Talk:Pluto/Archive 3

message: I'm not sure that archiving everything was necessary, but this talk page was far too large and new comments were being added all over the place.  If anyone feels some of the topics should have stayed here, feel free to haul them out of Archive 3.  --ajn (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Probably shouldn't be going with the dwarf planet status just yet as the controversy hasn't yet died down, despite what the IAU wants to think. For one, there is the definition that a planet has cleared it's stellar neighborhood of debris. If that is so, then there is not a single planet in this solar system as all still get struck by stellar debris on a regular basis. For another, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/sc_nm/space_pluto_dc
How was Pluto found?
Even though Pluto is one of the furthest planets away from the Earth it can still be seen. The first shot of it was taken by the Hubba Space Telescope. This telescope is one of the worlds biggest and best for looking into space.
The first shots of it were taken by its discoverer, and there are MANY objects at pluto orbit (some MUCH smaller than pluto, and other about pluto size which can be seen), just coz u can see it doesnt mean its a planet, else every asteroid we see would be a planet :P -- Nbound 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the IAU, "orbital clearing" means domination in an object's neighborhood. For example, Jupiter has thousands of asteroids that share its orbit (Trojan asteroids), but it is several orders of magnitude more massive than them. The asteroids don't much move Jupiter, but the Trojans and in fact the whole main asteroid belt feel the gravity of Jupiter. The wording was selected to make it more understandable to a layman, a poor choice in my opinion. However, I don't think the IAU will soon change its definition even if there's a "mutiny". However, if nobody adopts the definition, it becomes a dead letter. Only time will tell, and until that we should stick on the IAU definition, because it's the only official one.--JyriL talk 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen many comments on the Wiki to the effect that "no planet has cleared its orbit" and I find it silly in the extreme. Jyril makes the point that matters most in "clearing:" orders of magnitude. The asteroid belt in total is 1/1000 Earths. Ceres, by far the largest known asteroid, is around 1/6000th of Earth mass. Multiply Ceres by 2 million and you have Jupiter.  Saying that Jupiter hasn't cleared its orbit because of Trojans is like saying I'm not the only person in an empty room because of mosquitos buzzing around the window screen. I actually think, despite it being the most debatable point, that the IAU was spot-on in their wording. If Alan Stern wants a quixotic quest to denounce the definition, good for him. The definition will stick. And, in its small way, Wikipedia (or at least Wiki-like sources) will make it stick. It's a dwarf planet until the IAU says otherwise :). Marskell 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Touche. Ceres is the only one that comes close, and even it doesn't come close. Marskell 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Neptune is about 8000 times more massive than Pluto. But from an orbital clearing point of few, the largest object Neptune has failed to clear is 8000 times lighter than Neptune (apart from the fact that Pluto is in orbital resonance with Neptune anyways), while the largest object Pluto has failed to clear is 8000 times heavier than itself... --Stephan Schulz 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dwarf Planet Status

message: I am very much opposed to the definition debate becoming the intro, or at least the first part of it (the lead of the LEDE). It's not a good thing IMO that we can have a thousand edits in two weeks and no one sees fit to mention composition. After a couple of edits, the lead now details: orbital distance, a comparative to the Moon on mass, composition, orbital details, comparison to satellites. This is a sound way to introduce an astronomical body I hope.
After that, the designation debate is discussed. Of course, it should be here and be given due weight, but it shouldn't be the only thing matters. Pluto is going to be a fifth the mass of the moon regardless of how we classify it. Info of that sort should be the first info we introduce. Marskell 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: This is what this article says:
# 300 astronomers have signed a "petition" (not actually a petition, as it is not petitioning anyone to do anything).  The petition says that they disagree with the IAU decision, and will not use the new definition of "planet".  It doesn't say anything about Pluto.  Everyone has signed as an individual, not as a representative of any other organisation.
# The petition organisers are "hoping to" organise a conference next year to come up with another definition of "planet".  Not necessarily to reinclude Pluto, but to define the term by what they feel is a better method.  The article says that although the astronomers quoted want to expand the number of objects considered planets, others disagree with them (obviously, or there'd be no point in having a discussion).  
# The IAU (the official body) cannot change the decision until 2009 when it has its next general assembly.  The "petition" admits this.
How do we get from that to "parts of NASA" actively working to have the decision overturned?  Wishful thinking.  --ajn (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct Andrew. The IAU is the governing body here. It is internationally recognized by astronomers and nations as the official authority responsible for naming stars. Sure, 300 people think that the definition is wrong. The comment "equal to the number of IAU voters" is also wrong. The people who made the decision are the authorities. If 300 English professors get together and sign a petition saying that the letter 'y' should be considered a number, and not a letter, they would be wrong. Maybe it's notable, and should be included in wikipedia. (if the event gets significan't press coverage) But they are still wrong. In this case, the petition doesn't even mention Pluto in their petition. They don't even claim to object with the classification of pluto as a dwarf planet. What they do claim, is that the definition is not sufficient and that they won't use it. So, all such complaints should be logged in Definition of "planet", or 2006 redefinition of planet. Any further comments here are rightfully going to be removed. McKay 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. 300 people are objecting to the redefinition. 247 voted for the redefinition. Basic math does apply here. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also regarding the bit about NASA. Please peruse NASA's New Horizon's website. They repeatedly refer to Pluto as a planet and the ninth planet on the site. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA does not determine what is what.  -- Nbound 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No but they do have a say in what is what. As do more then the 247 members of a 9400 member organization. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Nasa Horizon page Pluto is not a planet according to NASA. Sure, there may be old pages that call pluto a planet, but old pages don't mean that that's what they belive. I've got some old documents that claim that I'm 16 years old. Just because I haven't burned them, or crossed out the number 16, and replaced it with the correct number, doesn't mean that I think I'm still 16. Also, let me explain to you how the IAU works, because it appears as if you don't understand. The IAU is the International Astronomers Union. Certain countries become members, as well as certain individuals. These countries are members via their national astronomical organization. [lettre=U For the United States, this is the] National http://www.nas.edu/ Academies]. They consist of  National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. When it is said that "The IAU also serves as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies and any surface features on them." That means that the United States as a government (and the UK, Japan, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada, China, France, Indonesia, Brazil and a plethora of others) call them the authority on this matter. 300 independent astronomers means nothing. 300 unified astronomers means nothing. When JohnnyBGood says "the 247 members of a 9400 member organization", that is a serious underrepresentation. Those 9400 members represent billions of people on the earth (just the countries I listed above represent over 3.3 billion people). Just like if your congressmen vote for (or against) something. It can become law, and because you live in a society that believes in representation. you should adhere to their decisions. Sure, "When in the course of human events..." you can protest if you feel necessary. But until those protests come through. You're going to have to deal with it. No, NASA does not have a say in what is what. They have relegated that privilage to the IAU. What does NASA DO? "In one sense, it's very simple: NASA explores. NASA discovers. NASA seeks to understand. To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for more than 45 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?" Not "What we will call what we find." NASA does not name and classify objects in space. McKay 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fightback begins... 

message: Yes, I acknowledge that there is controversy, and that it is notable, and that it should be mentioned in wikipedia, but I don't think it belongs here. Definition of Planet or 2006 redefinition of planet. Any real qualms if I move that content there? In any case, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and be extremely strict on the rules. McKay 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy moved?

message: I have added Category:IAU planet debate for what I hope is obvious reasons, but personally I consider Pluto's "demotion" to be based on pseudoscience which I hope is rectified very soon. The Fading Light 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:IAU planet debate

message: There seems to be a few edits removing the minor planet number of Pluto.  Can we agree to keep the number? Hopquick 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we tweak the opening we should keep it. Something like "Pluto, also known as (number) Pluto, blah blah....", would work fine. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 19:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the number to the infobox, to be consistent with Ceres. Hopefully this will help with the issue! --Ckatzchatspy 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, JohnnyBGood, on that last edit. Hopquick 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I figured it was for the best since both names are technically correct. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MINI edit/revert war

message: I reverted a redirect that was done to Article which redirected it for some odd reason to planet. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a head up 

message: I have painstakingly copied the IAU's resolution on the definition of a planet straight from their website, and each time it has quickly been replaced by the same, squishy, vague(r) "definition" as before.  I do not appreciate this, and would like whoever is doing it to stop.
I believe that a good compromise would be to have the IAU definition first (with citation, etc., of course), followed by something like "In other words...," followed by the squishy definition.  Agreed?Alphabetagamma 03:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not agreed. We can easily summarize the IAU definition without having a verbatim definition of "planet". Joelito (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it isn't necessary. All we need is the basic criteria. There should be a link to the place where the criteria is fully available, but it doesn't belong here. McKay 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessary for the talk page, removed. Ryūlóng 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Editing War

message: Why does 1 Ceres, have it's minor planet number in its title and Pluto does not?  Shouldn't the titling be consistent? Aren't they now equally dwarf planets? Hopquick 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got two open discussions above about this. Consensus thus far is to keep it here. Common names dictates the most used name should be where it is located. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent nomenclature 

message: "The New Horizons project, like a growing number of the public, and many hundreds if not thousands of professional research astronomers and planetary scientists, will not recognize the IAU's planet definition resolution of Aug. 24, 2006."70.177.71.206 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspectives/piPerspective_current.php.  There's no meat to it.  He says NH will keep referring to Pluto as the "ninth planet" but then argues again, as he did in 2000, for everything-round-is-a-planet, which would also not leave Pluto at number nine.  In 2000 he also argued for a different use of the word "dwarf," but he seems to have gotten over that one. 67.168.216.176 04:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Horizons 

message: #That's the proper name and all objects of this type should be titled as so. Zazaban 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Good catch Nebular and Art.  I was using 2306 on my own papers, I must have read it someplace in the later results on impact of Charon to the old estimates.  Anyway, I did some extra checking against data on NASA's planetary fact sheet for Pluto.  I still noticed some differences -- mainly in trying to resolve the density value.  (www.spds.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html)
#  Mass 1.305x10(power 22) does not match NASA's Pluto Fact Sheet (indicating 1.25 x 10(power 22), but maybe the Wikipedia Page has more up-to-date data?  The funny thing is that both NASA (with the different value) and Wikipedia, indicate their masses equal 0.0021 earth masses.  NASA = 0.00209 (.0021); Wikipedia = 0.00218 (which is really .0022).  Was there a typo somewhere?
#  Wikipedia's Volume of 7.15 x 10(power 9) matches NASA (which is, correct, 0.0066 earth volumes).  The surface area on the Wikipedia page (1.795 x 10(power 7) agrees with the mean radius of 1195 km.  The former radius listed (1153) resulted in an "off" surface area of 1.67 x 10(power 7).  So, I think the correction to the 1195 radius is in greater agreeement with the other data on the page.
#  Wikipedia's Density shows 2.03.  NASA's shows 1.75 (my calcs, using the NASA figures, come up with 1.748 -- which is close enough).  Using the Wikipedia Pluto values for radius, mass, and volume, however, result in a density of 1.825 (which is not close to the 2.03 value).
#  To get a 2.03 density, but in keeping the radius at 1195 km, we would have to up the mass to about 1.45 x 10(power 22) -- but Charon, Nix, and Hydra might object <grin>.
So maybe we need to update something?  Do we need to change the mass to 1.25?  Or, if the source data used for the Wikipeidoa Pluto page is more current than NASA's Pluto Plant Fact sheet pages, then one of the values (mass, volume, or density) is incorrect.  Tesseract501  8 March 2007
: I recommend changing the values to ones that can be verified to come from an authoritative source.  If someone wishes to provide more up to date data, it is their responsibility to indicate their source (and the fact that they did not is why we're in this mess). —RP88 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, checking around I find that JPL's physical data for Pluto disagrees with the NASA data (although JPL sources their facts to references dated 1992 and 1996 and we've learned more about the Pluto/Charon system since then). —RP88 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The mass vs. volume vs. density do not seem to add up.

message: Due to the number of vandals i'm wondering whether we should get this page protected from editing by non-wikipedians ?-- Nbound 10:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of reverts that are needed is certainly getting tiresome. I think protecting the page for a month or so, until most of the public fuzz around Pluto has disappeared, might be a good idea. Kris 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the page for consideration of protection, to a semi-protected level. (no anonyomous users, and no users less than 4 days old) -- Nbound 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it's protected, someone with access should make this change:  "The craft will benefit from a gravity assist from Jupiter" -> "The craft made use of a gravity assist from Jupiter" (Ask me about signing my posts!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.204.137 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —RP88 08:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection?

message: I can not reconcile three items on the Pluto page.
# Regarding the Obliquity of Pluto.  The Pluto page indicates 119.59º for Pluto's Obliquity.  Other technical sources (NASA and others) indicate values closer to 122.5º.  Why the difference?  Is there a way to have the latest best estimate on this page?  If not, will someone at least reference why the 119 value was chosen over the 122 value?
#In addition, I am having a difficult time in resolving the Axial Tilt values on the Physical Characteristics (bottom of table) against the Orbital Information section (top of the same table).  The Inclination, under the Orbital section, indicates 17.1417º (Pluto's orbital plane to the Earth's ecliptic (orbital plane).  Here are the confusing items:
:Other wikipedia pages (Earth page) indicate that the Earth's Ecliptic (orbital plane) is 7.25º inclined from the Sun's equator.
:The Pluto page indicates that Pluto's orbital plane (inclination) is 11.88º from the Sun's equator and 17.1417º from the Earth's ecliptic (orbital plane).
How does this add up?  If Pluto's orbit is 11.88 from the Sun's equator, and the Earth's is 7.25, That's a difference of 4.63º (not 17.1417º).  Am I just being obtuse as to how one goes about configuring the data?  How did the Pluto page come up with 17.1417 value?  Granted, it is probably correct -- several alternative source documents (NASA's fact sheets, etc.) indicate that Pluto's orbital plane is 17.16º to the Earth's ecliptic.  This is CLOSE (but not exactly) to the 17.1417 value on the Pluto page.  So - that leaves me with the following possible explanations:
:(A)  I am just not getting it?
:(B) The 11.88 "Pluto's-orbit- to-Sun's-equator value is incorrect, or
:(C) the 7.25 Earth's-ecliptic-to-Sun's-equator value (on the Earth page) is incorrect? 
# Along those same lines, I have a question about another Pluto item.  How does one reconcile the 122.78º value (Pluto's axis to the Earth's ecliptic plane)?  Taking the values referenced above, I can't seem to resolve that number.  Tesseract501 7 March 2007
::: Remember that these things happen in 3D, so simply adding or subtracting angles will not work. (Imagine two planes, all you know about each is that they are 45° to the horizontal. The angle between them many be anything between 0° and 90° according to how close the horizontal direction of their slopes are). If |Sun-Earth| is 7° and |Sun-Pluto| is 12°, then |Earth-Pluto| may be anything between 5° and 19°, roughly, limited only by the spherical triangle inequality: \sin(a/2)+\sin(b/2)\geq\sin(c/2). –Henning Makholm 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MH, but my question is about how the author came up with the inclination and obliquity values (which are 2D values, not 3D values).  It is not so much about angular mathematics, unless you can show me how a given formula comes up with the 112.78º value.  The info doesn't seem to match the astonomical data that I have from other sources (NASA, etc.).  Regarding the 3D issue, astronomers use the right ascension and declination of the "north" pole, the major axis, the arguement of periapsis, the longitude of ascending node, the mean anomaly, etc., to define the orbit in 3D.  My understanding is that Inclination and Obliquity values, in and of themselves, are 2D.  If you know how to arrive at the value of 112.78º value, and can detail this, it would be super-duper.  Thanks. Tesseract501 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclination and Obliquity 

message: Can Pluto be declared a planet by a memorial of the state of New Mexico? What does this mean? Should it be mentioned in the article? --128.176.236.34 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: State legislatures in the US have in the past declared all sorts of odd things regarding the sciences, but they hold no weight in the scientific community whatsoever. At most it might warrant a line in the "Impact of the IAU decision" section, IMO. Bryan Derksen 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that it is a memorial, not a resolution.  Unlike a resolution, a memorial just expresses an opinion, or urges a certain action, and as such does not have the effect of law. —RP88 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto Planet Day 

message: Hi there, I am reviewing Pluto for Good article status. It may take 24-48 hours, depending.
I was wondering, is the previous GA review available, I would like to read it over before I dive in. Please respond promptly. Thanks. IvoShandor 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assuming this is it. It was failed after being on hold? Is that correct? IvoShandor 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone want to answer, or should I just fail it. It's not a hard question, I just want to know if what I found is what I am looking for. Message left on nominator's talk page as well. IvoShandor 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on the article history, yes. That's the one. --Bobblehead 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, review will be posted by tomorrow. : )IvoShandor 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you are right. There is no exception from the general policy stated on the citations page for the report. Giving the source is something completely independent. It's possible that ESA has messed up, but as far as we can tell, this image is usable. However, given that the image is simple, but not very good, we can just ask someone at Wikipedia:Requested pictures to redraw something like this. --Stephan Schulz 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I have just made this request... --Stephan Schulz 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this image on the NASA site. The only thing possibly questionable about it is that it is courtesy of the Lunar and Planetary Institute which is funded by NASA. That generally means the product is owned by the government as well. --Bobblehead 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just made an SVG replacement for the image.  It's at :Image:Pluto-cutaway.svg.  I'm no graphic artist, so let me know what you think. —RP88 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I like it. Is that a standard texture on the surface or where did you get it? --Stephan Schulz 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the praise.  I constructed the texture by using a small piece of this PD NASA image on Commons and then modified it to better approximate Pluto using information from the PD NASA image of Pluto in true color and Pluto's known albedo and color index.  —RP88 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smart! One day I have to learn how to do this. If that wasn't clear by now, I fully agree with IvoShandor. The new image is a lot better (and more certainly free) than the old one. Thanks again! --Stephan Schulz 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Go with any new image. That text above does imply that there may be copyrighted material on the ESA website, it came from their webpage so I am not sure how you interpret that as "there is no exception." If they don't own the copyright, they can't freely license it. Either way, it is irrelevant as it seems you have come up with a better solution. IvoShandor 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interprete "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated." as a blanket permission with exceptions that will be explicitely stated. I found no such statement for the image in question. Anyways, the point is moot, as thanks to RP88, we now have a much superior image. --Stephan Schulz 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and might I say the new image is far superior to the old one. I will probably just go from on hold to the review, shouldn't take too horribly long as I know you have waited quite awhile on this nomintation. At a glance the article looks good, of course I will know more as I delve in depth. Thanks for addressing this query quickly. IvoShandor 12:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article review

message: I am having a problem with this image. (:Image:Pluto structure ESO.gif) I read the ESO copyright page referenced on this Image file's page, and it notes that there are exceptions to the copyright policy. The text of the ESO Copyright page reads: "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use".
Which per the citations on the report that this image was taken from, would disqualify this image for no copyright, as the images credits are to sources which appear to be copyrighted. Though I am not sure who "Kristina" is. This will have to be resolved before the GA nomination can go ahead I am placing the nomination on hold, which I rarely do, but I feel the problem can be addressed quickly, if it isn't the article will, of course, have to be failed.
IvoShandor 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are right. There is no exception from the general policy stated on the citations page for the report. Giving the source is something completely independent. It's possible that ESA has messed up, but as far as we can tell, this image is usable. However, given that the image is simple, but not very good, we can just ask someone at Wikipedia:Requested pictures to redraw something like this. --Stephan Schulz 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I have just made this request... --Stephan Schulz 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this image on the NASA site. The only thing possibly questionable about it is that it is courtesy of the Lunar and Planetary Institute which is funded by NASA. That generally means the product is owned by the government as well. --Bobblehead 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just made an SVG replacement for the image.  It's at :Image:Pluto-cutaway.svg.  I'm no graphic artist, so let me know what you think. —RP88 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I like it. Is that a standard texture on the surface or where did you get it? --Stephan Schulz 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the praise.  I constructed the texture by using a small piece of this PD NASA image on Commons and then modified it to better approximate Pluto using information from the PD NASA image of Pluto in true color and Pluto's known albedo and color index.  —RP88 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smart! One day I have to learn how to do this. If that wasn't clear by now, I fully agree with IvoShandor. The new image is a lot better (and more certainly free) than the old one. Thanks again! --Stephan Schulz 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Go with any new image. That text above does imply that there may be copyrighted material on the ESA website, it came from their webpage so I am not sure how you interpret that as "there is no exception." If they don't own the copyright, they can't freely license it. Either way, it is irrelevant as it seems you have come up with a better solution. IvoShandor 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interprete "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated." as a blanket permission with exceptions that will be explicitely stated. I found no such statement for the image in question. Anyways, the point is moot, as thanks to RP88, we now have a much superior image. --Stephan Schulz 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and might I say the new image is far superior to the old one. I will probably just go from on hold to the review, shouldn't take too horribly long as I know you have waited quite awhile on this nomintation. At a glance the article looks good, of course I will know more as I delve in depth. Thanks for addressing this query quickly. IvoShandor 12:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problems

message: Something14 tried changing the first sentence to
: Pluto (IPA: ...), also designated (134340) Pluto (See Minor planet names) ....
but Ckatz promptly reverted to
: Pluto (IPA: ...), also designated (134340) Pluto or 134340 Pluto (See Minor planet names) ...
citing consistency with other dwarf planet articles. When choosing between equally good alternatives, consistency is a good guideline, but I don't see that this is the case here. We're obviously not talking about two different designations, merely about two typographical variants of one and the same designation. Giving the form both with and without parentheses appears to be needless redundancy - everybody who has any use for the catalogue number will know that it can be written either with or without the parentheses. Why not improve readability and preserve consistency by eliminating the redundancy from all three dwarf planet articles instead? –Henning Makholm 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I've no preference either way, and will go with whatever the group wants. The previous change was reverted simply because a) it was only changed here, not across the board; b) there was no comment or explanation as to why; and c) the editor who made the change has a long history with regards to edits on Pluto-related articles. --Ckatzchatspy 09:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'll just change it across the board then. The asteroid articles I've sampled use the parenthesis-less form exclusively, so that will be the one I keep. –Henning Makholm 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the MPC number be doubled in the lead sentence? 

message: This article was moved to (134340) Pluto earlier today, with a note of "To keep the title similar to the other minor planets)". I've reverted it; please discuss such a move before doing it. The page name has been highly contentious in the past, and I don't see any recent consensus to change... Shimgray | talk | 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, consensus was to keep Pluto as is, and move the other dwarf planets to Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet).  I think that there would be a lot of resistance to opening up the debate. Bluap 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct - and what fun that discussion was! By the way, your removal of the "disputed" tag was entirely appropriate - the editor who posted it also called for the deletion of Special relativity on the basis that "nearly all of the content, including the title, may be purely unverified". --Ckatzchatspy 23:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I've just added six citations but this article needs about 30 more. What sources are the regular contributors using for the info? Serendipodous 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm...I count 50 references, and another 20  or so entries in "Further reading" and external references. How much do you want? --Stephan Schulz 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything from "Symbol" to the second paragraph of "Atmosphere" is completely unreferenced, as is everything from "Orbit" to the second to last para of "Trans Neptunian object", and most of "Planetary status controversy". Serendipodous 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Inline cites are neither necessary or always required, IMHO. They should be used to cite any possible information that is "likely to be challenged," (which Pluto's orbital characteristics and symbol are not), as well as anything controversial, (which the name status thing is), although saying "most" of that section is unreferenced is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, just an interested party here, I think I may have made two edits (for grammar) to this article in the past, so neutral opinion weighing in. IvoShandor 13:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgot to add, for non-controversial or material not likely to be challenged, a references list will suffice. There is no policy that states anywhere on Wikipedia that inline citations are required anyway. IvoShandor 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless it does appear to be an issue; the only reason this article failed a GA review was because of inadequate citation.Serendipodous 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently is under GA review, and the reviewer is the very IvoShandor you just replied to. It was put on hold due to copyright concerns about an image that has now been replaced. Also, the October 2006 GA review failed for lack of stability, lack of references (29 back then) was only mentioned as a reason to put it on hold, not for the final failure.--Stephan Schulz 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. So it's getting its GA stamp? That's good. Serendipodous 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's knock on wood. It's not through yet ;-). --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article appears to have next to no citations

message: I don't know which threads on this page are still active, but I'm pretty sure at least some of them can be archived now. 
OK; I've just archived all threads which have been inactive since Jan 31. I hope no one thinks me too forward for doing so.
Serendipodous 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me...--Stephan Schulz 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ehheh. Slight hiccup. While I was archiving, Wikipedia had one of its momentary tantrums and crashed. I think I managed to recover all the lost material but I'm not 150 percent sure. Serendipodous 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving?

message: I think the whole public interest in the "is it a planet" matter has long died. Can this be opened back up?
JaMiE P 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this still need to be Semi-Protected?

message: It looks like the original reviewer has abandoned this article.  I have extended the hold, and am taking over the review since they never put a hold notice on WP:GAC.  Based on criteria at WP:WIAGA, the article is fairly well written, broad, NPOV, and uses images appropriately.  It would seem that the referencing of the article needs improvement, specifically in areas where numbers or data are quoted, or other assertions of fact are made.  Some examples of where this needs fixing:
*Section titled Symbol is entirely unreferenced.
*Section titled Physical characteristics makes the following unreferenced subsections:
**Appearance
**Mass and size
**Orbit
*Subsection of Moons titled Charon is unreferenced.
*Commemoration as a planet section is unreferenced.
*New discoveries ignite debate is unreferenced.
*There are other parts that may be unreferenced.  Check over these to see that I haven't missed any.
Also, the format of references is inconsistant.  Some refs are simply URL links.  Minimum bibliographical information is missing from some references.  Ideally, each reference should contain:
*Author's name (if availible)
*Title of article
*Title of larger work (if applicable)
*Publication information
*Date of access for websites.
If you would like, you may use templates found at WP:CITET to organize your reference information.  It isn't required, but I have found them helpful.  More information on citing sources can be found at WP:ATT and WP:CITE
As a whole, given the level of activity this article recieves, I am certain these fixes can be made in the next week.  A hold will stay for 7 days.  If the required changes are not made within 7 days, I will have to fail the nomination.  If you have any questions, or would like me to review the article once the changes have been made, see me on my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, I did put it on hold, I just removed it when my original concerns were met with the note that I didn't have time to finish the review in as detailed a fashion as I wanted to. Sorry for any confusion. IvoShandor 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Hold Review (2nd time)

message: The article gives no indication of why Ketakar's prediction of another planet is significant.  In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were dozens of people predicting planets beyong Neptune.  Without having read his original article, I don't see any possibility that Ketakar's predictions were more well-founded than any others, since Pluto's mass is far too small to significantly perturb the other planets.  The work of Lowell and Pickering is notable for several reasons: first, their predictions were quite influential, and helped lead to the actual discovery of Pluto, even if the apparent accuracy of their predictions was fortuitous; and second, their calculations were generally correct, but they were working at the edge of significance.  They were doing valid science even if the conclusions were not correct.  As for Ketakar, it seems that he is being promoted mainly for nationalist reasons.  It's possible that his work was of similar validity to that of Pickering and Lowell (and also quite possible that it wasn't - it would take expert review of his article to find out!), but it doesn't appear to have been similarly influential.  I don't see the notability.  --Reuben 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but the one thing I've learned in a year of editing astronomical articles on Wikipedia is that if you revert the work of the Indian nationalists, they'll just put it back in again. And when you make your case on the discussion board, they'll accuse you of Western imperialism.Serendipodous 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screw it. Bring 'em on. If Indian nationalists feel that it bolsters thier nation's image to claim that one of their own was the first to provide a vaguely correct location for a non-existent planet, let them make their case. Serendipodous 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of Ketakar

message: Really needs to have a section to itself, don't you think? Pluto is a Kuiper belt object; indeed it is technically the largest Kuiper belt object. That aspect of its identity should be explained.
EDIT: added Kuiper belt section. Serendipodous 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article only mentions the Kuiper belt once

message: This Voyager image shows the atmosphere of Triton in profile. I was wondering if anyone thought it would be a good idea to include it as describing the probable appearance of Pluto's atmosphere. 
Serendipodous 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a published scientific work claiming that the atmosphere of Pluto is likely to be similar to Triton, then there may be merits in including it. Otherwise, it's probably complete speculation on our part, and therefore shouldn't be included. Richard B 11:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Triton image

message: I really believe that since Puto is so small that it has been considered a dwarf planet for so long that you should say that it is like you do with the dwarf planet Eris.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.169.12.140 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no subject 

message: The image of Pluto's interior doesn't appear to refer to any section of the article. The composition section only refers to the surface. EDIT: Expanded section. Serendipodous 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition

message: This article has been on hold for over a week.  Significant improvements HAVE been made, and it looks really close.  I still count about a half-dozen  tags that need to be resolved, but once that is done, the article should be GA ready.  Please feel free to renominate when all fixes have been made.  Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, guys, that wasn't me. But the person who posted it had a problem with his/her signature, which caused all the sections below to bunch up into one massive block. I moved it down here to stop it causing problems. Serendipodous 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the damage.  I repaired it and returned my sig.  Again if you have any questions, please see me at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is very well written and well referenced. The above issues have been addressed, and I am happy to promote this to GA status. Dr. Cash 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed: Explanation

message: To everyone who helped getting this article featured. Serendipodous 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: ive only ever seen this horribly pixelated picture of pluto, there must be a better one. Plokt
:If you can find one, post it here for discussion. Start by looking through Google images. Be sure it's free-to-use first though. Serendipodous 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what you see up there is the best we know of the real surface of Pluto. Any clearer looking pictures you might find will be artists' renditions. The fact we've been able to get that much detail about Pluto's surface from Earth is incredible! --Patteroast 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blurring the image to make it look more real, whatever it is, is quite difficult to do, too. Tried for a while and couldn't get totally rid of the pixelated colors. The result's here: :Image:Plutoblurred.png Dreg743 05:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know if authentic pictures must be placed prior artistic conceptions in the article´s main image of the infobox, if there is no problem, maybe we can modiffy this one: EightTNOs.png (this image visible in the article section: Planetary status controversy) .........ÏíìÏ 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the rule is that artistic conceptions constitute original research, and so should only be used if an actual image is unavailable. Serendipodous 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: This artical is biased against thoses who are on Pluto's side.  There is no section on the controversy that has been created by the removing of planetary status on Pluto.  71.112.114.161 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the section called "Planetary status controversy" Serendipodous 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I just saw that and was about to delete my comment.  71.112.114.161 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: Should pluto be considered binary dwarf planet becuase pluto and its moon charon orbit each other?  P.S. is it possible to change a page title (I recently created a page and made a typo in the title)oops!
:As for the first one: Possibly, but we we need a reliable source for such a statement. For the second: Sure, use the "move" button. Please do not move established pages without previous consensus, though. --Stephan Schulz 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly the place to argue definitions.  Note that the above isn't why Pluto isn't considered a planet: binarity doesn't have anything to do with that. Michaelbusch 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary dwarf planet? 

message: If pluto is considered a binary planet then should it be considered larger than eris, because pluto plus charon is larger than eris???--Cbennett0811 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sum of the diameters may be larger, but the total mass is still smaller.  Pluto=1.3×1022kg, Charon=1.5×1021kg, Eris=1.6×1022kg.  --Reuben 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your reasoning but uranus(8.6832×1025kg) has less mass than neptune(10.243×1025kg) and uranus is considered larger--Cbennett0811 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eris is one body, Pluto and Charon are two bodies. "Binary planet" (or "binary dwarf planet", as I'd presume it would be) speaks to the relative mass of the *two* objects. They aren't considered to be one object. --Ckatzchatspy 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Uranus is larger in one sense, it's true.  But if you stuck Pluto and Charon together to make a contact binary, it would only be larger than Eris in one direction, and smaller in the other two - and it would have a lot of empty space in the middle.  So adding diameters doesn't seem like a very "fair" comparison to me.  I think the two most meaningful standards are mass and volume.  Going back to Uranus vs. Neptune, Neptune is more massive, but Uranus has the larger volume.  Given current best measurements, Eris is larger than the sum of Pluto and Charon in both mass and volume.  If Eris were denser, so that it had more mass but a smaller volume, then you could say that Pluto-Charon is (in a sense) larger. --Reuben 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto larger than [[Eris]]? 

message: I have been a member for 9 days and it still wont let me edit semi-protected pages what can I do about this?--Cbennett0811 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you email Wikipedia Adminstratiors, and tell them Rubyandme 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why cant I edit this page 

message: didnt they come out with a definite definition of a planet and pluto did not make the cut, i am just wondering?   Timmsterr 
: Yes. Read the article, in particular the "Planetary status controversy" section. –Henning Makholm 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, personally, they came out with that, so they had an excuse, to kick Pluto out, so the media didn't swamp them, for kicking Pluto out for now reason, which is wrong.
Rubyandme 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a planet 

message: Obviously, for now at least, the IAU has designated Pluto to be a Dwarf Planet.  But if you made it come closer to the sun, wouldn't it grow a tail?  So doesn't that make it a large comet?  Plus, some people think it should be called a "planette".  I know we as Wikipedians can't do much, but shouldn't someone clear up the definitions of all these objects.  I like things to be orderly.  Of course
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet." 
 
I think as long as we make it or duty to learn more about Pluto and the rest of the universe, classifying it becomes more of an important hobby than a nessecity.  Debatable... 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Pluto is a large comet. If the Kuiper belt had been called the Comet belt, as it should have been, it's very likely we'd be calling Pluto a comet today. But it's not, and we're not, so that's that. Pluto's cometary status is discussed in the "Kuiper belt" section. Serendipodous 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it should be called the "comet belt"—I rather like when things are named after people.  And if it was the "comet belt" you'd have the Oort cloud, which by the same argument should probably be called the "comet cloud".  And then we'd have confusion.  Lexicon (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwarf, Comet, or Planette? 

message: I reworded the passage about Nix and Hydra in the introduction. I changed the wording describing them as moons, to one describing them as satellites. The passage now reads- Pluto has two known smaller satellites, Nix and Hydra, discovered in 2005. I figure that with all the controversy over semantics we would be better off with a more all-encompassing word like "satellite".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moon is better. Satellite can mean many things other than natural satellite. If you're going to make the change, use "natural satellites". However I don't see the need, as it's standard wikipedia practice to refer to natural satellites as moons. Serendipodous 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to second Serendipodous' point, notice that the satellites of both Sylvia and Ida are both called moons. (These are the only two asteroid articles I looked at — presumably most, if not all, of them follow this convention.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is another mention of Eris in that para, and it is already linked.Serendipodous 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nix and Hydra, Moons or sattelites? 

message: In the introduction I read:
Pluto (IPA: /ˈplu.toʊ/), also designated 134340 Pluto, is the smallest planet in the Solar System
This sentence is incorrect because Pluto is not a planet, it is a dwarf planet and even of those not the smallest one. Please correct this mistake. 131.220.136.195 09:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't so much as error as a few disfgruntled users making a last stand against reality. Science may yet go their way, but not until 2009. Serendipodous 09:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: It's showing up on its own page, but not here. Serendipodous 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subbed a new image. Serendipodous 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the Pluto image?

message: It has been a year now since Pluto has not been classified as a planet. Voortle 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 8/24 - NEVAR FORGET! SonnyCorleone 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A year since Pluto has not been classified as a planet

message: At :Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pluto.jpg. It appears that the creator of this image, Eliot Young, only allows non-commercial educational use. Since the creation of this image is based on a method described in , I wonder if there's any possibility for creating a free alternative, or if there's basis for a fair use claim on the image. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Pluto image up for deletion 

message: David Cuikshank and Dale Cruikshank; is it possible that these are the same person?
91.125.37.35 10:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking they are and David doesn't really exist. Dr Dale P Cruikshank is a well published scientist working for NASA.  --LiamE 11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence? 

message: Mean 15 and maximum 13... is that an error or is there something I don't understand? -- 213.6.12.149 14:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The astronomical magnitude scale uses smaller numbers for brighter objects, so what is meant here must be that Pluto has magnitude 13 at its brightest. I'll try to revise the wording to be less confusing. –Henning Makholm 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent magnitude 

message: Please, the Roman counterpart to Hades is not Pluto (which is another Greek name for Hades), it is Dis. I would hope a featured article would be better about this sort of thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.148.27 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto (mythology) makes plain that "Pluto" was a Roman name for Hades, even if it wasn't necessarily the Roman name for Hades, so I reworked the line to reflect that. Serendipodous 10:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming