Talk:Pluto/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Edit request from Rawars, 4 February 2011

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

Rawars (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That is either trivia or a neologism, depending on how you define it. In any event, it's a word one person made up and used in several of his works, but without evidence that the word is widely/commonly used, it definitely shouldn't be in the article. Even if you had such evidence, it would be a questionable inclusion, as Wikipedia generally frowns on trivia entries, and that word doesn't really have any connection to this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sizes of Nix and Hydra

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

Edit Request

someone add the category tag on the bottom for "Terrestrial planets" it seems to be missing 98.117.186.191 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really a surprise since Pluto is not a planet. HumphreyW (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pluto is a planet. So I find it surprising. 98.117.186.191 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not according to this. Argue with the IAU if you want that to change. HumphreyW (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument from authority 98.117.186.191 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

By convention Wikipedia articles follow the IAU decision. So in this case the IAU is authoritative. If you want that to change then it will take a lot of campaigning to get there. It's not impossible but highly unlikely to happen. HumphreyW (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really valid here. Pluto has been reclassified as a dwarf planet, and as such the Wikipedia article reflects that scientific perspective. The article does mention the controversial aspects of the decision. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Really the definition of the word planet is 100% scientific? I mean you could actually go to a lab somewhere and prove it, like newton's equations? 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus to add the category then it can be added. HumphreyW (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Solar System has been shown to be full. You can not place an object in an orbit between the Planets Mercury through Neptune without it being perturbed out of that orbit. Pluto has many plutino brothers that have the same dominated 3:2 resonance with "the planet" Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: as it has not been classified as a planet since 2006. --John (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ok we can do that at 3 am after a 10 day debate when 95% of the wikipedia community is offline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the article Terrestrial Planets. It clearly differentiates Pluto into a separate category, Plutoids. There is a clear, defined difference and it is important to adhere to those differences, as defined by the IAU for consistency purposes. Wikipedia is intended to be a place to gather knowledge rather than opinions. --Xession (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pole

The pole identified in the article as North pole right ascension 133.046 ± 0.014° and declination −6.145 ± 0.014° is actually the south pole according to the IAU because it is south of the invariable plane. This can be seen on a star chart that includes the ecliptic, which is near the invariable plane, such as Navigational star chart, where sidereal hour angle is opposite to right ascension, which on this chart would have 0° or 0h at the right and 360° or 24h at the left. The former Report of the IAU/IAG working group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2006 stated on page 159 that the north pole of Pluto is right ascension 312.993°, declination 6.163°. However, changing to the latter coordinates would only be temporary because the current Report of the IAU working group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2009 (published [1]) has replaced the invariable plane with the right hand rule for dwarf planets, minor planets, their satellites, and comets, now specifying Pluto's pole on page 18 as right ascension 132.993°, declination −6.163°, near the "north pole" now in the article. They call this the "positive pole" (of the right hand rule) to distinguish it from the north pole relative to the invariable plane, which they still use for planets and their satellites. I have requested that "Positive pole right ascension" and "Positive pole declination" be added to {{Template:Infobox planet}} at Template talk:Infobox planet#Positive pole with no movement so far. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The only sensible rule is that the North Pole is the one at which the values of the markings on a "star-dial" (not sun-dial) increase clockwise. A Sun should rise, more often than not, to the East of a meridian. To protect against the variable whims of the IAU, the term "anti-clockwise pole" should be used. The Article ought to include the position, exact or approximate, of Pluto at the time of its discovery (perhaps as "near the nearest star which currently has its own Wikipedia article"). 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/pluto/plutodiscovery1.html says near Delta Geminorum. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

Why is this article semi-protected?OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism from IPs, throughout its history. Shouldn't affect you though as your registered status will allow you to edit it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

excess precision

The distance numbers no longer match the source. What’s more, we have a blatant example of false precision. Solex is a good program to check this, because each version will generate the ephemeris calibrated to two different JPL ephemerides. Comparing DE406 and DE421 gives a difference of 29,000 km. Horizons is yet different, and in between. There is no way we can know the semimajor axis to 1 km. I have chosen to set the semimajor axis to 39.264 AU, a number all sources agree with, and convert to km. I handled the other two similarly. Saros136 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you use an epoch of 2000-Jan-01? For 2000-Jan-01, Horizons gives me A = 39.49393 and Aph=49.27931. For 2010-Jan-01, I get A = 39.89974 and Aph=49.97638. Perhaps we should just use the JPL small body database and an epoch of 2006-Sep-22 (a=39.445 and Q=49.316) since this would be the most verifiable source? -- Kheider (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I used J2000, which is 2000-1-1 12:00 Terestrial Time TT on Solex (Horizons automatically gives Coordinate Time CT, but they are equivalant). Here are my Solex screenshots, and the Horizons one. There is a .00020 AU, or 29,000 km, difference between the DE421 and DE406 elements displayed by Solex. That is a good rough test of uncertainty. No figure that Horizons or Solex gives could be accurate to 1 km. Saros136 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. You used the Pluto barycenter, I used Pluto. I still wonder if it would be best to just quote the jpl database. -- Kheider (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the link on the page going to Horizons got it right, so I didn't have a problem. Anyway, the most important point is that there was that we need to eliminate such false precision. Saros136 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request May 27, 2011

The text states that Brown was the astronomer who discovered Eris. He was actually one of three, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz were the others. Proper credit should be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.69.98 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike Brown discovered Eris; the other two weren't notified until after he found it. Serendi^podous 21:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Name

I do believe Pluto is the latinized name for the Greek god of the underworld, not the Roman as it stated on the disambiguation page for Pluto. (90.198.186.192 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC))

The connection between Hades and Pluto is complicated and finding a source that picks them apart is not easy. Serendi^podous 06:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference 111

Something is wrong with Reference 111. {{{1}}}, {{{2}}} all over the place. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 06:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes Section Vandalism ALERT?

While I was reading the article of Pluto I scrolled down the page and to my disgust!! I found a semi-nude picture of some kid along with some sort of message saying "Damn you f**** n****....". I had no idea what to do. I went to the history to revert it. Found lots of edits but none of them were related to this but it looks as if no one even noticed that it was there? So I decided to clear out the Notes page. I'm pretty sure that some idiotic no-life messed with the references on some parts of the article. Can someone please help me out here? Let's return the note section again when this article has been fixed Blueknightex (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just went to the History page and viewed the previous version of the article. It seems that child pornography image was not even there on the first place? It seems like someone was able to by pass the article's protection and was able to wipe himself off the history edit page. Blueknightex (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the article again. The pornographic picture and that foul message is no longer there? This article should increase its protection.

It seems that some hackers were able to by-pass it while not being recorded on the history page. Blueknightex (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange. I'll keep an eye out for it. Serendi^podous 08:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a snapshot of it when I see something like this happen again. Blueknightex (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Was it one of the images from the article? Maybe they vandalized an image directly, without touching this article. — kwami (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction needed: bi-model to bi-modal

75.121.22.131 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Serendi^podous 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1914 Precovery

Nothing on this? 68.148.233.117 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the main article on Pluto's discovery. Serendi^podous 13:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in the first paragraph

In reading the first paragraph, I got a little confused in the second sentence. May I suggest breaking it into two?

It is currently this:

Originally classified as the ninth planet from the Sun, Pluto was recategorized due to recent discoveries and is now considered the largest dwarf planet within the newly charted Kuiper belt.

There's a little ambiguity since the sentence works without "within the newly charted Kuiper belt," creating potential confusion about it being largest or second largest. Yes, there's a note there, but not everyone clicks on those things. If it were me, I would make it this:

Originally classified as the ninth planet from the Sun, Pluto was re-categorized as a dwarf planet due to recent discoveries. It is currently considered the largest dwarf planet within the newly charted Kuiper belt.

This is my first serious thought of editing a page on Wikipedia, but it's a minor edit, I thought this would clarify things a little, and perhaps fit the Wikipedia style a bit better. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmancact (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to get to this, but yes I think you're right. :) Serendi^podous 11:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Arecibo message

Pluto remains a planet in the Arecibo message. This can't be changed. Algr (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's Eris? :) — kwami (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it pretty much can't. That's because it's the NINTH PLANET. 96.24.72.98 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just a dot. How could anyone tell which TNO it's supposed to be? The obvious interpretation would be that it's the largest. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial civilizations advanced enough to know the structure of our Solar System would laugh at the inclusion of one TNO as a planetary dot, for the lack of understanding that it demonstrates. --JorisvS (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you know, WP:NOTFORUM and everything... Serendi^podous 10:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It will be very interesting to see what new discroveries are made when New Horizons flies by Pluto in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgemania (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) --Knowledgemania (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Pluto-Charon, the largest binary system in the solar system? Not Sun-Jupiter?

In this page's section, Charon, it states the follwing:

The Pluto–Charon system is noteworthy for being the largest of the Solar System's few binary systems, defined as those whose barycentre lies above the primary's surface (617 Patroclus is a smaller example).

At the Mass section at Jupiter it states:

Jupiter's mass is 2.5 times that of all the other planets in our Solar System combined—this is so massive that its barycenter with the Sun lies above the Sun's surface at 1.068 solar radii from the Sun's center.

The Sun-Jupiter system clearly meets the definition of "binary system" given in this article, so unless I am misunderstanding or overlooking something, these statements are contradictory. Any thoughts?--Racerx11 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I trust the Jupiter article. The statement isn't sourced and simply doesn't sound right. The rotation of the sun would be highly irregular if that were true. --68.39.25.109 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my argument above. I had a short discussion on the Jupiter talk page and the issue I had was clarified. --68.39.25.109 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a really good explanation for you, but ditched it at the edit conflict. There is no doubt the Jupiter article statement is correct. The question really comes down to if Sun-Jupiter meets the definition of binary system. This article's definition is "those whose barycentre lies above the primary's surface", which Sun-Jupiter meets. But is this the correct definition? Does the system need to contain two and only two bodies to be binary as the name suggests? If so, Pluto-Charon isn't binary either.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Binary system (astronomy) states: "Some definitions (e.g. that of double planet, but not that of binary star) require that this center of mass is not located within the interior of either object. A multiple system is like a binary system but consists of three or more objects."

I am ssuming the multiple system here is one where three or more objects orbit a point not located in any of the three objects, otherwise virtually every binary system would also be a multiple system.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to point out that Sol–Jupiter is the largest, but there's another point to 'binary': the implication that the two objects are comparable. Pluto–Charon are (both DPs if not in the Plutonian system, both planemos regardless), but Sol–Jupiter are not so directly comparable. They're neither a binary star nor a binary planet. Not that that really matters. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to fix it though. Any suggestions on the wording? We would have to explain why Sol-Jupiter is considered binary, since that fact would be unexpected by most readers. If we say...

The Pluto–Charon system is noteworthy for being one of the largest of the Solar System's few binary systems, defined as those whose barycentre lies above the primary's surface. The largest binary system in the solar system, Sun-Jupiter, is also considered binary because their barycentre lies just above the Sun's surface.

...would that be fine?--Racerx11 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How about, instead, the sentence be deleted. We should ask ourselves is the Pluto-Charon system really so noteworthy after all? How is "noteworthy" defined? If you have to go about making all sorts of extra disclaimers then I question the noteworthy-ness of the original claim. HumphreyW (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Personally I am all for simply deleting it.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I edited the sentence so it reads: The Pluto–Charon system is noteworthy for being one of the Solar System's few binary systems, defined as those whose barycentre lies above the primary's surface (617 Patroclus is a smaller example).

Another editor added mention of the larger Sun-Jupiter system. I was hesitant in adding this because I thought it would require to much additional explanation as discussed above. Instead of removing it, I linked "Sun and Jupiter" to Jupiter#Mass thinking that this would be a satisfactory explanantion. Hope this will lay the issue to rest.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope so. People will hear that Pluto–Charon is the largest binary system, so we should address it. It is, of course, if we're thinking of planemos and SSSBs; people just forget about Jupiter, so that should be mentioned too. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Classification as a planet

So I'm really disappointed that I was taught in school that pluto was the smallest planet, and now I'm being told it's not, because it's too light. How can a planet one day just disappear (from a scientific perspective)? I'm just saying, for me, it was worse than saying Santa is here, then no he's not, because nobody believed in Santa anyway. Are there any more references that could be added, because even the article seems to indicate that this is a contentious point. My thought is that if Pluto is far enough out, then it's considered a planet. Twigfan (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is still there, its category has merely been changed. See IAU_definition_of_planet. Your opinion on how a planet should be defined has no bearing. --Daniel 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he's just asking for clearer support for the classification. Twigfan, the issues are discussed at definition of planet and at IAU definition of planet. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Twigfan, it's a matter of definition. Everyone agrees that Pluto is a dwarf planet; the difference in opinion comes in when deciding whether a dwarf planet is a planet (per Stern and a significant minority of astronomers) or a sub-planet (per the IAU and a majority of astronomers). Since this isn't a matter of fact, but only of convention, there is no right answer. Brown at least thinks that the Solar system is more easily understood with 8 planets than with 200; Stern disagrees. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand why the main article has to be the way it is but also I think the talk page is a good place where all should be free to present arguments pro and con including personal opinions. I think it's a mean and shortsighted decision by astro bureaucrats that stripped Pluto of being a planet. For example, two Americas are one continent and Eurasia two so obviously convention surpasses nature. Second, those competitors of Pluto, basically only one that is "bigger" (is it all about size!!!), are not round, are not rocky, don't have moons or atmosphere. Pluto , albeit small, is a real little world, a miniature planet, round, rocky with moons. In other words so cute and that's why we love it so much! I am sure when in 2015 new photos come in they will be ashamed of that injustice and humiliation. Go Pluto, go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.24.201 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The moons' spectral similarity to Charon

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

Missing sources

I added some citation requests into the article, because I failed to find the information in the given sources and did not see it anywhere else either. They are [2], [3] and [4]. Since this is a featured article, I believe that the information has to be referenced. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree this needs a reference. I recall reading years ago that the albedos were basically best-fit estimates (as is generally the case). -- Kheider (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2012

The part dealing with the atmopshere of Pluto contains an untrue statement. Specifically, the sentence "The first evidence of Pluto's atmosphere was found by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in 1985, from observations of the occultation of a star behind Pluto." is not correct (as the reference [90] indeed shows).

The sentence should be replaced by "The first evidence of Pluto's atmosphere was found at the Wise Observatory (Israel) in 1985, from observations of the occultation of a star behind Pluto."

132.66.222.3 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-a-faces.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

Small moons

I was wondering about the following sentence in the Nix and Hydra section: "With 90% confidence, no additional moons larger than 12 km (or a maximum of 37 km with an albedo of 0.041) exist beyond the glare of Pluto 5 arcseconds from the dwarf planet." This comes from a study done in 2006. Just below it is a small section on S/2011 P 1, which was discovered in 2011 and is expected to be larger than the abovementioned value. Now, I know this has something to do with the 'with 90% confidence' or with any of the specifics only outlined in the ref itself. It must, however, look very curious to the average reader who reads this and then about S/2011 P 1. Furthermore, I have my doubts about the usefulness of stating this (here). Thoughts? --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that we now know of even two moons "contradicting" that statement, I would remove it as outdated/disproved information, and to not confuse the readers. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Small tweak

"...This pattern is configured so that, in each 500-year cycle..."

It wasn't configured. It is so. In much the same way Earth wasn't designed for humans by a deity but just happens to be suitable.

I'd re-write that as "This pattern is such that, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.24.19 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pluto's artistic impression

Hello there, I've created two images based on Hubble Space Telescope's images to illustrate a realistic vision of Pluto, should it be added to the main article? The images are File:Artist's impression dwarf planet Pluto, albedo.png and File:Artist's impression dwarf planet Pluto.png.

Sorry, but there's no real reason to add them: the HST image is as good as we can currently get, and unlike for the dwarf planets that are entirely points of light, it is a close visual representation (I say 'close' since it can do the main albedo features but not sharp edges) of Pluto. I feel that's an important distinction. Iridia (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I support adding one of the images (I'd prefer the first) to the main article (not the lede/infobox, of course), given that the HST images are low-resolution and don't look like "real" photographic images because of the massive digital reprocessing. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think that, while I usually don't favor original artwork, etc, that in this case there is a demonstrable reason to include it based on the existing image's quality. However, if an official version was available, I'd say these get jettisoned pretty quick. I agree in specifics with Roentgenium111.204.65.34.34 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Alignment problem

Someone needs to fix the center alignment at the bottom, looks very messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, but not sure what in the prev edit, the diff here[5], caused the problem. I fixed it by editing the June 24 version and manually adding in the text changes made by Serendipodous. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Fifth moon

Alan Stern announced a fifth moon on twitter 11 July 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why the system has so many small moons in contrast to Earth's system, since both formed presumably in the same way, by a grand collision... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple. The further you are from the Sun, the larger your Sphere of influence will be. Pluto has a larger hill sphere than Earth. This is also why Neptune should have more trojans than Jupiter. -- Kheider (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a possible explanation; however, Pluto's system takes up less than a percent of its Hill sphere, and enlarging the system till Charon's distance becomes that of Earth's Moon would still put most of Pluto's moons inside Earth's Hill sphere. But maybe they were further off upon creation... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

So why are we referring to it under a designation ("S/2012 P 1") that apparently no-one is using? All the references seem to be using either "S/2012 (134340) 1" or "P5". 46.126.76.193 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

134340 is pluto's minor planet catalog number. P is also acceptable as a shorthand for Pluto. Both names are therefore correct.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless the designation can be demonstrated to be in actual use in reliable sources, it is just a made-up extrapolation of a nomenclature system. (And a nomenclature system that is no longer officially sanctioned since the demotion of Pluto by the IAU). 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The proper name is "S/2012 (134340) 1" since Pluto is not a planet. But I guess Wikipedia is using the P as an improper throwback to when Pluto was a planet. -- Kheider (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is it would seem that none of the referenced sources is using this (including those on the S/2012 P 1 article). This contrasts with S/2011 (134340) 1, which was at least referred to as "S/2011 P 1" at the time (thus providing at least some justification for using the name). This time we've gone and made up a designation, and made-up designations should not be used. I recommend picking one of the naming conventions that can be backed up with references showing it is in use, either P4 and P5 or S/2011 (134340) 1 and S/2012 (134340) 1, my preference being the latter. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in mass estimates

The statement "In 1955 Pluto was calculated to be roughly the mass of the Earth, with further calculations in 1971 bringing the mass down to roughly that of Mars" seems incompatible with the data in the "Mass estimates for Pluto" table. 86.179.2.60 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a real problem. Before 1978, the mass estimates for Pluto were all wrong guesses. Even the mass of Neptune was not preciously known until the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby. -- Kheider (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The article states that the mass estimate was "revised downward throughout the 20th century". But the statement above would imply an increase in the mass estimate from 1948 (0.1 Earths) to 1955 (roughly 1 Earth). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem because the figures given in the two places are presented as if they were state-of-the-art estimates of their day (even though wrong), and yet they are wildly incompatible. 86.179.4.226 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a general downward trend from the original estimate of a planet several times more massive than the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source. Croswell doesn't actually say who made those estimates, so I think it's better to just use list's sources, since they are fully accredited. Serendi^podous 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Rotation < Rotation and orbit

the sub-section labeled "Rotation" is a small paragraph and should be moved to the top of the section rather than being given its own header. It seems silly to have "Rotation" a sub-section of itself.

-no one of consequence Ltnemo2000 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Orbital period of Pluto and moons

The table "Pluto and its satellites, with Earth's Moon comparison" contains orbital periods of Pluto's satellites around the system's barycentre, but in the case of Pluto itself there is its orbital period around the Sun. I think this is quite misleading. Its orbital period around the barycenter should be written here as well. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've fixed it here and at moons of Pluto. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

Please change "Mark Showalter" to Mark R. Showalter JavautilRandom (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Kheider (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 2012-08-14

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

 Done. --JorisvS (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

S/2011 P1 and S/2012 (134340)1

Why is the former refferred to with P1 yet the other one gets (134340)1? Should we not use the same for both? It just seems sloppy to me. 134340Goat (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see "S/2011 P1"? This was resolved in July. -- Kheider (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pluto has five known moons, the largest being Charon discovered in 1978, along with Nix and Hydra, discovered in 2005,[21] and the provisionally named S/2011 P 1, discovered in 2011..." 134340Goat (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the remaining instances. --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Eccentricity discrepancy

In the fact box, Pluto's eccentricity is 0.24880766. But using aphelion and perihelion, it should have been ~ 0.2446. For the "proper" planets, the eccentricity discrepancies are ignorable. Why the relatively large discrepancy in Pluto's case?

84.215.19.207 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

perihelion is 7,376 Gm, aphelion is 4,437 Gm giving e = 0.248... HumphreyW (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the values in the infobox. HumphreyW (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

At an epoch of 2000-Jan-01 12:00, the Pluto barycenter has EC= 2.446716640576734E-01, QR= 2.965737037208183E+01 (perihelion), AD= 4.887104955031421E+01 (aphelion), and A = 3.926420996119802E+01 (semi-major axis). In some parts of the infobox we are using JPL Horizons object barycenter as seen from the center of the Sun (as we are doing for all the "real" planets), and in other places we appear to be quoting mean values from Williams. -- Kheider (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! Now shouldn't the semi-major axis be 5,906,375,000 km? Or isn't it that simple? I'm trying to understand this stuff... 84.215.19.207 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends on rather you want to use instantaneous J2000 osculating values or mean values. For all the major planets we use instantaneous J2000 osculating values. If we migrate away from using J2000 values we will need to change the epoch to mean. -- Kheider (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Lowell vs Pickering

I can't verify this yet, as I don't have access to the full journal cites, but I'm pretty sure it was WH Pickering, not Lowell, who captured pictures of Pluto while searching for a ninth planet. Certainly the paper linked to is discussing Pickering, not Lowell. If anyone with full access could check this I would be very grateful. Serendi^podous 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hoyt's article does not clearly state that it was either Lowell or Pickering. It only mentions that the plates were exposed on March 19 and April 7 1915, before Lowell death. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

H

So what's the sigma in H? Can't use it to calculate anything without more info than this. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Which sigma? You should use it I think: Absolute magnitude#Solar System bodies (H). SenseiAC (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Animated GIF

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

other possible classification

Wouldn't Pluto also be classified as a planetoid? it's a small planet and technically it's smaller than the Earth's moon, which is abuot the size of a large planetoid. Alien Arceus 10:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "planetoid" does not have an official definition. Serendi^podous 11:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

When i hear the term "planetoid" i automaticly think of a smaller planet such as pluto. would it be alright if i added the classificatoin of planetoid to the article, or should i wait for more data? Alien Arceus 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

With some astronomers, "planetoid" is a synonym for dwarf planet, so yes, Pluto is a planetoid in that sense. However, the word is not well defined, and others use it as a synonym for asteroid, or use it for the larger asteroids, so I don't think a category of 'planetoid' is useful here. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need to clarify the term "Jovian planets" in the article

The section "Other factors" says:

"when Pluto most closely intersects the plane of Neptune's orbit, it must be at its farthest beyond it. This is known as the 1:1 superresonance and is controlled by all the Jovian planets."

Many readers won't know what "Jovian planets" means here. Jovian planets redirects to Gas giant, which is about gas giants in general and doesn't seem quite right for the usage here - "planets that control Pluto's orbit."

Can we do anything to clarify this?

As always, I'm not asking for clarification here in Talk - I think that we should add clarification in the article itself.

- 186.221.129.156 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"most closely intersects" is a meaningless phrase. Either it intersects it, or it doesn't. It can, of course, be "most close to it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I couldn't figure out how to make it clarify the sentence before it, so I've removed it. --JorisvS (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't any orbital period be relative to the barycenter? Anything else should be parenthetical. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Image

The new image of Pluto is an "artist's impression" and is not justified in the lede. We simply don't know what Pluto looks like apart from the low-resolution Hubble photos, which should be retained. In particular, the caption under the graphic ("Computer-generated map of Pluto from Hubble images, synthesized true color[a] and among the highest resolutions possible with current technology") is simply false, because this is not possible with current technology---it's just someone's original fantasy. --130.102.158.19 (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The original image was swapped out a week ago. No one noticed. Serendi^podous 07:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I tend to agree with even steins theory of inter stabilisation of the meracule instigatuare of which is simply outstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.232.159 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Orbital period?

All the other sources I found, including NASA, including THIS VERY PAGE (in the text area), say that Pluto's orbital period is 248 years. Yet the facts column on this page shows 246 years (and a matching number of days). Where was this information taken from? What is the true orbital period? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirams (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where those values originated from, I've updated the figures in the infobox with values sourced from NASA. Reatlas (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The orbital period of an object depends on the epoch (date) used to define it. For objects beyond the orbit of the gas giant planets, the orbital period also depends on if you calculate a heliocentric or barycentric (Sun+Jupiter) solution. The infobox seems to use J2000 values and the barycenter of the Pluto-system (MB=9). J2000 heliocentric is 246.03 years, while the J2000 barycentric value is 247.97 years. If you use an epoch of 2013-Aug-26 with a pluto-center (MB=999) and heliocentric solution, you will get an orbital period of 243.67 years. --- Kheider (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say 246-248 years, and add what you just said in a note? With a citation of course. Serendi^podous 07:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have modified note B to explain why we list an orbital period of 248 years. As reference 6 and note B were written, the correct answer would have been 246 years. -- Kheider (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New Pluto moon names

Can we finally get rid of the silly number names?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/02/pluto-smallest-moons-officially-named/

• P4 --> "Kerberos"
• P5 --> "Styx"

-MarsRover (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kerberos pronunciation discrepancy

Hi. According to this article, the pronunciation of Kerberos says that the "er" part should be said as "are" in the word "bare", however on the page about Pluto's moons in general, it says that it is pronounced as "ir" in "bird". Which is correct? 134340Goat (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends. If you want to pronounce it like Ancient Greek, it's like "bare". If you want to pronounce it as it is typically pronounced in English, it's like "bird". Serendi^podous 06:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that the two articles conflict. The moons page, and the page for Kerberos itself, suggests that only the "ir" pronunciation is correct, while this page infers that only the "are" pronunciation is correct. If both are acceptable as you say, shouldn't all the articles show both possible ways to pronounce it?

We used to say, "pronounced X, or as in Greek", to cover the several conventions for trying to make English sound like Greek (or Latin). That might be useful here. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

Please change this sentence: "This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it an as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid)." to: "This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid)." because the "an" is unnecessary/incorrect in the original sentence. Thank you, David. 87.194.26.108 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Should "PLUTO" redirect to "Pluto"?

Shouldn't PLUTO redirect to Pluto (or at least Pluto (disambiguation))? I happened to have my keyboard caps lock on when typing into the search box and was surprised when I arrived at an article about a military operation instead of at the expected article about the planetary body. Lambtron (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Yes, I agree - PLUTO now redirects to Pluto (disambiguation) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Largest Object in the kuiper belt?

Is pluto really the largest object in the kuiper belt?

what about Eris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspaasBekklund (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Eris is actually part of the Scattered disc Bluap (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Eris CAN however, enter the Kuiper Belt due to its orbit, which would temporarily seat it as queen of the Kuiper Belt. However, as it stands, we're not actually sure which body is bigger - both have an estimated diameter of around 2240 km, but thanks to possible atmospheres and error bars, there's currently no way of telling which is larger than the other. 134340Goat (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Eris spends most of it's time in the scattered disc and Wikipedia technically treats these as two different regions. -- Kheider (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Eris's orbit as a whole lies outside the Kuiper belt, even though it sometimes comes as close to the Sun as the Kuiper belt. --JorisvS (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Pluto really largest? Makemake (dwarf planet) page says that Makemake is the largest object in Kuiper Belt. Abhijeet Pathak (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Okay, but do we have any useful shorthand for "largest rocky thing past Neptune?" Or could reference be made to other objects beyond the Kuiper-belt which are larger? Most readers are probably not going to know what either the Kuiper-belt or scattered disk are, or what a resonant Kuiper-belt object is. My immediate thought was also that no, I thought there was a larger object past Pluto--because there's an image used at Wikipedia which so depicts it: EightTNOs.png. In fact, I think it would be more useful to say it's the largest Trans-neptunian object, because (according to my understanding) this encompasses both the regions discussed under this question. Changing it to say so . . . (and to answer my own question, I think the term "Trans-neptunian" is such a term.) --RichardAlexanderHall (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my heck. What is the most current estimate of the size and mass of Eris vs. Pluto, with references, please? Among the citations in the article on Eris, it says they may be the same size. This article itself says Eris is 27% larger. Halp! :) --RichardAlexanderHall (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Size and mass are different things; thing ton of lead vs ton of feathers. Serendi^podous 03:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't have an article that begins: Pluto (...) is possibly... (my italics). Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Tautological" references to Earth's Moon

Recently, all references in the article to Earth's Moon were changed to simply read, "the Moon", with the claim that the change "removed tautology". In an article about a body elsewhere in the solar system, where the text makes reference to many different moons, it strikes me as fully appropriate to specify "Earth's Moon", even if arguably redundant/tautological — a position that IMHO sacrifices clarity and accessibility, especially for the casual reader, and gains little if anything for the trouble.

I just don't see the benefit of turning passages like these:

Like other Kuiper-belt objects, Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice and is relatively small, approximately one-sixth the mass of the Earth's Moon and one-third its volume.

Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is much less massive than the terrestrial planets, and at less than 0.2 lunar masses, it is also less massive than seven moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Earth's Moon, Europa and Triton.

Into this:

Like other Kuiper-belt objects, Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice and is relatively small, approximately one-sixth the mass of the Moon and one-third its volume.

Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is much less massive than the terrestrial planets, and at less than 0.2 lunar masses, it is also less massive than seven moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, the Moon, Europa and Triton.

(I do agree with the removal, done in the same edit, of "the" from references to Earth. "Earth's Moon" > "the Earth's Moon" > "the Moon".) ...But I'm curious what the Consensus would be regarding these changes. --FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a fairly minor edit; you can change it if you want, I don't think anyone would mind. Usually these things don't need discussion unless the original editor cries foul. Serendi^podous 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would like to add an update on the Exploration of New Horizons exploration=

Hello, I came across a recent article updating on the New Horizons exploration. http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/small-bodies/nh_opnav_pluto-charon_2014-07.html I would like to be able to add the image into the Explorations section as well as providing a description about the image. FatalGravity (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - - You are advised to upload an image first using Upload Wizard to make it usable in any Wikipedia article. See also, Wikipedia uploading images. Please note that the image/s you upload, should not be copyrighted, otherwise must meet Wikipedia non-free content standard. -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

tenth-most-massive

Is using the first dash in tenth-most-massive correct or should that be removed? JEMZ1995 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably kept. Otherwise it sounds like the tenth to be discovered that was most massive. Though sometimes when an attributive phrase + word is made attributive again, the first hyphen is dropped. Maybe a better question for the MOS. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The best English usage in constructions like "tenth most massive body" does not have hyphens. Hence my edits to remove the hyphens. Possibly someone can prove that I'm wrong. If so, provide the (strong) evidence, and I will thank you. (By the way, one certainly can't have only one hyphen so I agree with kwami as far as that goes.) Zaslav (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Tenth most massive" suggests it's the tenth object to be the most massive, like "the tenth heavyweight champion", and thus is now the most-massive object in the SS. Okay, perhaps it's obvious enough that that a literal reading is wrong that we don't need the hyphens, as with "high school student", but as an encyclopedia we support precision, you can hardly argue they're incorrect. (Also, since you're arguing for the change, it's up to *you* to prove your point.) — kwami (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Tenth-most-massive" is a compound adjective (in this case, a triple compound) so, yes, the hyphens are needed. Skeptic2 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about all that. Consider a rewording: "Pluto has the tenth greatest mass of any body observed directly orbiting the Sun." Would you argue for hyphenating tenth-greatest?

[re:] Yes. That's what hyphens are for. — kwami (talk)

[re:] No, FeRD_NYC has it right. A single hyphen there looks ridiculous. (IMHO. My editor friend probably disagrees but he allows for two correct opinions.) Zaslav (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I meant that as an imperative: consider a rewording. The reason the current phrasing is contentious is because it's ugly and awkward, in either form. It reads like an attempt to shoe-horn information into the lead sentence, comfortable grammar be damned. ...Purely IMHO! — FeRD_NYC (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewording should be done to improve the wording, not to avoid punctuation. But if you have a better way to say it, go for it. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

kwami is mistaken about English usage. "Tenth most massive", like "tenth largest" or "tenth smallest", is a standard English construction that unambiguously means "tenth down the scale from the most massive/largest/smallest" and does not require hyphens. It will not be misunderstood by those familiar with standard English. kwami, if you think I'm wrong, give evidence. You failed to give evidence that your hyphens are correct. I have been reading English for a long time, including good English by good writers, and I have seen this construction often enough, with no hyphens. Stop reverting without knowing enough about good standard English. Zaslav (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are pushing the change, so it's up to your to prove your point. You started an edit war over this, which might not go well.

Yes, the hyphen is commonly left out, just as it is in high school student, because that's a common-enough phrase that no-one will mistake it for a school student that's high. Nonetheless, high-school student is not incorrect, and some publications insist on it. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start an edit war. I made an edit to correct what I believed to be an elementary error in use of hyphens. You reverted it without explanation, thereby starting a war.

You apparently don't know the standard English construction "tenth largest X", or you wouldn't claim it is ambiguous.

Your analogy is mistaken. "High school student", which I agree is best written "high-school student", is not grammatically similar; for instance, "school" is not a comparative. Your grammar is not shown in a good light by this analogy.

Your hyphenation is not that good in other ways. The hyphen in "common-enough" is incorrect. Also, the hyphen in "no-one" is very old-fashioned, though it pleasantly reminds me of Jane Austen. Consider the possibility that you may be a hyperhyphenator. (I hope that sonorous term is seen as a joke.)

As for who has to justify what, I don't care. I do have to worry about wasting my time teaching grammar, when I have much else to do. Zaslav (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting someone is not starting an edit war. Pushing back when you've been reverted is edit-warring. At least, that's the definition here on WP.

It may well be that the passage is better without the hyphens. But that's a matter of typographic style, not "grammar". — kwami (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a matter of correct usage of hyphens, which is "grammar", not "typography". Please study the difference between typography and grammar, and please study how to use hyphens.

Concerning edit wars, I quote from Wikipedia:Edit_war#What_edit_warring_is: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons." I repeatedly asked you to do so before you actually did bother, so I think you're not on solid ground in blaming me. Frankly, to me it looks like joint responsibility; I accept half of it. Note that I have tried to explain standard English usage. Since neither you nor I has cited any outside expertise, it remains, to date, a difference of opinion under WP rules. Zaslav (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For an example of correct usage see List of largest cities and second largest cities by country. This was the very first hit in a Google search for "second largest", by which I was looking for documentation of my claim about correct usage. I couldn't resist posting this example immediately. Zaslav (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"For an example of correct usage see List of largest cities and second largest cities by country.". Yes, but note that in the first line of the entry this has been corrected to "second-largest". I suppose that changing the headline would break many links so they couldn't correct that. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For an example of "incorrect" usage (according to me) see China Passes Japan as Second-Largest Economy, The New York Times, Aug. 16, 2010. I think this is actually a case of plausibly potential ambiguity without the hyphen (especially as it's a headline), which "tenth most massive" is not. Zaslav (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

My search seems not to get any site that states a rule, but the overwhelming majority of examples avoid the hyphen (about 5-10:1, at a guess). That's not the best argument about good standard English, as most of these examples are headlines or corporate speak, not literature. The proof remains open. Zaslav (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation is not "grammar", but that's beside the point. Hyphens are often dropped when the meaning in clear from context, in established phrases, etc. There are publications, for example, which insist on hyphenating high-school student, and despite the fact that that is minority usage, WP tends to follow, because we're an encyclopedia and place a premium on precision. Not saying we have to here, but it is a strong tendency. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This punctuation is grammar, because the reason for it is grammatical. I hate to keep arguing with you but you insist you're right, you don't pay attention to evidence, and you persist and persist and persist in refusal to learn more of grammar. You explain nothing, while I explained why "high school student" is a false analogy. This is not a case of dropping hyphens, it is a case where the grammar does not call for a hyphen. I notice you ignored the fact that WP has (at least several times) not used the hyphens in this construction, in titles no less. Zaslav (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a different definition of "grammar" than linguistics does, but that's completely irrelevant. Looking at sources familiar with the subject is not always the best guideline for us, because we present material to a readership that is often not familiar with that subject.

Grammatically, "tenth most massive" is an attributive phrase. Attributive phrases are generally hyphenated. Exceptions occur when a hyphen is not needed for clarity (under the typographic tradition that less is more), or when we'd need algebraic notation for nested hyphenation – en dashes can handle some of that, but there's only so much we can do. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The hyphen is good because not for a microsecond do we think of 'tenth something' as opposed to 'tenth-most something'. Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That was my thought. Sometimes I get tripped up by writing that omits hyphens because I read it as if there should be no hyphen, and the result makes no sense. It can be rather annoying. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Last remarks on this admittedly ridiculously prolonged discussion:

To kwami: I don't have a different definition of grammar than linguistics does. Your own argument is grammatical; you refer to "attributive adjective". Yes, it is an attributive adjective. However, it is an idiom of English (which we agree has nothing to do with planets). Your own rule of "less is more" would exclude the hyphen. I point these facts out merely to show that your position is no more logical than mine, not that it is wrong. I have gone to the trouble of consulting a professional editor. He said he prefers the hyphen—though most of the house styles he's worked under prefer no hyphen—but it could go either way. I am sorry we got into a war. As I'm not fighting over this any more, I hope that closes the matter.

To Rothorpe: I am sorry you don't know the English construction "tenth most viscous" (or "tenth thickest", or maybe you do know that version), because I think it's pretty and I'm fond of it. On a different note: As is common in writing, your "we" means "I" and maybe some other people. And thank you for pointing out that "tenth-most" differs from "tenth most". Zaslav (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Regarding the long-winded argument over whether punctuation is part of grammar -- from a linguistics perspective....let me add that in my graduate studies, I was advised that punctuation is absolutely NOT needed for sentences to be grammatically correct. Punctuation merely removes or reduces ambiguity. Yes, there are rules for using punctuation, but they don't impact the grammar-status (!) of a particular sentence. Thus, the old example of "The horse raced around the barn fell" etc., where not only are the commas not needed, but the filler words like "that" and "who" that often take the place of punctuation are not needed per se...but, if inserted, would reduce ambiguity. Thus, I see nothing wrong with either construction "tenth-most-massive" or "tenth most massive" seem equally OK. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Preparation for New Horizons Flyby

When the New Horizons probe passes by Pluto in July of 2015, it will create a huge amount of new information about Pluto, not to mention the clearest photos of it ever taken. As such, a great deal of editing will have to be done on Pluto's article at that time. I feel as though we should plan some the changes now so that they can be applied quickly and without controversy when the time comes. First off, I would replace the animation at the top of the page with the best available photo from New Horizons. As well, I will be patrolling the page since its views will, pardon the pun, "skyrocket," at that time, thus increasing levels of vandalism. Beyond those two things, I am unsure as to what should be done. Does anyone else have any ideas? PHENYLALANINE (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Exciting, no? First thing to remember is, be bold! It is impossible to irreparably damage the page. Pluto isn't exactly a controversial object, so I doubt there will be much trouble - we do an ok job with mass shootings and stuff that are much more emotional and attract more "woo" types. One thing I notice is the article's WP:LENGTH; at 120k, it is on the long side even without any New Horizons information. Maybe splitting the "Orbit and rotation" section to a child article would make sense to keep the total length reasonable? That section is pretty long, and unlikely to change much as the result of the NH flyby. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Pluto is controversial, especially since the head of the NH mission maintains that Pluto is a planet. (He also maintains that the Moon is a planet, but no-one edit wars over that.) We're going to get tons of fly-by-night PLUTO IS A PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! edits, and may need to semi-protect the article.

[Oops, it is already semi-protected. We'll still need to watch it.]

I wouldn't want to replace the image until the NH images are of comparable quality. No sense replacing it with a little white dot with an arrow that says "Pluto". — kwami (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think much of the article can remain as it is even after the NH flyby. The biggest changes will be in Physical Characteristics, Satellites, and Exploration. Perhaps we could consider moving a lot of the pre-NH flyby info in the Physical Characteristics section to the Exploration section, making it more of a "History of Observations" section (see Io (moon) for an example). Mass and size will be simplified because right now it is mostly an explanation of how our current estimates are derived. Origins may see some major changes, but probably not for 1-2 years after the flyby as the results get analyzed. Also keep in mind that we won't see a lot of data coming back quickly since playback of the flyby data will occur over a 9 month period. So don't expect to make lots of changes to this page on July 16, 2015 beyond maybe changing the databox image. --Volcanopele (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

NASA will be releasing photos for the press shortly after the flyby, so I think we will be able to change the data box photo fairly soon after July 14. Because there will be a great deal of "Pluto is a planet!" vandalism around the flyby, I therefore propose that we lock the page from July 7, 2015 to July 21, and have an admin make the necessary changes during that time. Your thoughts? PHENYLALANINE (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't do preemptive protection. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I'm fairly new at editing, so I'm unaware of all the protocols. In any event, the protection could be done if and when vandalism becomes a problem. Back to the matter of what changes will need to be made. The "Exploration" section will probably be expanded several fold. This will add length to an article that is already quite large. Perhaps, as Kwamikagami suggests above, parts of this article should be split off into daughter articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHENYLALANINE (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:NO-PREEMPT stands for the proposition that we don't do pre-emptive full protection, not that we don't do pre-emptive protection at all (e.g., pre-emptive semi-protection). The Friday the 13th article, for example, is routinely vandalized every Friday the 13th, and has been pre-emptively semi-protected for a few days before and after to prevent recurrences. In this case, the anticipation of vandalism probably does not meet the criterion of "pattern of heavy sustained vandalism" required for pre-emptive semi-protection, however. Although, if one can point to other fly-bys or similar events sparking vandalism in other articles, that would probably meet it. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pluto is permanently semi-protected, and has been for years, as I believe are all the Solar planets. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Two Weeks vs. Six Days

It's my understanding, after speaking with someone at Lowell Observatory, that Tombaugh actually took images on the telescope every six days--not every two weeks like this page states. In fact, in the sentence regarding the "discovery" of Pluto upon viewing the Jan 23-Jan 29th plates, those dates are six days apart and not two weeks as the previous sentences imply. 71.223.64.219 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The two weeks figure isn't in the source, so I'll take it out. Serendi^podous 10:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Largest object in the kuiper belt

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

Why not just let it be the largest KNOWN object?

I will readily admit that there are greater and lesser truths here. But the least of the truths is claiming that we know for sure that Pluto is definitely the largest Kuiper Belt object. We don't know, and we won't for quite a while. The Ceres example is very weak. Radar Astronomy can be very effective for nearby regions like the asteroid belt. I have no problem with the claim that Ceres is the largest object in the belt. Plus the presence of Jupiter ensures that there is nothing hidden out there. But none of these points works very well in the Kuiper Belt. Both radar and optical astronomy have shortcomings that far out. You should know the math of the diminishing returns per distance. We will simply never know until we go there, and do a detailed survey. Saying that Pluto is the largest known object just seems like such an easy way to cover all the bases, keeping Wikipedia as factually accurate as possible. But you (and others) have fought tooth and nail to keep the word KNOWN out of that sentence, and now you are fighting just as hard to remove the citation note. Your zeal for this reminds me of the 16th century Catholic hierarchy. Why are you fighting so hard for a fallacy? It's time to admit that our knowledge is limited, and will remain so for quite a while. Saying that is the largest KNOWN object out there is the greatest truth. Will102 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that you keep mentioning Eris shows you've completely missed the point. I am going to say this very, very clearly:

ERIS IS NOT IN THE KUIPER BELT.

OK? Do you get it now? Do I need to repeat what I said in my above post? Let me say it again:

ERIS IS NOT IN THE KUIPER BELT.

Yes, if you search online you will find plenty of sources saying Eris is part of the Kuiper belt, but they are using a definition of the Kuiper belt different from the one Wikipedia uses. The definition of the Kuiper belt that Wikipedia uses covers an area from 30 to 48 AU only. In that region, the likelihood of finding another Pluto-sized object is tiny. Serendi^podous 21:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, references to Eris have been removed.

Now, it's time for you to consider the other 99.9% of my post, since the mention of Eris distracts you so much. And, since you love shouting so much, I'll shout it at you:

YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT PLUTO IS THE LARGEST KUIPER BELT OBJECT.

THE CERES EXAMPLE IS AN OBVIOUS RED HERRING, DUE TO THE DISTANCES INVOLVED AND THE LACK OF A JUPITER-SIZED SHEPHERD OUT THERE.

And, my favorite:

DEFINE "TINY", AND GIVE SOURCES THAT SHOW THAT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT PLUTO IS THE LARGEST KUIPER BELT OBJECT IS THE SAME AS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT CERES IS THE LARGEST ASTEROID BELT OBJECT.

You asked me to be reasonable and take it to the talk page. I did so, and you jumped the shark. In bold and all capitals, no less. Which is seriously abusive. Do I honestly have to launch a series of formal complaints against you to get you to stop behaving so badly, and have a reasonable discourse?Will102 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you call talk page discussion "reasonable" is a tacit acknowledgement that your behaviour up to now has been unreasonable. And it still is; how could I possibly find a source that specific? You're asking to prove a negative. At some point, you have the option of saying things are definite. I mean yes, we could say, "The Sun may rise tomorrow", or "The house is white on the side I see". But at some point you have to make the call. Serendi^podous 07:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If y'all are interested, I don't have a source for it, but I recall that it was said at a recent astronomical meeting that, statistically given the various detection limits and existing surveys, that there still could be maybe one or two Pluto-ish sized objects we haven't found yet. So largest known KBO is playing it safe. In a few more years we can drop the "known," though (e.g. LSST would have a 100% detection rate of Pluto sized KBOs). Sailsbystars (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What definition of the Kuiper belt does it use? Serendi^podous 07:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 re-visit

We can safely state that Pluto is the largest KBO currently within 50AU of the Sun. We can also state Jupiter is the largest planet (currently within 26000AU of the Sun). WISE failed to prove there is NOT a 1.1 Jupiter mass object 30000+ AU from the Sun. Does anyone seriously want to claim Jupiter is merely the largest KNOWN planet? At some point you have to be logical. So the questions are:

• How does Wikipedia want to define the Kuiper belt and Scattered disc? Four billion years ago the Kuiper belt only extended to around 50AU from the Sun.
• Does the scattered disc extend to the core of the Oort cloud and where exactly is the heart of the Oort cloud? -- Kheider (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote on my talk page in March 2014: "In the early 2000s there were multiple surveys by Mike Brown's team. Scott S. Sheppard's team has been doing a survey for a few years now. There are probably many Pluto-sized objects yet to be to discovered in the Scattered disc that are currently more than say ~100AU from the Sun and thus evading discovery. But there is no reason to assume a bright Pluto sized object has been missed by numerous surveys within the traditional Kuiper belt region roughly 30-50AU from the Sun. We can be ~99% certain that any discovered object larger than Pluto will fit Wikipedia's usage of the term Scattered disc object. For a similar reason, we do not worry about discovering an object larger than Ceres inside of the asteroid belt. It is partially a question of semantics since after all the MPC now often lists centaurs and SDOs together. Most people would not consider Sedna to be a Centaur, but the MPC generically lists it as such. Even the DES lists Sedna as SCATNEAR. -- Kheider (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)"

The only authority we have is the MPC, and they divide the transneptunian population into "Trans-Neptunian objects" ("main belt" KBOs) and "scattered objects" (SDOs and centaurs). There's no perfect solution, but calling the "trans-Neptunian objects" the "Kuiper belt" seems like the best, at least it seemed that way years ago when we first had this conversation. We don't technically know if Sedna/vp113 are Oort Cloud objects yet, so there's not really an issue there. Serendi^podous 18:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Traditionally Oort cloud comets have been objects on multi-million year orbits with aphelion approaching ~50000AU from the Sun. Claiming dwarf planets such as Sedna/VP113 with aphelion well inside of 1500AU are inner Oort cloud objects is kind of comical and demonstrates how worthless these semantics can be. -- Kheider (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I was confusing TNOs and KBOs with my earlier statement. So long as we're just describing the Kuiper belt we should be fine saying Pluto is the largest. On the other matter brought up here, I expect we'll get some refinement in the definition of Oort vs. Scattered disk after LSST is able to better characterize those populations. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS) would also help greatly with understanding planetary migration, the Kuiper belt and the Scattered disc. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So does this mean we have consensus to take off the citation tag? Because it caused problems earlier and I really shouldn't be the one who does it. Serendi^podous 09:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think so. I went ahead and removed it. Having read up a bit more, the only place in the Kuiper Belt where we might have missed something is in the parts of the galactic plane avoided by surveys. It's a small enough number,though, that Occam's razor outweighs Russell's teapot. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the surveys have been going on for 10+ years, I think we can be confident that an object larger than Pluto within ~50AU of the Sun would have moved out of the galactic plane by now. Such an object would also be bright enough that people specifically studying the galactic plane might have noticed movement in time lapse images. -- Kheider (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

10 years is only 4% of Pluto's orbital period. And there is a diagram at the top of the Kuiper Belt page that shows a huge gap in the known KBOs in the direction of the Milky Way that is much larger than 4% of the belt.Will102 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That image is from 2007 data. Do not revert against consensus until you have reached agreement with others on the talk page. Serendi^podous 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a picture using 2014 data. The dwarf planets in the outer solar system are labelled, as is "PT1" (New Horizons potential target for 2019). Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• • • My two cents: The reason we can't say for sure that larger Kuiper belt objects don't exist (by any definition) is that we tend to look for objects with orbits near the ecliptic. Pluto has a fairly large inclination (relative to the ecliptic). But if any objects had even larger inclinations --- surveys may overlook them. This becomes even more problematic when one talks about the possibility of Neptune-sized masses sitting at 150 AU or more...or even the extreme "brown dwarf companion star" theories at close to 0.5 light years. If we only look near the ecliptic, we may well misss a lot of smaller Pluto-to-Mercury sized objects. IMHO it is always better to use the word "known" in such circumstances. In that respect, yes, Jupiter *is* the largest-known planet ... because it is still possible for a brown dwarf to be hiding at great distances...and such an object could be nominally larger (in terms of mass or volume). Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Citation needed

@Sailsbystars: Just curious, what possible rational can you have for not allowing a citation tag to remain and possibly cited ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Does a citation tag really need consensus ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

They're not pretty. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is that the citation tag is disruptive. We can be very confident Pluto is the largest KBO within 50AU of the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The citation tag was causing confusion, as others tried to "fix" it without knowing the problem. It may someday be possible to find a source that answers Tim's claim, but, given the fact that the definition of the Kuiper belt itself is still disputed, it's unlikely in the near future. Yes we don't know definitively that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt, but we also don't know definitively if Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System, or if the Sun is the Solar System's only star, and we feel comfortable making the claim in either case. Serendi^podous 16:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds more to me that the problem is a conglomerate. You'd think with a scientific article and presumably scientific editors are always open to possibilities, this seems a little closed minded. Oh, can you please expound on why a tag placed by an editor is disruptive ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should say that "Jupiter is the largest known planet in the Solar System", or that "The Sun is the Solar System's only known star"? Serendi^podous 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Kheider Could you please link to the discussion that reached consensus about the {{citeneeded}} tag is not needed or is disruptive. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I for one would like to know when we threw out the requirement for claims to be sourced to a WP:RS rather than just relying on the way of expert editors. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to have my question answered: should the article on Jupiter be amended to say that it "is the largest known planet in the Solar System", or the article on the Sun amended to say that it is "the only known star at the center of the Solar System"? Serendi^podous 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Why not ? it's not false, are you sure Jupiter doesn't already say that ? information in a Encyclopedia who'd a thought. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked, it does ! Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but where? Serendi^podous 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The lede of Jupiter says, "Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet in the Solar System." -- Kheider (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kheider: Thank you. Link please. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA's no object larger than Jupiter exists out to 26,000 au The Pluto issue is somewhat of a unfalsifiable claim and depends on whether an astronomer considers the scattered disc to be part of the Kuiper belt. Wikipedia treats the Kuiper belt and scattered disc as separate regions. -- Kheider (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Full Protection

I've placed the article under full protection for two days. Try to get consensus on that 'Citation Needed' issue, take it to WP:DRN, but don't engage in debate through edit warring. If you'd like a third opinion, I'd be happy to help out if I can. Cheers, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead. The issue is difficult to resolve, however. Serendi^podous 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated, I seem to be stumbling all over myself :P . Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, I do think there was some consensus earlier in this discussion to remove the 'Citation Needed' tag. As to what it should actually say? Hmm... this does seem tricky. Perhaps something along the lines of the suggestion above: "the largest Kuiper belt object currently within 48AU of the Sun," or something to that effect? Maybe add 'currently known'? Basically, if the literature isn't clear on naming, I think explaining the limits of the scientific consensus is the best bet. So, "the largest Kuiper belt object currently within 48AU of the Sun that's been presently discovered." Again, just spitballing ideas. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I should state clearly I have little knowledge of this area, though I do personally enjoy astronomy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

_________

OK, I will try to state the issues as clearly as I can, because it's quite clear most of the people involved in this dispute don't understand everything. Since I have already laid out all the issues multiple times, I am not confident that this will work. But here goes:

1. The term "Kuiper belt" currently has two different definitions, depending on the personal opinions of the individual astronomer.

a) The stable belt of objects between Neptune's orbit at 30 AU and the 2:1 resonance with Neptune at 48 AU.

b) everything beyond Neptune, including both the above region and the farther unstable region called the scattered disc.

2. Pluto is in the first region; Eris, which is larger than Pluto, is in the scattered disc. So, depending on which definition of the Kuiper belt you use, either Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt, or Eris is.

3. The closest thing to an authority on this issue is the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center, which, in a very roundabout way, defines the Kuiper belt in the first, more restricted sense. Because the IAU is meant to represent the collective voice of all astronomers, its definition, roundabout or not, is the one we use.

4. Unfortunately, neither the IAU nor the MPC make any claims (at least online) about which is the largest object in the Kuiper belt, because that is not their job.

5. Because the definition of the Kuiper belt is in dispute, no one astronomer's page is going to carry weight as a source, because another astronomer's page will say something different if he or she uses the different definition.

6. Adding a qualifier about distance implies that the Kuiper belt extends beyond that distance, which would go against the chosen definition.

7. Adding the word "known" would imply that Pluto's position within its population, at least as defined here, is less secure than it actually is.

8. Leaving the tag inspires other users without knowledge of why it is there to try and "fix" the problem, leaving the article in worse state than it was previously. This has already happened. Serendi^podous 19:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for putting this together. Without commenting on the merits of these issues, do the other editors who've been involved agree this is a fair characterization of the issues at hand? If not, please confine your response to getting this list right. Resolving content disputes first requires a joint understanding of where we start from. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable summary. But in the interest of completeness, I will mention that Eris is known to be more massive than Pluto even though Eris is probably 10-20km smaller in diameter than Pluto. We might also mention that astronomers are not absolutely certain Jupiter is the largest planet is the Solar System. But Wikipedia treats Jupiter as such. -- Kheider (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In August 2013 there use to be a note in the lede explaining the use of Pluto instead of Eris. Perhaps a similar note should be used explaining that astronomers do not expect to find an object larger than Pluto closer than 48AU from the Sun. Or we could partially revert the lede back to more of an August 2013 version. -- Kheider (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serendipodous:, your thoughts on Kheider's idea? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. I doubt it will stop Tim adding another cite tag though. Serendi^podous 17:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We can also mention: Of the 1547 TNOs known, 1347 of them have perihelion further out than Neptune (30.1AU). (Pluto is not even listed since it comes to perihelion inside of Neptune's orbit.) -- Kheider (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you stick that large url inside of the note without the Wikicode breaking? -- Kheider (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Darn, I just made a tinyurl version of that massive URL but it looks like I'd have to get it on the whitelist or it'd be blocked. Hmm.. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was able to fix it with {{Plain link|url=http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb_query.cgi?... 1347}} -- Kheider (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Origins

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

Kuiper belt (4th paragraph) also says, "Pluto is the largest known member of the Kuiper belt". -- Kheider (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2014

Marc Buie's affiliation is Southwest Research Institute Azalucha (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't say whether he is affiliated there but he works at Lowell Observatory. You might be thinking of Alan Stern. Serendi^podous 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Azalucha (talk)I know them both personally very well. I was at Marc Buie's house last weekend. He used to work at Lowell Observatory, but he is most definitely now at Southwest Research Institute http://www.boulder.swri.edu/personnel.php

 Done More or less. The quote was from 8 years ago, but the sentence made it sound more recent. I tweaked the tenses and added a caveat about it being his previous affiliation instead of his current affiliation. I think the whole paragraph reads better now. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2014

Suggested edit: in the table showing Pluto's radius, include the value of 1180 km determined by Zalucha, Angela M.; Gulbis, Amanda A. S.; Zhu, Xun; Strobel, Darrell F.; Elliot, J. L. (2011). "An analysis of Pluto occultation light curves using an atmospheric radiative-conductive model", Icarus, Volume 211, Issue 1, p. 804-818 Azalucha

 Done Couldn't see any reason not to add it to the table. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request, August 26, 2014

One interesting and potentially important aspect of Pluto that's omitted in the Wikipedia page is the possibility of life in the potential subsurface ocean, which has been discussed in published literature and in recent media articles. I suggest that this topic should, at a minimum, be mentioned. One place would be at the very end of the Structure section, where the issue of an subsurface ocean is raised. In any case, it's inappropriate not to mention life on Pluto when planetary scientists (including Alan Stern) are talking about it (see link below) and when it has been discussed in reputable books (see citation below).

Suggested text at end of Structure section: "...Because a subsurface liquid ocean is a possibility, some scientists have speculated that life might exist there [1][2]"

The suggested citations where subsurface life on Pluto is discussed by planetary scientists are:
1. "Pluto and the Other Dwarf Planets Could Have Astrobiological Potential", August 22, 2014: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/08/pluto-and-the-other-dwarf-planets-could-have-astrobiological-potential.html
2. Catling, David C. (2013). Astrobiology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 108-9. ISBN 0-19-958645-4.

--Charliecat1 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Orbital resonance?

The obits don't intersect at all (even though in 2D projections it appears they do) so there's no way Pluto and Neptune could ever collide, orbital resonance or not. Bizzybody (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

the article says that over billions of years, the relative positions of Pluto and Neptune alone are not enough to protect them from collision. Serendi^podous 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pluto's debate

Can someone edit this article to match the new reclassification of Pluto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.114.238.9 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The classification is 8 years old. Georgia guy (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just Harvard pondering about, causing a big hype. The officialy classification still stands, as far as I'm aware. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-25 5ives (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It won't make any difference. The public votes with their emotions and emotions are poor science, and the IAU knows that. --JorisvS (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Pluto still is not a planet. Public opinion does not matter when it comes to scientific consensus. If someone wants to call Pluto or even our moon a planet when in the privacy of their own home, have at it. -- Kheider (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys this is a stunt; it isn't even the first vote like this. Is it really notable enough for conclusion? Serendi^podous 14:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It has ZERO weight as "the audience got to vote" which is meaningless. It was probably the Pluto huggers that attended in the greatest numbers as most other people simply do not care. I have removed the section as it is probably more of a publicity stunt for New Horizons than anything else. -- Kheider (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, it's not for us to decide. If it's reported in reliable news sources it should be included. Btljs (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's for us to decide. Wikipedia isn't a write-up of the entire internet; we exclude valid material all the time, and we make value judgements based on notability. This stunt just isn't notable, regardless of how well-sourced it is. Serendi^podous 17:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when that same "audience" tells me whether our Moon and Triton are also planets as both formed in an orbit around the Sun and should be planets under their vote. -- Kheider (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So your opinion is more valid than an audience of other people? I don't know you or them and I wouldn't presume to doubt the sincerity, intelligence or whatever of either. Btljs (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

An averaged audience of people is not particularly knowledgeable, that's why. What about an article on all this stuff, where the "debates" and emotions can be covered? --JorisvS (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A jury is not particularly knowledgeable either, but they are considered capable of weighing up experts' arguments. Btljs (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If anything this belongs in a subsection of IAU definition of planet as an informal public debate has nothing to do with Pluto's accepted status among professionals. -- Kheider (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We have editorial discretion on inclusion. This is a publicity stunt that does not contributed to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and it should not be mentioned in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason the Pluto-is-a-planet side won so clearly is that they were told the definition excludes exoplanets from planet hood. It doesn't, of course. It simply applies only to the Solar System. Saros136 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My source is http://www.latinoshealth.com/articles/3397/20141004/will-pluto-be-a-planet-again-what-happened-to-the-ninth-planet.htm. Saros136 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pluto is a Planet

It was recently decided that Pluto is a planet, so it needs to be moved back to pluto (planet).

• Please read the above section. Pluto is still classified as a dwarf planet. Jusdafax 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask any Primary School pupil and you'll find that it's very definitely a planet. There's still a void between the scientific definition and "assumed" knowledge, and it'll remain that way for decades to come. 78.148.194.54 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it's totally up to primary school pupils, instead of scientists, to decide such matters, right? If we went by "assumed" knowledge, dolphins would be fish, and mushrooms plants, too. Wikipedia reports on scientific definitions, not everyday folk taxonomies, let alone the beliefs of the majority of Americans, which very sharply contradict overwhelming scientific consensus in several points. See argumentum ad populum.

I'm not even sure what problem you guys have with the title "Pluto". It's completely neutral, unlike "Pluto (planet)". It's not like this article was under "Pluto (dwarf planet)".

Also, what Pluto is classified as does not change anything relevant about the object – at most it is relevant only to non-specialist human perception. It's like the question whether America should be considered one continent or two or even three. For most practical purposes, it doesn't even matter.

I don't know why people are so obsessed with it; the emotional attachment with Pluto and its status as planet or not is ridiculous. It seems to be a fear of change. But that's the nice thing about science: contrary to what laymen often allege, it's not dogmatic; scientists do change their minds after all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If we are to ask "...any Primary School pupil..." the issue of whether Pluto is a planet, then we should take a poll of prisoners within the US Federal Prison system on this same question. They may be as knowledgeable - and as a reliable source... Dinkytown talk 00:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

Due to the recent findings from International Astronomical Union (IAU), the definition of a planet has been established to have three requirements. A) it orbits a star, (b) has enough mass for its gravity to overcome external forces to acquire a near-spherical shape, and (c) it doesn't have bigger objects in its neighborhood.

Because of this development, Pluto is being reconsidered as a planet once more.

Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/44734176.cms Thejoshrules (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pluto has not been a planet since 2006 since it fails rule #3. Pluto is one of numerous Plutinos controlled by Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That source does acknowledge that it was just the vote of the audience. No new ground was covered, and this not even a contribution to the debate on the definition. And the third criteria is not it doesn't have bigger objects in its neighborhood. It is the more demanding clearing the neighborhood standard. Saros136 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Status vs. classification

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

Mean anomaly

Someone help me understand the information in the sidebar to the article: It quotes a "Mean anomaly" as a certain value (14.86012204°). But doesn't the mean anomaly change with time as the planet moves in its orbit? Is this value updated on the page periodically? I was actually looking for the "mean motion", which is not shown, but I guess this can be calculated from the orbital period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mean anomaly is the angle between the perihelion of the orbit and the position of the object (objects in generak; Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet) within its orbit at a specified time (the epoch). Mean anomaly is meaningless without an epoch specified. --JorisvS (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, so what does this 14.86012204° represent if no time is specified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. In this article, the epoch is J2000, which is 12:00 on 1 January 2000. If Pluto had a circular orbit, this would mean that on 12:00 on 1 January 2000 Pluto was 14.86012204° beyond perihelion. However, Pluto's orbit is eccentric and mean anomaly increases uniformly during the orbit, so that Pluto was 14.86012204/360 of its orbital period beyond perihelion at that time. --JorisvS (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for someone to add this image

"This "movie" of Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, was taken by NASA's New Horizons spacecraft as it raced toward Pluto in July 2014. Covering almost one full rotation of Charon around Pluto, the 12 images that make up the movie were taken July 19-24 with the spacecraft’s best telescopic camera – the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) – at distances ranging from about 267 million to 262 million miles (429 million to 422 million kilometers" http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=102

It is a pretty relevant image to add and I'm surprised it isn't in the article. My account is still unconfirmed, so I can't add in this page (the page is protected). If anyone can do that for me, that'd be great. PM ME URANUS (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I've also copyedited the accompanying text. --JorisvS (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll add that image in a few other pages, if it seems fit. Feel free to modify the caption if it is necessary. My first language isn't English so I mix words up sometimes. PM ME URANUS (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request December 29, 2014

Remove comma after "Arizona" in section Discovery, paragraph 2, sentence 1.

Please change

In 1906, Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, in 1894, started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".

to

In 1906, Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1894, started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".

Mwhidden (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

New horizon NASA spacecraft approaches Pluto

After a long time a new NASA's spacecraft for the first time is reaching Pluto. Many picture are going to be taken. In some months the spacecraft will reach the Kuiper belt. Pluto is the biggest thing in Kuiper belt. More information can be obtained here:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-nasa-spacecraft-pluto-camera.html

MansourJE (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: - Clearly the consensus is to retain the current title; discussion closed early per WP:SNOW. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Pluto → Pluto (dwarf planet) – Pluto is included in the dwarf planet series, of which all but this article include the parenthetical "dwarf planet" this move is to make this page align more accurately with the information included and jive with the other pages of similar interest. Xenocide321 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: primary topic, unnecessary disambiguation. Rothorpe (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. Serendi^podous 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Former planet Pluto is clearly the best known Pluto out there. And this request is horrible timing with New Horizons arriving at Pluto in July 2015. -- Kheider (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguation. Adding a disambiguator should be done because disambiguation is necessary, not because similar articles have it. The nomination is making no claim that this Pluto is not the primary topic of Pluto. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary and clearly the primary topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE, and the fact that this subject is the current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of (Dwarf Planet) should only be based on whether or not the planet in question the primary meaning of the term Pluto, not on what the other dwarf planets are named. The name for each needs to be treated on its own merits.--64.229.164.231 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the overwhelming primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 01:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pluto may be a dwarf planet, but it ain't no jive dwarf planet. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just saying that I understand the point Xenocide321 was trying to make. Eris (dwarf planet), Ceres (dwarf planet), Haumea (dwarf planet), Makemake (dwarf planet), all have (dwarf planet) in the name. Pluto doesn't have it, so it might cause some confusion because it makes seem that Pluto is a planet Tetra quark ^(talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV (04/14/2015-TwoBriefings@1:00&@2:30pm/edt/usa) - New Horizons spacecraft flyby of Pluto.

FWIW - NASA-TV (Tuesday, 04/14/2015 - Two Briefings => @1:00 & @2:30pm/edt/usa) - panels of experts discuss "New Horizons spacecraft flyby of Pluto". - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Pluto Second largest Kuiper Belt Object.

I'm pretty useless at editing the Wikipedia articles, but Pluto in the second largest kuiper belt objects. NASA said here (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/145944main_Kuiper.Belt.Lithograph.pdf) that

In 1992, astronomers detected a faint speck of light from an object about 42 AU from the Sun — the first time a Kuiper Belt object (or KBO for short) had been sighted. More than 1,300 KBOs have been identified since 1992. (They are sometimes called Edgeworth–Kuiper Belt objects, acknowledging another astronomer who also is credited with the idea, and they are sometimes called transneptunian objects or TNOs for short.)

So, NASA says that TNOs are Kuiper Belt Objects. And, by this Wikipedia article, it says that as of now, we think that Pluto is smaller than Eris. I'm not good at changing articles, o somebody needs to check this, and maybe put it in if it's okay. Thanks!

66.223.145.194 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a close contest! Wikipedia say Pluto (dwarf planet) 1184±10 km, Eris (dwarf planet) 1163±6 km. But by mass Pluto (1.305±0.007)×10^22 kg, vs Eris (1.67±0.02)×10^22 kg, so Eris is more massive!

This recent article [6] also saying its too close to be sure. I'll also let someone else sort it out. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole TNO/KBO debate is getting tired. Wikipedia uses the IAU for guidance on this, and the IAU divides TNOS into kuiper belt objects and scattered objects. Pluto is a kuiper belt object, Eris is a scattered object. Serendi^podous 07:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)