pluto has a radius of 1185±10 km and a diameter of 2370±20 km (so far), according to Stern. This should be updated in the article. Chihciboy (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that "Wikipedia employs a restricted definition of Kuiper belt based on information from the Minor Planet Center catalogue" which is still not yet probably updated. It was last updated I think around last week. So should editors at least discuss about this? Chihciboy (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The restricted definition we use actually excludes Eris, so that's not really an issue; the issue for us is that the Kuiper belt still has not been fully charted. Serendipodous 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

text: If it's in reliable sources I suppose we can print it, though it seems like a statistic with little meaning or confidence (shoot a spacecraft past Eris and then we'll see).  I assume people will keep updating the radius with more precise figures over the next week.  But (knock on wood!) we're expecting to have a lot more interesting stuff to add by then! Wnt (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA confirms Pluto as the largest object in the Kuiper belt 

message: Pluto has been announced as the bigger dwarf planet by NASA so page needs to be updated
Hamody Asgail (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has. Serendipodous 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015 

message: Pluto's new radius is now 1185 +/- 10 Km.  If its mass is not changed, but its volume is changed to 6.970 E 18 cubic 
kilometers, and its mass remains 1.305 +/- 0.007 E 22 kg, then Pluto's Density is reduced to roughly
1872.263 kg / cubic meter ( to a ridiculous number of digits ).  This can be broken down into three components.
The tri-axial coefficient of compression is small at 6.892 kg / cubic meter.  The Uni-axial gravitational
coefficient of vertical compression is also relatively small at 286.084 kg/cubic meter, and the combined
coefficient of material densities is also low at 1579.287 +/- 10.034 kg/ cubic meter. This means that
Pluto has a lot of ice ( various types ), and not much rock.  One would presume the rock would find its
way to Pluto's center, and the materials in Pluto would stratify with the greatest density materials near
the planet's center, and the lightest density materials near the surface. If Pluto was all water ice,
its Material Composition number would be in the nine hundreds, and if pluto were all rock like Earth, its
Material Composition number would be like Earth at between 2900 and 2904.7 depending on the radius chosen. 
Since 1579 is below the mid-point between 900 and 2900, Pluto is volumetrically more ice than rock.73.3.187.143 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A change in the Radius will produce a change in the Average Density of Pluto 

message: I was looking at the old HST maps of Pluto and noticed that the bright albedo 'heart'-shaped feature on Pluto is visible in the Hubble images, at 180 degrees in the gif of its rotation. Would this be useful to add to the 'observations' section? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The flatmap comparisons are most clear, with a similar bright area center to each map. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bright feature on Hubble maps? 

message: Eris is now confirmed to be smaller than Pluto according to latest information. This needs to be reflected in the opening paragraph. Its not exactly much smaller though. Like about 10-15km. Its greater than the margin of error though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelvamp (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated size info from horizons flyby 

message: Edit by me saying it is the largest dwarf planet by volume and the ninth-largest body by volume directly orbiting the sun has been reverted by Serendipodous by arguing, moons would be larger by volume. Can someone explain the logic behind that? I do not want to start an undo war. Can someone please explain me that? Is a moon directly orbiting the sun or what? Any opinion? I don't like it to be trolled. --Metrancya (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I admit I was overzealous. But there is currently an unresolved discussion about the lead in the talk page section "probably the largest object in the Kuiper belt". Please read that before making any changes. Serendipodous 10:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you idiots please sort out this dispute and stop reverting my changes? I've made good-faith minor edits which have nothing to do with this dispute. User:Serendipodous please note: your argument is with Metrancya, not with me. You never had any reason to revert my work. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then make your minor edits. I have no problem with that. But leave the lead alone. I can't keep the lead the way it is and keep your changes. So make your small changes and I won't go after them. Serendipodous 10:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never changed the lead. You reverted my minor edits along with the changes to the lead by Metrancya, so when I revert your trashing of my work, the lead also changes to the Metrancya version. You never had any reason to revert my changes, as Metrancya pointed out in his edit summary at the time. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Serendipodous: I changed the lead because it summarizes and reflects the current state of the art. I also added the "largest known dwarf planet". Just look at the list of dwarf planets and you will find that I am right. I also changed the saying to "prominent Kuiper Belt object". That isn't wrong either, isn't it? Whether or not it is the largest Kuiper belt object - it doesn't make any statement about that. So no collision with the discussion you are mentioning and therefore no reason to revert the lead. Also see below the next paragraph. --Metrancya (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I really don't know what you want. I said all that already. The largest known dwarf planet includes that automatically. And moons are not directly orbiting the sun and are also no dwarf planets. --Metrancya (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The largest known dwarf planet includes that automatically.  No it doesn't. Eris and Ceres are both dwarf planets, but they aren't in the Kuiper belt. The fact that Pluto is in the Kuiper belt is the reason it's a dwarf planet. It is, far and away, the most important thing about it. Serendipodous 11:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Eris is a Plutoid like Pluto but an SDO object. Sedna and Ceres are also not Kuiper Belt objects but are also smaller than the largest Kuiper Belt object. Sedna (most likely a dwarf planet from the Oort cloud) is smaller and Ceres is the largest object of the asteroid belt. No minor planet is larger than Pluto.  --Metrancya (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it. What does comparative size have to do with where they are? Serendipodous 11:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't get it, don't discuss it. Pluto is the largest dwarf planet. Anything against it? No? Pluto is the ninth-largest body directly orbiting the sun. Anything against it? No? In that case I will change the lead again. Please provide substantial arguments if you have anything to say and to discuss. --Metrancya (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my fault if you're not making any sense. The lead, as is, already says Pluto is the largest known dwarf planet. Why remove that it is also the largest known object in the Kuiper belt? Serendipodous 11:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Made a formatting change. --Metrancya (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: You are arguing with my own words against me. That is pure Nihilism, what you are doing. --Metrancya (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest dwarf planet 

message: Would some kind soul please spell out what an 'AU' is?  It appears that this is some kind of measure of distance, but there is no hyperlink to any further elaboration of what it is, and in the absence of a fully spelled out name, a non-scientific reader cannot research it further. 174.92.47.35 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Astronomical unit. 78.55.24.10 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What is an AU?

message: The Tombaugh image was uploaded by someone who incorrectly thought all images found on a NASA website are PD.  The image will shortly be deleted from Commons.  A local copy can stay on WP, but WP:FUR must be applied in each and every article that uses the image.  I can't for the life of me imagine what fair use (by the strict WP standards, not the more lenient US law standards) applies to a Kansas picture of Tombaugh, so I am removing it.  A Lowell Observatory publicity photograph associated with the discovery should be used instead.  (And as a featured article, all such details must be met.) Choor monster (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tombaugh image 

message: If Pluto had been given one upon its discovery, the number would have been about 1,164 instead of 134,340. Does this mean If Pluto had been assigned a number upon its discovery, it would have been about 1,164 instead of 134,340.? Ie, was it the 1,164th object in this classification to be discovered? Btljs (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume so; however, it isn't a particularly useful piece of information and it isn't cited, so as far as I'm concerned you can just ditch it if you want. Serendipodous 13:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing/ambiguous sentence 

message: Caption of first figure should not say "Color image of Pluto, photographed by the New Horizons spacecraft..."
a) Grammar: It's not the "image" that's "photographed". It's Pluto.
b) Terminology: The word "photographed" is not proper terminology for spacecraft imaging and should not be used.
Change caption (and future captions) to: "Pluto imaged in color by the New Horizons spacecraft...".
Typonator (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Kheider (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015 

message: Sources differ as to whether the north or south pole is now in daylight. Also comments about Charon having a dark polar cap because that's where it's coldest, when of course it's where it's warmest. Just a caution about interpreting recent sources. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  poles 

message: "It has a moderately eccentric and inclined orbit..."  "...Pluto's orbit is highly inclined relative to the ecliptic (over 17°) and highly eccentric (elliptical)."  Which is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Eccentric and inclined tompared to the planets, but typical for a KBO. 8.2.215.65 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. I've fixed them (you actually caught it because I had already fixed it in the lead a while ago). --JorisvS (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The orbit 

message: <3 <3 <3 (yup, this is relevant, these astronomers could've sworn they saw a heart on Pluto.)  —  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, should we mention this bit of pareidolia in the article?  —  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so unless it legitimately ends up being what people remember about the mission. I would give it a week or two after the closest approach to see if anyone still remembers. A2soup (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Not officially yet.  Oh, and as far as Plutodolia is concerned, I'm more partial to this idea. Serendipodous 19:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pareidolia|Plutodolia]] 

message: This section:
"Pluto's small moons, discovered shortly before and after the probe's launch, were considered to be potentially hazardous, as debris from collisions between Kuiper belt objects and the smaller moons, with their relatively low escape velocities, could have produced a tenuous dusty ring. If New Horizons had travelled through such a ring system, there would have been an increased risks for micrometeoroid damage that could have disable the probe."
could use a grammar check... as written it's pretty pathetic.
123not.it!
:revised. Serendipodous 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad grammar 

message: In what year will Pluto next be at equinox?  Given its elliptical orbit, I assume the solstices and equinoxes are not at 62 year intervals, but somewhat more irregular.  It would be interesting to know when the planet would present 100 percent of its surface to sunlight during a single rotation. GBC (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solstice and Equinox 

message: This first photo isn't perfect but the only good one here.
Second is hard to see with the shadows and color selection. Third is too specific to the American reader. --MarsRover (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I would keep only the first one. I think in general there are far too many (redundant) photos in this article, and this likely will get worse once more and more photos are released.  Varianceinvain (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  - FWIW - Yes - I agree as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comments - please understand that I'm flexible re this issue - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - after all, there doesn't seem to be a lot of opinions re the issue (or a clear consensus?) at the moment - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, no hard feelings at all. Hope the article won't get too messy as more and more files are being added. I'll definitely check the article now and then. Cheers, Rfassbind -talk  19:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many comparisons 

message: As object.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.243.8 (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its distance from Earth is its distance from the Sun minus one astronomical unit. Serendipodous 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  ±1 AU, I may add to the given explanation. Cheers, Rfassbind -talk  09:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Since you don't reason in astronomical units but in kilometers it would be useful to write down the distance in such a unit as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.238.50 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Plus or minus 150 million km. The real issue is that there is no such thing as "distance from Earth." Both Pluto and Earth are always moving, so the distance between them changes from day to day, let alone from year to year. The best we can say is that its closest possible distance to Earth is 28.657 AU (perihelion minus 1 AU, or 4,287,026,180 km) while its farthest possible distance from Earth is 49.871 AU (aphelion plus 1 AU, or 7,460,595,410 km. So "Pluto's distance from Earth", depending on the time of year, decade, or century, fits into a range of 3,173,569,230 km. At least with the Sun we can say there's an "average distance"; we can't really say that with Earth. Serendipodous 12:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that very concise explanation. That should make sense to virtually everybody. Rfassbind -talk  16:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On 15-Jul-2015, Pluto was 31.9 AU (4.77 billion km; 2.97 billion mi) from Earth. Which each passing year, Pluto is currently getting about  further from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing distance from Earth 

message: NASA-TV - New Horizons mission - re Pluto flyby - News Conference (1pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/17/2015).NASA - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html (a/o 10am/et/usa, 7/16/2015)).NASA - http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-release-new-pluto-images-science-findings-at-july-17-nasa-tv-briefing (a/o 5pm/et/usa, 7/16/2015). - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BRIEF Followup - Video (55:43) of NASA media conference (1pm/et/usa - 7/17/2015), with the latest images of the Pluto system from New Horizons, is at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAGwxl7FZWw  - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ NASA-TV] - ''[[New Horizons]]'' mission - News Conference (1pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/17/2015) 

message: Here's an alternative version of the wikitable "Mass estimates for Pluto". Instead of fractions, it displays the change in mass as a percentage figure (see tables below). -- Rfassbind -talk  11:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative table "Mass estimates for Pluto" 

message: Our 2003 source say the north pole is in winter. NH maps show the south pole in winter. Our info box had retrograde rotation with 120-degree inclination -- a double negative. I changed the rotation to prograde and left the inclination at 120*, but have no idea if that corresponds to to the convention of our 2003 source or to the NH maps. LORRI animations show illuminated counter-clockwise rotation, which would mean prograde rotation at 120* and northern summer, but that's assuming the images have not been flipped left-to-right. (I guess I'm thinking of telescopic images.) Does anyone know for sure? — kwami (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Celestia and the right-hand rule, it's Pluto north pole that is currently in continuous sunlight. --JorisvS (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on this above - according to poles of astronomical bodies, the poles of planets are determined according to where Earth's north pole is.  So I think Pluto's demotion switched its north and south poles!  But wait, there's more!  According to , many astronomers were using the "wrong" convention before the switch, which made their maps actually right afterwards about which pole is north and south.  But, well, for any given source, who knows? Wnt (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar confusion 

message: I just removed the gallery, as it seemed to be inappropriate per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries. More importantly, inappropriate per common sense as the gallery was just an indiscriminate collection of images taken by New Horizons. Some of these images are used somewhere else in the article already, others are just images of Pluto taken at different distances. Feel free to revert or readd images, but at least be more discriminate. Not every photo taken of Pluto has to be included in this article. Varianceinvain (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW - reverted edit and restored Pluto#Gallery - please discuss for WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD & related - comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And? WP:BRD states that "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." So what are your reasons? Why do you want to see the gallery included? Or did you revert just for the sake of it? Varianceinvain (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments - the Pluto#Gallery section of images seems worth keeping imo - especially for the moment due to the current interest in observing Pluto for the first time as a result of the recent New Horizons spacecraft flyby - comments by other editors, to reach a WP:CONSENSUS, welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it did not help. You still did not provide a reason, other than stating that it should be kept, in your opinion. Well, very helpful. Surely, as you reverted my edit, you could at least extend the common courtesy to provide a rationale? Especially as Wikipedia policy discourages galleries. Varianceinvain (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for your comments - as before - my rationale is presented above - as an improvement to the Pluto article at this time (at least) - per WP:NORULES & related (at least) - also - as before - comments by other editors, to reach a WP:CONSENSUS, welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to remove the gallery section. Leave it alone, Rfassbind -talk  16:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am just astonished by the quality of discussions here. Rules clearly state that galleries are discouraged. I remove the gallery, provide the rationale on the talk page. The edit gets promptly reverted, and the person reverting is not even making an attempt to provide a rationale. As is the other editor. How is Wikipedia going to work if you are not willing to engage in a discussion by providing arguments? Varianceinvain (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Image use policy#Image galleries states: "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Since we currently have many raw images of Pluto showing features that have not yet been written about in reliable sources (and especially not in reliable secondary sources), I think it is reasonable to assume that those images illustrate aspects of Pluto that cannot yet be adequately described in well-sourced text. So a gallery is appropriate. I agree that the gallery here is not very well-crafted, but I think that the proper action to remedy this is to WP:FIXIT, not delete the whole thing. As a final point, if there is ever a conflict between a policy/guideline and our central goal of informing readers, we should choose to inform. A2soup (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The gallery makes a fine temporary home for pictures.  This isn't a stable article where interested editors are just uploading images because they can.  This is breaking news about Pluto, and over time it will be sorted out, and the gallery will fade out on its own. Choor monster (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Actually, "the Whale" does occur in the article. All occurs in secondary articles as well, like Whale (Pluto) and geology of Pluto. Not every image needs to appear in the main article, and a gallery is not the proper way to present geological detail. And if we are to have a gallery, it should be properly formatted, with no forced widths. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "The whale" is named nowhere in the text. Until we get some decent sources outlining what the images mean, we should keep them for the information. I have no problem with proper formatting. Just don't delete them. Serendipodous 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Brief followup - added to the "Pluto#Surface" section => Notable geographical features include the "Heart" (a large pale area) as well as "The Whale", "The Donut" and "The Brass Knuckles". - seems ok - but *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This article is an exceptional case for use of galleries, since it is both in flux and has a massive collection of free images available of high scientific interest.  Optimally, though, the article should be lengthened enough to bring every gallery image to an inline placement with the text.  Somebody was making fun of Wikipedia recently for having a shorter article on Pluto than some imaginary villain's homeworld or something, and it's not because there's that little known about Pluto!  People just gotta write. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem; speaking as the article's chief editor, I would like to dispute the argument re: Cybertron: 1. This article is actually longer than any planet article other than Earth and Mars and 2. We don't tend to include previous ideas of what Pluto was in this article, while the Cybertron article contains every alternate version of the planet. Serendipodous 20:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pluto#Gallery|Gallery]] 

message: From recent images we see Pluto's north pole on top and rotation direction is counter-clockwise as viewed from above. But rotation period of Pluto is negative, so it should rotate clockwise, i.e. from east to west as viewed from the northern hemisphere of the Earth. Does this mean that on images we see Pluto upside down and north pole should be on the bottom if seen from the northern hemisphere of the Earth, not on top as on images? Should these questions be clarified in now small "Rotation" section of the article?188.69.214.120 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Properly, the north pole is where the thumb points if you follow the direction of rotation with the fingers of your right hand (the right-hand rule). Then, the rotation period is always positive, and a minus sign only used to stress that the obliquity of the body's is larger than 90°. So, when viewed from a body's north pole, it will by definition of what is its north pole rotate counterclockwise. (This would not be the case in the competing usage, though, which is that north is the pole on the same side of the ecliptic as Earth's north pole (which follows the right-hand rule regardless). This one is less simple, easier to confuse poles, and less universally applicable and hence less useful) --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So, as Pluto's obliquity is 120 degrees, its north pole from the nortern hemisphere of the Earth should be seen in the lower part of Pluto's disc,not in the upper, as on recent images, Pluto is upside down on images, as I understand. 188.69.214.120 (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As seen from Earth, yes. But images taken by New Horizons may be (often?, always?) rotated to have north up. --JorisvS (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think virtually every image official image release (i.e. non-raw image) since May or so has north as up (in the 'polar cap' release from April, the orientation was different). --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Australians (and others in the southern hemisphere), I think, see north pole up, as they do see the Moon upside down.188.69.214.120 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: My inference from what I'm reading here (please correct!) is that which way on Pluto is north depends on this silliness about whether it's a planet or not.  Because the IAU has a weirdness where they say that the pole of any planet is the pole that faces north relative to the "invariable plane" of the solar system (a strange phrase, isn't it, when we keep finding more and more mass who knows where way out in the boonies?), but any minor planet is according to the straightforward "stars rise in the east" rule (maybe not the Sun, AFAIU).  So if Pluto has obliquity 120 degrees, then if it were a planet, it would have obliquity 30 degrees and be spinning with a negative rotation and its south pole for a north pole... right? Wnt (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation (and the north pole) 

message: This line is really bugging me, because it can be interpreted multiple ways. We don't define the Kuiper belt in the lead, so, depending on your interpretation, Eris could be considered part of the Kuiper belt or not. If the casual reader assumes Eris is part of the Kuiper belt, then he or she might interpret the line as referring to the mass vs volume distinction separating Eris and Pluto, rather than the overdetermined argument regarding the utterly minuscule chance that the Kuiper belt as we define it contains an object larger than Pluto, which is what it's really about. I actually think that stating outright that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt, regardless of it only being 99.9999999 percent probable, is preferable to the current wording. Serendipodous 00:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike it as well. We could just say it is the largest known object (by both mass and volume) in the Kuiper belt.--Trystan (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Revised. Serendipodous 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Given the ambiguity about definition, I think it's probably best to avoid saying it's the largest object in the Kuiper belt. Defining Eris as not a Kuiper belt object is inconsistent with at least today's New York Times article. The existing sentence in our lede "It is the largest known trans-Neptunian object by volume, but less massive than scattered-disc dwarf planet Eris." covers all bases unambiguously and inarguably (except for a grammatical error which I'll fix, and I think the word "known" can either go or be replaced by "probably"). We can leave whether Eris is part of the Kuiper belt for the main body, where the article can actually explain what is meant instead of relying on specific definitions. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about Pluto versus Eris, both Phil Plait and Emily Lackdawalla describe Eris as being in the Kuiper belt. I think it's best to avoid such poorly-defined distinctions. What's wrong with just something like "largest known transneptunian object", which is already in the next sentence anyway? Or switch "TNO" to "DP", or have both. Tbayboy (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not mentioning that Pluto is in the Kuiper belt is like not mentioning that Ceres is in the asteroid belt. Wikipedia has a working definition; we've sourced it, we've explained it, we don't need to justify it anymore. Serendipodous 02:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay to mention, since it's not contentious. It's Eris's position that is in doubt. So leave the ranking to the better defined region (TNO). We're not mentioning that Pluto is the largest, most massive plutino, either. Tbayboy (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We've already defined the Kuiper belt. We've used the IAU MPC as a source. We explain the rationale in the Kuiper belt article. Why do we need to constantly kowtow to the opposing position? Serendipodous 02:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Brown is in that opposition, too. (But it's an old page, he might have changed his position.) However, I think you've convinced me to like what's there, since Pluto is likely to remain the largest KBO, whereas it's still very possible for a larger scattered object to come into view. Tbayboy (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't mind mentioning that it is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt, but I wouldn't lead with that, as it Kuiper Belt is a much less well-known thing than Pluto. I think the defining characteristics for the lead sentence (and lead clause) are that Pluto is 1) a dwarf planet and 2) it orbits the Sun/is part of the Solar System. Kuiper Belt can come a sentence or two later.--Trystan (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, look at the article for Ceres. Ceres is the largest object in the asteroid belt, and that's what it leads with. Serendipodous 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I've had another crack at tweaking the opening few sentences to avoid the ambiguity about whether Pluto is a dwarf planet while still mentioning its defining characteristics in the opening sentence: "Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt and the first trans-Neptunian object to be discovered." I don't think the fact that we use one definition (which is far from universal and appears to me to be a minority definition) of Kuiper belt in another article makes it clear for readers to use that definition in the lede of this article. Here it's not necessary to use that definition and confusing unless we clutter the lede with not-quite-relevant detail about the definition of Kuiper belt we've adopted. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Actually, Pluto being larger than Eris is not at all "99.9999999 percent probable" yet. Comparing the numbers in Lakdawalla's article, Eris is only 34+/-32 km smaller than Pluto. If the error bars given for either DP's size are 1 sigma, the 1.1 sigma error bars of Eris' and Pluto's size already overlap, so Pluto being larger is "only" ~96% probable (2*1.1 sigma=2.2 sigma). Therefore I think the "probably" should stay for the moment, if we mention the "largest" at all. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Plait gives a lower number for Eris' size, resulting in 44+/- 32 km difference, or a 2*1.5=3 sigma certainty. If this is correct, "Pluto is almost certainly the largest object in the Kuiper Belt", as Plait himself puts it, but it's still not quite certain yet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris isn't in the Kuiper Belt to begin with. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "probably" the largest object in the Kuiper belt 

message: The article is >120 kB, and will continue to grow as more science data is released from New Horizons. We have already split off significant sections of this article into separate articles, but Exploration of Pluto is still a redirect. Is it time to split material about New Horizons information and other proposed/scrapped exploration to this location? VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with splitting it off is that "Exploration of Pluto" is essentially synonymous with New Horizons, and is likely to remain so. Perhaps it would make more sense to redirect the title there. Serendipodous 21:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that. We have Exploration of Neptune and Exploration of Uranus, both of which are heavy on the coverage of their single probe flybys but cover proposed and planned missions as well. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea, if only because the article would be useful as a place to dump info about the many proposed and cancelled missions, which doesn't belong on Pluto or New Horizons. Substantial overlap and shared text between Exploration of Pluto and New Horizons would be okay IMO, with the former page covering only operations in the Pluto system. The first section after the lead would be New Horizons and have a main article hatnote to New Horizons. A2soup (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support it as well. In fact, I had been toying with the idea before New Horizons' flyby when I was splitting off articles about its atmosphere and geology. --JorisvS (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploration of Pluto 

message: NASA-TV - New Horizons results - re Pluto flyby - News Conference (2pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/24/2015) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BRIEF Followup - Video (68:40) of NASA media conference (2pm/et/usa - 7/24/2015), with the latest images of the Pluto system from New Horizons, is at => VIDEONASA Video (68:40) => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWr29KIs2Ns & IMAGESNASA Images => http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Press-Conferences/July-24-2015.php - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ NASA-TV] - ''[[New Horizons]]'' results - News Conference (2pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/24/2015) 

message: Why in the world is it so much larger than the vast majority of infobox images for solar system objects (260-280px)? Philip Terry Graham 04:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The planet (and dwarf planet) infobox images tend to be larger. Earth's is 300px. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any ruling of some sort that the infobox images be a particular size? Earth seems to be another odd-one-out as well. Mercury (planet), Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune, in addition to Ceres (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet) and Makemake are all 260px, while Saturn is 280px, since the rings are accountable. Your comment that they "tend to be larger" seems to be very wrong. >.> Philip Terry Graham 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't consider 20px to be "so much larger", but there is no one standard for image size in infoboxes. And there are certainly other infobox images for celestial bodies that are larger. I think one reason a lot of bodies have smaller images is because the quality of the image is a lot less. But when you have a high quality image, there is a natural inclination to want to show it off. Just looking through a few, the Moon is 292px, the Sun is 300px, Europa is at 275px, and 4 Vesta is at 300px. Personally, I like having a larger image in the infobox when there is a high quality image available. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about infobox image size... 

message: Should we use the press conferences as sources, or should we wait until the scientific papers come out? Serendipodous 21:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with such a reference. However, if you're referencing videos of press conferences, please time-index the video. Don't reference, say, a 60-minute press conference, without saying that what supports the text occurs, say, at 20 minutes in (and there are parameters for just that, in the cite AV media template). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. For now we can use those videos and press conferences. This is the only way to quickly start presenting New Horizons' findings. When papers become available, they should replace those cites, of course. --JorisvS (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Until published sources become available, the press conference videos should be used as sources to keep the article as up to date as possible. I also agree that when sourcing a video, you should timestamp the location of the information cited and, if possible, the name of the person speaking. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  When should we start adding new information? 

message: The binary dwarf planets category fits - Most sources say that Pluto and Charon are a binary system.
The barycenter is outside either body, making Charon also a dwarf planet.
Apologies for breaking 3RR, but the category should stay. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The barycentre criteria is not that widely accepted. Charon was listed as a DP in the draft IAU proposal, but was removed in the final because there were too many objections to that criterium. Notably, it would mean Jupiter is not a planet, since the Sun-Jupiter barycentre is without the Sun. Tbayboy (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most sources"? The sources cited both on Pluto and on Charon say Charon is not a dwarf planet (though of course all say Pluto-Charon is a binary system). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The barycenter criteria is only for dwarf planets. The ratio of mass is not the same, either. Charon is more than HALF the size of Pluto, and larger than Ceres. And Charon doesn't orbit Pluto. A moon orbits a planet, small Solar System body, or dwarf planet - Charon and Pluto orbit one another. DN-boards1 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sources say this? The cited ones don't. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We might acknowledge that scientists sometimes label things within a given paper in order to facilitate the communication of certain points relevant for that paper. Or they might label things in a certain way hoping to make a more general point that they think applies outside of the paper as well. This may or may not apply to this particular discussion of Pluto and Charon. But we might also acknowledge that calling a planet and its moon a "double planet" because its barycenter happens to be outside of the surface of the larger body is something of an arbitrary distinction if it doesn't actually have some other related importance. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary nature 

message: File:Pluto by LORRI, 3 July 2015 (Color).png|Coloured
File:Pluto by LORRI, 3 July 2015.jpg|Not coloured
The colouration of the LORRI images degrades the contrast of the image (check the comparison on the right). Although the colour information provided by MVIC is valuable and relevant for the infobox, it is of a much lower resolution than the brightness and shape information provided by LORRI. I don't think they look particularly pretty, either, and since they sort of reduce the actual resolution of the image, I don't think we should have coloured LORRI images for the infobox.
According to this information, a colour image of Pluto from MVIC (i.e. a "real" colour image) where Pluto will be 480 pixels across will be downlinked on 16 July. This might be usable for the infobox. Other than that, we will have to wait until September for better colour images from MVIC.
We'll also probably soon (like tomorrow) be at a stage where raw images will likely be the best images for the infobox, by the way. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this whole discussion will be completely moot in just over a week. However, in the meantime a color image reflects what Pluto is like much better than a greyscale image, even if it is of a somewhat lower resolution. --JorisvS (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As per what I wrote above, due to the downlinking schedule, this debate can be relevant all the way until September, October or even later. :-) In terms of downlinked data, most of the flyby happens in September and the following weeks/months, not next week. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Why don't we just use the color image until we get the final full frame pictures and then use that? This is all about esthetics after all, and the color one looks cooler. Cool trumps all. We have a few days to think about it....Ericl (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure which images you are referring to now, the image we currently have for the infobox is positively the coolest picture planetary science has produced for quite some time (and we have no colour version of it). --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am beside myself with excitement. We are seeing things no person has ever seen before. History before our very eyes (and constantly updating on Wikipedia!). Anyway, I vote monochrome for now :)82.71.30.178 (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Feel free to pop it in the gallery for now, if nothing else. A2soup (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd love to, but I'm so new that I can't edit semi-protected pages at the moment. Hence why I'm on the Talk page instead. Hjhornbeck (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for the infobox 

message: I found a higher resolution image at this source:
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/20150714_pluto-nh-ehealth1.png
Linked from Emily Lakdawalla's Twitter feed.
Here is the post it is from:
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/small-bodies/pluto-20150713.html
The new image has a resolution of 1024x1024, improved over the current resolution of 299x299
Arithmaldor (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on getting the original image updated (it has become protected). Your comparison of resolution is wrong, though; the current image is cropped (as is the replacement). The first instragram release was close to full resolution. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded image to Commons => :File:NH-Pluto-color-NewHorizons-20150714.png - [update notes: Drbogdan (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The original has now been updated to full resolution. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Or has been composited together with panorama software, eg. my own contribution. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto_via_New_Horizons_%28composite%29.jpeg . A third approach is to use photogammetry software to map all the images onto a sphere, then render that sphere; you don't get the surface feature shifts that you see with the panorama approach, yet you keep the advantage of splicing together multiple images. So far, I haven't seen any attempt at this third method. Hjhornbeck (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction: The scientists at NASA/John Hopkins are using the photogammetry method, but I still haven't seen any amateurs attempting the same. See the first image here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-pluto-images-from-nasa-s-new-horizons-it-s-complicated Hjhornbeck (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher-Res image 

message: :I would like to recommend that we be wary of the current situation concerning the IAU/New Horizons Relationship. Some of the wording (such as the annotated projection of Pluto's surface), do not make it clear that all of these names remain not only unofficial but submitted to the official planetary naming body--the IAU. As such the names remain unofficial and many would seem to have little hope to become official due to their inconsistency with the IAU's planned themes for the planet. Currently, the truthful approach is simply to consider all of the names to be provisional.130.118.160.220 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem? We can change the names if and when the IAU approves different names for those features. --JorisvS (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a potential problem, to me. Can the IP (or anybody) give an example of where Wikipedia is listing a feature on Pluto with a name this likely not to be accepted by IAU? The issue brought up by the IP is similar the larger problem that exists at Wikipedia, where information gets entered into articles, and it often stays there united and unverified, but readers often assuming that it is correct. This is why we are supposed to cite reliable sources. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial names of Pluto features 

message: Why false color image there??? The main image should show the REAL COLOR IMAGE like it did before. Resolution alone shouldn't whore the main image on a featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.11.157 (talk) 
:. The infobox image should be a true-color image, obviously. --JorisvS (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Appreciated! 62.57.11.157 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image vandalized 

message: The latest mean radius is 1186±2 km (based on the press conference). Should we not display the precision for the surface and volume? Darkdadaah (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a better estimate for the mean radius of Pluto at 1187±4 km from the new paper in Science  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/aad1815/T1.expansion.html From these new Surface Area, Volume  figures are derived.  The Density figure given 1860 ± 13 kg m^(-3) is consistent with  the Mass and Volume.Rudy235 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

text: @JorisvS Can you please edit reference 6   Mass was calculated fron actualized value of GM Pluto and constant  G=6.67259 x 10^-11 (general accepted value) I am at a loss of how to correct reference #6 (Mass)Rudy235 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface, volume precision 

message: The source lists 1,879 kg/m3, but without any uncertainty. Simply doing the math with the mass and the radius, gives a density of 1.867±0.020 g/cm3. The uncertainty is, as I expected, large enough to make giving that much precision meaningless. But, unexpectedly, the mean value is also different from the sourced value! Looking at the source, this is simply due to both rounding in the mass they use, as well as using a radius of 1185 km. First of all, listing that much precision is bullshit. Secondly, the radius in the infobox, 1186±2 km, is a value determined a bit later than the 1185 km, and hence can be expected to be more accurate, especially given that it includes error bars. Moreover, the mass listed is a more precise value. Therefore, a simple calculation yields a more accurate and consistent density value. --JorisvS (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for clearing that up! Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Newer studies  The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/aad1815/T1.expansion.html give a more acurate value of the density. I cross referenced it with the new mean Radius and new Mass (obtained from the stated value of GMpluto) and it is the same: 1,860kg/m3± 13  Rudy235 (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density 

message: New horizon has found new things on Pluto, and group of scientists in university of Maryland and Pluto experts yet have proven ice on the surface and the other expert has proven the unique rotation of its moon. Read the complete story on the link:  MansourJE (talk) 06.12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
:That seems to be worth taking a look. Huritisho 06:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different moon rotation and surface 

message: If this article is written in American English, it seems like it should also use mdy dates. Is there a good reason for why it has dmy dates? Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. I checked the source of the article and found this template , so the template was added not that long ago, even though of course the dmy dates have in the article for much longer. I suggest we change all the dates. I'll change them myself for now and if anyone disagrees, they can just revert me Perhaps I should wait to see what others think. If the article uses dmy, there might be a reason for it Huritisho 02:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: mdy would be correct given that is what the article used years ago. -- Kheider (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has to be either american on british english. It doesn't make sense to have a mix of both. Huritisho 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: A new 3D image of Pluto (see below) was released October 23, 2015 - should this image be added to the Pluto article (and/or some other article?) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Pluto in 3-D.jpg|3D Image of Pluto]] - Possible Add? 

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Nasa Horizon images 

message: I found a 8000x8000 near true color image of Pluto posted by HarbingerDawn in a Space Engine forum post. Here's the link to this post.
http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/22-758-10
76.103.8.112 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found a High-Res Near True Color Image of Pluto 

message: Despite of reading quite a lot sources about history of Pluto's discovery, I can't find anywhere that "The object was officially named on March 24, 1930". This was inserted in 2007 by an IP (without any sources), both sources, which now hang on this phrase, are inaccessible, and the given quote from the second of them does not confirm this statement. Actually the name "Pluto" was officially proposed by Lowell Observatory 1 May 1930, and the second given source (also cited here) say about some announcing on May 25, but not March 24. Moreover, it would be very strange if newspapers wrote about some event 2 months after it. So, it's very probable that the statement about March 24 is a vandalism or mistake. I want to ask users with access to old numbers of The Times and The New York Times to check this info. Stas (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea for now. If someone wants to pay to look up the online archives, that would be great. Serendipodous 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not mean "pay yourself, because I don't want". Maybe, somebody is a subscriber. Stas (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official naming 

message: I'm excited that there are now analytic theories of planetary motion that include Pluto, and there are online elements for the solutions of  TOP2013, the Theory of the Outer Planets by the Institut de mécanique céleste et de calcul des éphémérides (IMCCE) along with VSOP2013. the abstract is here.
The elements are in radians for angles and the numbers in general are in a less familiar format. So I made a spreadsheetwith elements and other figures derived from them, and in degrees and julian days and years, online. Saros136 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean Elements and TOP2013 

message: The Photo for Pluto is not accurate. This is a true colour image of the Dwarf Planet http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/pics/nh-pluto-in-true-color.jpg . The image currently there has its colours exxagerated so scientist would have a better view of the very subtle colour shifts of each area of the planet. Please change the imge
99.234.208.53 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Seems we're going to be whack-a-mole-ing that for the foreseeable future; for some reason, some people think hi-def is preferable to reality. Serendipodous 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015 

message: The article (and corresponding section in the main article) seems to have serious problems. Maybe, somebody would be interested in rewriting. Stas (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, be bold and go ahead with rewriting it. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atmosphere of Pluto]] 

message: Hi,  :File:Pluton, par la sonde spatiale New Horizons, le 14 juillet 2015.jpg is obviously much better. Could you explain why you reverted me? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at it. Those colors are not what it looks like. It may be of higher resolution, but it is misleading because Pluto does not look like that. Whenever available, the infobox image should be a true-color image. --JorisvS (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image is also a composite. Higher resolution beats blurry images any day. The details in the higher resolution image are photographic, only the color has been enhanced. Visitors want to see surface features. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, visitors want to see what Pluto looks like. That is not what Pluto looks like. Serendipodous 17:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The present image does not show what Pluto looks like either. So what is your point? Also, the background has been removed in that image.  ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  - earlier edit rv - *entirely* agree with User:JorisvS and User:Serendipodous - original image is better - and preferred - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a doctored, composite image. The surface structure and color come from different cameras. Please stop forcing this crap. 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The surface structure and color come from different cameras" This is true of every modern NASA image. It is also true for many iconic images of the Eagle Nebula, Pillars of Creation, etc, that are among the most interesting images on Wikipedia. Practically all modern photography involves some level of post-production color balancing, including all modern smartphone images. Don't be a luddite. Curedwales (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So, between two images that both do not show what Pluto looks like visually, why go for the one of lower quality? We are here to educate people, so the higher resolution image should be preferred. Anyone with interest in astronomy wants to see details. Even a grey-scale image would be better than the current one.  ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It does show what Pluto looks like, as faithfully as was possible with New Horizons' instruments. And people don't just want to see greyscale topographical details, but also colors. --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: People with only a superficial interest maybe. And btw, the high resolution image is not without color. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

text: People who look up Pluto do. In some countries the "general public" is somewhat more interested in details than in other counties. Want me to hint at stereotypes about some countries' general public? This is an international encyclopedia existing to educate people about details. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps both POVs re images can be accomodated to some extent - I've added your "favored image" to the "other versions" section of the "original image" description - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This article lists Pluto's Semi Major Axis as equal to 39.54 AU.  But the sum of the listed Perihelion + Aphelion divided by two is equal to 39.49.  Why is there a discrepency, or are the measurements really only known to three significant figures?Inkan1969 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers do seem inconsistent. The perihelion and aphelion should be a*(1 +/- e), so their average should be the same as a as you say. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mistake here. In the textbook ellipse, the semimajor axis is perihelion + aphelion divided by two. The actual orbits are not perfect ellipses. In fact the extreme distances always change. So do the mean elements. Saros136 (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Major Axis

message: NASA Briefings/livestream – Experts to discuss the latest Ceres, Mars, Pluto results (near Houston, TX; March 21 – 22, 2016) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup - studies re Pluto - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://livestream.com/viewnow/LPSC2016 NASA Briefings/livestream] (March 21 – 22, 2016) – [[Ceres (dwarf planet)|Ceres]], [[Mars]], [[Pluto]] Results. 

message: Why is the origin section not under the history section? --UnindentifiedHuman (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's only half historical, and the history isn't about Pluto; it's about the Kuiper belt. Serendipodous 07:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't origin be under history? 

message: As it wasn't 'yet' proven, however there have been changes today.
e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/planet-nine-scientists-find-more-evidence-that-hidden-planet-is-sitting-at-the-edge-of-our-solar-a6954986.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.237.212 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the same planet. It's called "Planet Nine". Serendipodous 15:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section titled 'planet x disproved' should be changed given current events 

message: Not sure how much should go in here and how much in Atmosphere of Pluto Serendipodous 12:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carload of new info on Pluto's atmosphere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.lowell.edu/~grundy/abstracts/preprints/2013.Pluto_SpeX.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
*http://www2.lowell.edu/~grundy/abstracts/preprints/2013.Pluto_SpeX.pdf [working, non-archival]
*https://web.archive.org/web/20151108210124/http://www2.lowell.edu/~grundy/abstracts/preprints/2013.Pluto_SpeX.pdf [working, archival]
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both links work. No need to mark URL as dead, yet. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the lead says: "After 1992, its status as a planet fell into question". Please correct this as follows: "After 1992, its status as a planet came into question". Alternatively, "was called into question".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.78 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . That sentence could indeed be improved, but there are other ways to improve it further. For one, there is the verb "to question". Also, it issn't a status issue per se, but a scientific question about what the nature of Pluto within the Solar System (i.e. planethood). --JorisvS (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: come into question 

message: I updated the "Quasi-satellite" section to indicate that the quasi-satellite hypothesis has now been disproven by New Horizons. Since the whole thing turns out to have been wrong, perhaps it should be removed altogether now.
StormWillLaugh (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the (15810) 1994 JR1 article, it is once again considered a quasi-satellite. I have no idea which assessment is correct, however. Kaldari (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasi-satellite disproven