Talk:Pluto/Archive 4

message: Yet ANOTHER article about outrage against this decision. I'm tellin' ya, Plutos not over yet!
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7880067 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .
:Ok, we get the point, people want Pluto to be a planet. However surely we should be dealing with the facts as they currently stand, not what we want them to be, nor what we hope the outcome of some future meeting to reanalyse the decision will be. And as they stand, the official resolution from the IAU is that Pluto is a dwarf planet, and now it has a minor planet number. This does not prevent us from saying that there are a substantial number of people who oppose the decision for various reason and the controversy is still ongoing, but it is not our place here to protest the Pluto demotion. Chaos syndrome 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already covered here... and i can see it become non NPOV real quick -- Nbound 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto fights back!! 

message: I don't want to sound demanding (and I'm sorry if I do), but for a planet that was discovered in the 1930s, I would assume enough time has passed for it to make appearances in many books/novels/scientific theory packages. While there are a number of print-based references, the dependence on web-based sources is relatively heavy. Are there more books or perhaps DVDs that could be accessed and used as notes? Never Mystic (tc) 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about referencing

message: Newton, elaborating on Kepler's Laws, said that a PLANET occupied an orbit whose period squared is equal to its distance from the sun in astronomical units cubed.  Mass or size (except as the planet's reaction to the gravity of the sun) has no input in this equation. Let us see if Pluto is true to this equation.  Pluto's farthest distance from the sun is 49.3 AU and its closest is 29.3AU.  the average of these two numbers is 39.5AU. 39.5 cubed is 61,630.  Pluto's orbital period is 248.5 years.  248.5 squared is 61,772 (a difference of less than a quarter of a percent).  Let us see if Xena is a PLANET. Xena's closest approach: 38AU, farthest:  97AU, average: 67.5AU, cubed:  307,547.  Orbital period "about 560 years".  560 squared is 313,600, a difference of 1.9 percent.  I predict its period will be downsized to 554.5 years, but nonetheless Xena is a PLANET, according to Kepler and Newton.Azblueeyes 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And not wanting to be pissy, but Newton probably was aware of the fact that p^2 is proportional to r^3, (where p is the orbital period and r is the radius (or semi-major axis for elliptical orbits)) and that thus this relationship holds for essentially all bodies on a reasonably circular orbit...--Stephan Schulz 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Kepler's Law and Newton's Law of Gravitation applies to ANY object orbitting ANY object.  By your argument, every piece of rock that happens to orbit the Sun would be a planet!  The law also holds for moons and artificial sattelites, and even binary stars.  It's a general principle of gravity, not a special principle of "planets"! Nik42 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pluto, kepler, and newton 

message: One great strength of Wikipedia is the speed with which it gets updated. New information in a field - odds are you'll see it here before a lot of the mainstream sites. One great weakness of Wikipedia is the speed with which it gets updated. New information - well, you've read the preceding line. However, what can happen is that - in the rush to update - we lose sight of context and clarity.
Now, I'm not talking about "holding off on listing Pluto as a dwarf 'cos those darned IAU losers are gonna get it" (or any of the myriad variations on that theme that have emerged). What I mean is that we shouldn't be in such a hurry to move this page that we fail to look at the bigger picture, which should really involve developing a coherent strategy for handling the current and future dwarf planets.
There's a lot to consider: changing classifications, entries in multiple catalogues, conflicts with existing mythology articles. These are not issues we should pretend to be able to resolve with numerous "quickie polls" scattered across the various astronomy articles. It might take days, or weeks, and it shouldn't be rushed. Also, it would probably help if the discussions were coordinated in one place. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, keep in mind that if the article gets moved, it's unrealistic to expect that the astronomy crowd will get to hang on to Pluto the page as a redirect. Instead, it'll end up as a disambiguation page, much like Mercury. --Ckatzchatspy 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: see discussion on dwarf planet names on Talk:dwarf planet--TheFEARgod (listening) 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to think about 

message: What's the point of saying that Pluto would develop a comet tail if placed near the sun?  The Earth would develop a comet tail if placed near the sun, too.  All that that means is that there is volatile material on the surface which can escape the object's gravity if heated enough. Ken Arromdee 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the source, which is more specific in saying the distance of the Earth, not just "near the sun".  But it's still nonsense.  There are four non-gas-giants in the solar system that it makes sense to compare Pluto to.  Three are the distance of the Earth or closer already so any material that could become a comet tail at the Earth's distance would have been used up already.  So all this really is is a comparison of Pluto to Mars!  (And even Mars once had gasses that escaped to space, and is still losing some water by the solar wind.) Ken Arromdee 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comet tail 

message: There is now no consistency in the naming of the "dwarf planets".  See Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming for the details.  Let's just say that a policy is needed to naming these objects, and we all need to decide on that policy as a group instead of each page's editors doing their own thing. --EMS | Talk 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest anyone interested make their way to the page cited in the above comment. It appears the main discussion for Pluto and the other minor planets has made its way over there for now. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming discussion 

message: I heard somewhere that you could find all the letters of 'PLUTO' in the P-L monogram, and you can, only it's not mentioned here.~Sushi 06:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of that; and please remember, this page is about discussing changes to the article. Not random factoids. Ryūlóng 07:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbol

message: I've just archived both page move discussions, because they are still attracting comments despite clearly being closed.  --ajn (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves (again)

message: why does the IAU get to change plutos classification?? i dont think the IAU was around when pluto was first discovered. also the IAU cant just change the guidelines for planetism just like that. i think pluto should be a planet, and so should eris and ceres as well for that matter.
i think me and all pluto supporters should gather round the IAU HQ with flaming torches until they reclassify pluto.
Dogs suck. Cats rule. 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone along the way decided they get to decide. But if you want to go on calling it a planet you won't be alone, so more power to you. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the IAU was founded in 1919 so they were around when Pluto was discovered in 1930 and played a large role in the naming of it at that point. --Nebular110 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pluto is a planet 

message: Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:
"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."
"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet." --Ckatzchatspy 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About time giving legitimacy: Earth has been considered flat for way longer than round. Should we say it is flat for that matter?221.249.13.22 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one that didn't understand what the comment above me said at ALL? On a more on-topic note, I think this gives good concrete basis for NOT using the MPC numbers in the article names. If Ceres is no longer an asteroid, we can reasonably say the same for Pluto and Eris. E946 07:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What basis is that to remove MPC numbers... they all still have them, they are all still catalogued minor planets. -- Nbound 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Floyd Landis is still categorized as the winner of the Tour de France... doesn't mean it's true. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU 

message: The number is NOT Pluto's official designation, it is simply "Pluto". I think it needs to be worded better. The IAU approved the name "Pluto" on May 1, 1930, that is the OFFICIAL name, with the number as a MPC only designation for catologues. Astronomers will still call it Pluto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) .
:It's been cataloged as 134340 Pluto. That's an official designation, whether you feel that way or not. Ryūlóng 23:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "An" official designation and "the" official designation are not the same thing... Shimgray | talk | 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pluto is still an unofficial designation (a shortened version). In academic papers etc, it still has to be referred to by its official designation, 134340 Pluto. Therefore, as far as the IAU is (and encyclopedias should be) concerned, the name of the object is 134340 Pluto. In my view the page should be renamed as such and a redirect from Pluto made. --Jrothwell (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you source your claim that the MPC number is mandatory in academic papers? To draw an example from another area of astronomy, it appears to be not uncommon in abstracts of academic papers to refer to the Small Magellanic Cloud solely by that name, rather than by a catalogue number such as NGC 292. Henning Makholm 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, better worded, it should be referred to as 134340 Pluto. --Jrothwell (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source "should", then? Henning Makholm 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not liking the "official designation" wording 

message: This KBO is called 134340 Pluto. Not "Pluto" or whatever you call it. Zazaban 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, y'all. Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) please and see why Pluto is not at 134340 Pluto, why Eris (dwarf planet) is no longer at 136199 Eris, and why 1 Ceres is still at 1 Ceres. Ryūlóng 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out Wikipedia: Naming conflict to see why the official takes precedence, when theres a conflict between two (or more) possible names -- Nbound 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's only been a month. I'm sure that there are various scientific periodicals that are publishing information relating to Pluto, and they are not using the MPN within the text. There's no pressing need for any sort of naming convention now, especially with any sort of consensus within the Wikipedia community. Ryūlóng 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name is wrong. 

message: Haven't we had enough consensus building talk and straw polls on this already? The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep it here. End of story. We can revisit this in a few months or when the IAU gets off their collective asses and actually finishes a definition and designation program for the 3 or more dwarf planets. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this still being discussed?

message: Please see Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming#A_New_Proposal to take part. The Enlightened 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, and the way the vote over there is currently going, 5 people are supporting an option that will give the denizens of Pluto the option to rename to Pluto (dwarf planet), 4 people are supporting an option that will force renaming Pluto to 134340 Pluto, 2 people support an option to just leave things alone for 6 months, and one person supports an option that will will give the denizens of Pluto the option to rename to Pluto (astronomy). Nfitz 03:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think that "force" is an appropriate term.  First the participants in that discussion must agree on a scheme, and then the editors here have to ratify it.  I find it likely (but sad) that this page may go for some time as just plain "Pluto" until is has become a lone outlier which looks silly due to its not comforming to the standard (whatever that may end up being).  --EMS | Talk 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well 6 of the regular planets (at least) still have the same nomenclature as Pluto.  So I wouldn't worry about it being a outlier yet - besides, what is wrong with outliers? Nfitz 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New poll on naming dispute 

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Fail (citations missing)
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass (1 tiny problen)
Additional comments :
* China started official use the name in 1933, doesn't make sense.
* There are needed citation ... if it can't be found, the text can be put on the talk page.
* The line Many details about Pluto remain unknown, mainly due to the fact that it has not been visited up close by spacecraft and that Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigations difficult. would probably require a citation to show that it isn't original research.
:*A citation for this? Do we need to cite the obvious? Joelito (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **It is not obvious that Pluto hasn't been visited by a spacecraft.  And, while Pluto is obviously far away, it is not obvious that its distance makes investigations difficult, since that judgment would require a working knowledge of the state of the art in astronomy.  Both of these statements, if they remain in the article, require citations.  --Doradus 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? Joelito (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a time expression. Michaelas10 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. To clarify: Wikipedia is not a 'current news' reporting source. Pretend you're picking up printouts of Wikipedia 70 years from now and using it for a school assignment. Will the word 'recently' mean anything later? No. Thus, it is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Dsf 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It fails article stability - more than 250 edits in the past 2 weeks, a nomination to rename the article and a nomination for WP:AID each individually could fail this WP:GA nomination, but together definitely make for an unstable article. Renominate in a month or two after these issues are resolved. Davodd 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has 29 citations. GA is not FA or even A class. Why is this not properly cited for a GA article? Joelito (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: A few minutes ago, SeigeTank2000 added an "update" tag to the page, without leaving any indication as to "why". As such, I have removed the tag, as I'm not seeing any indication of "breaking news" about the affable ex-planet, and it's fair to say that this article is constantly updated. --Ckatzchatspy 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but welcome to two months ago. All of that happened on 2006-08-24 and it is now 7 October 2006. Ryūlóng 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "update" tag 

message: This reference looks out of date to me. I could justify it if it was a current event article and tagged as such, but I think it's been sufficiently long to not consider it such.
:Henderson, Mark (Oct. 30, 2005). "Pluto may lose status of planet". New Straits Times, p. F17.
What you guys think? Thadius856 07:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was used in making part of the article in the past, it should stay until such is completely replaced. It might otherwise be dishonest. If it's a see also, remove it.  Adam Cuerden talk 07:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-Date Reference 

message: Following the discussion and supermajority/consensus established on Talk: Dwarf planet/Naming there is a proposed move for 1 Ceres to be moved to Ceres (dwarf planet) on the Talk: 1 Ceres page. Those Pluto editors who wish for a policy one way or another on the overall naming scheme for dwarf planets should participate there. Thanks. The Enlightened 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realise, though, that a vote to keep Ceres where it is shouldnt affect Pluto much. Indeed, as I read [], (a proposed guideline) Pluto should stay here. Adam Cuerden talk 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Ceres move

message: The page move poll for Pluto seems to have died a quiet death at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming, so I removed the header from this talk page. Maybe someone wants to try proposing it again, knock yourself out. --Yath 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move poll died 

message: There is a slight contradition between different pages on wikipedia here.  Clearing the neighbourhood says that Stern calls the planets that dominate their area überplanets where as this page just calls them planets.  If he calls them überplanets, there is no contradiction, and if he does there is.  Either way, one of the pages has to resolve the contradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.99.121 (talk • contribs) 
:I think the term "überplanets" was more a description when the term "planet" was still hanging in the air and he wanted to remove ambiguity. There's no contradiction here. The Enlightened 05:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier version of this page specifically said (something like) that Stern & Levison wrote "'our solar system clearly contains' eight planets which have cleared their neighboring planetesimals," thus avoiding directly quoting the silly word "überplanets" which would then have to be defined for the reader, while still being accurate and relatively clear.  Leaving out the last clause makes it look like Stern agrees with the IAU terminology, which he never has, rather than with the science, which he always did, until he started this business in the press about Earth Mars Jupiter & Neptune not clearing their neighborhoods any more. 64.122.41.167 04:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradicting Pages

message: Could someone knowledgable add an IPA pronunciation in the first sentence? I think it a) looks good & informative, and b) helps non-English speakers. The Enlightened 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ckatzchatspy 05:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has adjusted the IPA text at the top, so that it now differs from the one in the Charon section. Which one is correct? --Ckatzchatspy 16:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one currently at the top of the text is found in the OED, so I'd say it's "rightest". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made them conform.  I'd also suggest someone add the "correct" pronunciation of Charon in that table (the one for Charon (mythology)). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IPA pronunciation

message: ===Pluto (41 votes, stays until November 3)===
:Nominated August 25, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by November 3, 2006
; Support:
# Davodd 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AID nom 

message: :Nominated August 25, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by November 3, 2006
; Support:
# Davodd 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pluto]] (41 votes, stays until [[November 3]])

message: I've observed/contributed to this page for a while now, and the main image does bother me a bit. It just looks like a disco ball and encourages vandalism. Would an image that wasn't so highly resolved be better, like a shot from further out showing the Pluto–Charon system? Because what's the point of zooming in on something so closely when we really don't know much about the details. Kris 12:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weel, there'll be a probe arriving at it in a few years... Adam Cuerden talk 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The actual image could easily just be blurred to remove the "disco ball-like" effect.  I don't really think that's necessary, though.  It's fine as it is.  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto image 

message: During the Article Improvement Drive this week, let's keep in mind that this article is already longer than the suggested size from Wikipedia:Article_size.  Keep it crisp!  Gnixon 16:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AID

message: There have been umpteen polls on renaming this, and other dwarf planet articles, most recently at Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming.  The consensus is not to rename anything, and more importantly not to have half a dozen bloody polls every month because some people don't like that.  --ajn (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually consensus was to rename Eris and Ceres to Name (Dwarf Planet) and to have Pluto remain here. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls 

message: In the third illustration in this section, how do I match up the named moons with the moons in the image? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical characteristics images 

message: Seems a useless bit of information.  If it is known that dwarf planets are smaller than planets, and that there are no brown dwarfs orbiting the Sun, then it's a given.  Also, it might actually be wrong, when one considers that planetary systems orbit the Sun, so moons really are orbiting the Sun as well (and there are plenty of Moons larger than Pluto). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Seemed awkward when I looked at it, seems more awkward with the moon thing. Get rid of it. Adam Cuerden talk 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  second-largest known non-planetary body orbiting the [[Sun]] 

message: I am confused. There are 2 references to the volume of Pluto on the page. One says .0066 earths, and the other says .59% of earth. Which one is it? Dan 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The page says the diameter is 2306 +/- 20 km, but the NASA reference (the first External Link) says the radius is 1195 km (implying 2390 km diameter). I used 2306, and the .0066 figure used the NASA volume - which is consistent with 1195 km after applying the 4/3 pi r3 formula for the volume of a sphere. That discrepancy explains the volume discrepancy. We're using a diameter and a volume inconsistent with each other. The NASA source seems to be fairly authoritative, so it looks like we should change 2306 to 1195x2. That change would imply changing .59% to .66% earths. Art LaPella 05:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, using a value of 0.5x2306 km for r yields a value of roughly 6.4x109 km³ for the volume of Pluto, a value far short of the volume listed in the article. I agree, 2306 km should be changed to the NASA figure. --Nebular110 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I just made this change. Art LaPella 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the error bars? ;) Obviously neither can be absolute. aLii 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Explaining my edit - Volume?

message: Looky what I found...the telegram that first announced the discovery of Pluto!
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=050215_pluto_announce_02.jpg&cap=Pluto%92s%20discovery%20made%20big%20news%20in%20the%20astronomical%20world.%20The%20discovery%92s%20announcement%2C%20put%20out%20by%20the%20Lowell%20Observatory%20a%20few%20weeks%20after%20the%20observations%20had%20been%20made%20and%20analyzed%2C%20appears%20here.%20Credit%3A%20Lowell%20Observatory.%20Click%20to%20enlarge.
HEYYY! Please knock it off with all the Pluto-hating and Jupiter loving.
:* This isn't Pluto hating, Pluto is my favorite planet.Something14 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be incorporated into the "Discovery" section 

message: Is it really a planet? WikiMan53 T/C 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can read in the article, no. It is drastically different from the 8 planets, and had we known in 1930 what we know now, it would never have been called one. Pluto's not even the largest stray rock out there anymore. -- Jordi·✆ 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages aren't for debate about the article's subject, they're only for discussion of the article itself. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Bryan 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto is not considered a planet because it has not cleared the neighbourhood (since there are KBOs in pluto's general location in the solar system, and cleared the neighbourhood is one of the 3 criteria for being considered a planet accoring to the 2006 definition). To be considered a planet, pluto would have had to swallow up the KBOs, eject them from the location, or placed them under its gravitational control. Pluto has not done this, so it isn't a planet. Instead, it is a dwarf planet (which has not cleared the neighbourhood). Polonium 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting how something is called “debate” when it disagrees with the article's bias, where discussion repeating/supporting the article's bias is valid.  People should be much slower to judge.  C'est la vie.  Nonprof. Frinkus 00:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions or comments to make about the article itself? The above doesn't seem to make any. Bryan 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, however I wanted to get clarifications with a good question below before I could make suggestions to improve this article itself.  I think in an attempt to keep with the latest fads, this article shows misleading information … but I frankly cannot comment until I get important answers first.  :)  Nonprof. Frinkus 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is pluto a planet 

message: with a 1,280 kilometers diameter, making it a bit more than half the size of Pluto.
would better be
with a diameter of 1,280 kilometers, about half that of Pluto.
Ysth 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done here.  --Doradus 19:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit request 

message: Since Wikipedia is maintained by its users, who gets to decide that whatever the “International Astronomical Union” says (whether decision was a scientific one or a political one, I believe they've gone with the latter with their recent activity) gets the official say on how information is present and/or categorized? 	 
Wikipedia should never move in lock step with any body or individual to avoid POV, and should move forward based on slower more refined NPOV methods than to be so quick to follow something like arguing over English language “wording” semantics and the like. 	 
 		 
Nonprof. Frinkus 00:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreement between people interested in the subject. IAU is such one forum, although constrained to only small fraction of astronomers. As up to now it was sufficient. But their decisions bear no legal weight and are "official" in no sense connected with government, law or any other authority bearing the name "offical" in common sense. So their decisions have weight only when they found someone to follow their suggestion. GrzegorzWu 09:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there are no responses to this highly valid question, I plan on editing this article to refer to Pluto as a planet (as it has been for decades now in scientific writing), and refer to the IAU definition as an attempted redesignation. Time will of course show what the best course is … but I strongly urge Wikipedians in the future to be not so quick to edit articles based on political maneuverings of a single body (especially with such a small turn out % of the entire IAU). Haste makes waste. Nonprof. Frinkus 07:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been hashed out over many, many, many discussions, and by doing what you described above, you will only be causing problems. Please, I implore you, refrain from doing so, in the interest of avoiding needless edit battles. --Ckatzchatspy 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a scientist I can assure you that politics are needed to get things done. If as a community we let the minority have the final say over the majority do you honestly think we'd get more respect? Pluto's demotion is in many ways sad, but it is certainly logically sound, and has the scientific majority behind it. aLii 11:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hilarious, because it's not true. The majority is against it.Something14 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Finally, I asked a clear question originally and no one would touch it. I still have no answer to an important my original question. Next, where is official policy being quoted on these "so-called" discussions, and where is their clear official outcome placed so it is easy to find by future Wikipedians? Why are people talking about battles here, this is pretty simple matter? Nonprof. Frinkus 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am personally appalled that scientist must resort to politics to get things done. What scientific principal is politicking under? The scientific majority is not behind this, why would you as a "scientist" mention something you state clearly when there is other people with information to the contrary, does not sound scientific. For populace reasons, sadly no one will poll the entire scientific community for an answer here. We just heard one group of select individuals in a single scientific group, with a tiny amount of the total showing up at a meeting, and that was what decisions were based upon. Of course, science is about facts, not popularity contests. To that note, no one would even tell me why "Dwarf Planet" designation was so important to be added into the scientific dialog. :( Nonprof. Frinkus 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who decides which organizations get “official take” status? 

message: I have just reverted a move to incorporate the minor planet number in the article title. As was discussed ad infinitum last autumn, consensus is to have Dwarf Planet articles at Name (Dwarf Planet), with the exception of Pluto, which is to remain at Pluto. Bluap 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Article 

message: This part of the article.. 	 
 		 
"Pluto's diameter and mass were incorrectly overestimated for many decades after its discovery. Initially it was thought to be relatively large, with a mass comparable to Earth, but over time the estimates were revised sharply downward as observations were refined." 	 
 		 
It could be the opposite, possibly pluto's size could have shrunk overtime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.247.228 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It shrunk? 

message: Why is the photo in the infobox so terrible? Is that the best available photo due to the planet's distance from earth? Just curious because it looks like graphics out of an old video game machine with visible polygons. Quadzilla99 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that I have to crush your hope. The image in the infobox is not taken by Hubble; it is a map based on brightness variations taken during the Pluto-Charon mutual eclipsing events that occurred in the late 80s – early 90s. Hubble cannot and will never be able to take as detailed image as this. Fortunately for Pluto, the New Horizons mission will take close-up images of it and its moons. Eris and Sedna lie much further out and are basically spots of light in Hubble's view. Hubble had to use a special method to just to measure diameters of these objects, since they are so far that one pixel in Hubble's camera is larger than them. At that resolution, it is impossible to resolve any surface features.--JyriL talk 11:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see. Kind of unfortunate as it is pretty jarring to see the photo's quality. Thanks for answering my questions and clarifying. Quadzilla99 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The MPC number isn't needed in the info box..it's mentioned in the article and consensus was that it shouldn't be in the info box or title of article.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the MPC number shouldn't be in the title of the article. But I see nothing wrong in having it in the infobox. Bluap 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The consensus that Something14 is referring to was in regards to the article name and the title at the top of the infobox, above the picture. It had nothing to do with information inside of the infobox. (Plus, if we delete everything in the 'box that is also mentioned in the article, it will be a very empty template...) --Ckatzchatspy 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you are interpreting "MPC designation" as "the name is X". Whatever. Anyways, what's the group consensus on colour? S14 says "stop changing the color of the template..it's supposed to match Pluto's color" - but if we're going that route, a reddish-brown would seem to be more appropriate than a green. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something14, why do you insist on repeatedly changing the infoboxes here, at Ceres, and at Eris, in order to remove the MPC designation? You have now been reverted by Bluap, Shimgray, Michaelbusch, JEBrown87544, and myself. You have also made a series of what can only be described as "nuisance" edits. These include changing the Natural satellites template by deleting Eris from the "Pluto and Eris" tab and moving Eris to the Earth-Mars tab, as well as changing Pluto links to Pluto (planet) redirects on several pages. Please, accept that you are not going to change the IAU's decision, and restore Pluto to planethood, merely by editing Wikipedia. All you will achieve is to disrupt the project. --Ckatzchatspy 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number not needed in the infobox. 

message: I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I, for one, appreciate it, and will await input from the RfC. Is it worth starting a sub-page for the discussion, given that it affects at least three pages? --Ckatzchatspy 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest keeping the discussion on the Pluto page, since that is the most contentious case Bluap 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The way the page currently is seems perfect to me. The MPC number is only within the infobox and on one line of the lead section, succintly describing what it is. Seems great to me. aLii 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I came here through RfC, too, and I don't see any good reason to delete the MPC number from the box. — Sebastian 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The MPC number in the infobox looks fine. Axl 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Keep the MPC number in the infobox. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: I think it's worth noting the date 18th February 1930 of discovery rather than just the year. (verifiable source http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050215_pluto_anniv.html) 	 
-- James H. Dunn 17th Jan 2007 203.26.177.2 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Jimp 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date rather than just year 

message: Since becoming a wikipedian, I have notice at least 4 different times, if not more, that Pluto has had to enter sprotect status.  Invariably with 24 hours of removing sprotect status, the vandalism starts right back up and continues until placed under protection again.  Do to the continued recurrent vandalism associated with this topic, It would probably be in the best interest of both the wikipedia and it users to place the page in "indefinite vprotected or sprotected status" per WP:VANDAL and WP:SEMI.  Additionally, it should be considered a strong candidate for the "controversial" tag, in part due to many of the vandal edits being both blatant violations of WP:NPOV.  In closing, I would like to see others reflective views on this as well. Abyssoft 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 definate vandalisms within 36 hours of protection removal.  I for one plan to keep an eye on this.  Abyssoft 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd tend to agree with the idea of an extended period, as I've had to request protection for this page several times now. --Ckatzchatspy 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection changes 

message: Regarding this edit: "manoeuvring" is a valid spelling (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manoeuvring), and normally we don't go around switching English to American spelling or vice-versa.  However, I didn't revert the change because I didn't want to start a revert war, and I have to admit, the new spelling seems more logical and readable to me.  --Doradus 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manoeuvre is directly from French, although maneuvre is older and both are from manu operari.  So really the whole word isn't particularly logical in the first place.  Most variant American spellings were created in the 19th century in order to be more readable, but inasmuch as they've culturally alienated the U.S. from the rest of the English-speaking world I think they were kinda dumb. 64.122.41.167 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manoeuvring