Talk:Pluto/Archive 9

Consolidated.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

207.255.49.32 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Pluto need to be updated cause it was never downgraded to a dwarf planet....it is a full planet

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zejn0120 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zejn0120 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't get this article

Is it saying that Pluto's orbit will eventually destabilise? Serendi^podous 21:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The original paper suggests that Pluto's current orbit is stable, but close to a strongly chaotic region. They speculate that Pluto could have had a chaotic orbital history even geologically recently, but that more investigation is needed to either confirm or exclude that possibility. Double sharp (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

In the lead please change "Compared to Earth's moon, Pluto has only one sixth its mass and one third its volume" to "Pluto has only one sixth the mass of Earth's moon, and one third its volume." Less clunky and therefore clearer. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:AC06:451F:5433:3CD8 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Serendi^podous 12:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

bloat trimming

The following lines in the "name and symbol" section are way too detailed and belong in notes, but I can't figure out how to move them to notes without disrupting the markup.

For example, ⟨♇⟩ occurs in a table of the planets identified by their symbols in a 2004 article written before the 2006 IAU definition, but not in a graph of planets, dwarf planets and moons from 2016, where only the eight IAU planets are identified by their symbols. (Planetary symbols in general are uncommon in astronomy, and are discouraged by the IAU.)

and

The bident symbol has seen some astronomical use as well since the IAU decision on dwarf planets, for example in a public-education poster on dwarf planets published by the NASA/JPL Dawn mission in 2015, in which each of the five dwarf planets announced by the IAU receives a symbol. There are in addition several other symbols for Pluto found in astrological sources, including three accepted by Unicode: , U+2BD4 ⯔ PLUTO FORM THREE; , U+2BD5 ⯕ PLUTO FORM FOUR, used in Uranian astrology; and /, U+2BD6 ⯖ PLUTO FORM FIVE, found in various orientations, showing Pluto's orbit cutting across that of Neptune. Serendi^podous 23:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I moved that text to the notes, but I'm not sure that we should only mention the anglophone symbols in the text. AFAICT, variants 3 and 5 are common in parts of Europe. There is the potential issue that those variants are only used in astrology, but I don't think that should disqualify them. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, we don't mention the Unicode values for the symbols in e.g. Jupiter, so I'll move that to the notes too. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

£5 reward

Speaking of bloat, I don't think it's notable that Madan gave his granddaughter £5 as a reward. It would be different if it were the observatory, the discoverer or one of the astronomical societies, but not if it's just a family member. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Tombaugh's account of the name

Regarding Burney being "the" proposer of the name Pluto, this is the account in Tombaugh's 1980 book, pp. 134 and 136 [p. 135 is an illustration]. I believe these three paragraphs are the only ones that discuss the name:

Putnam kept pressuring Slipher to select a name for the new planet before someone else did. This privilege really belonged to the Lowell Observatory. There were outside political pressures on naming the planet. Indeed, I received a letter from a young couple in another state, asking that the new planet be named after their newborn child. At first, Mrs. Lowell proposed the name of "Zeus." Then later, she wanted the planet named "Lowell." Still later she wanted it to be "Constance," her own given name. No one favored that name. It was a touchy situation.

In the meantime, over a thousand letters poured in, including those from several other astronomers, suggesting names for the new planet. Three names about equally headed the lists: Minerva, Pluto, and Cronus. It is customary to name planets after mythological deities. If Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, had not already been given to one of the asteroids, the name of the new planet would have been Minerva. Had not Cronus been proposed by a certain detested egocentric astronomer, that name might have been considered. Pluto, the Greek god of the Lower World, seemed the best one to pick. Outside of the Lowell staff, the name Pluto was first suggested by Miss Venetia Burney, age eleven, of Oxford, England. It was cabled by Professor H. H. Turner.

Remembering that Uranus went through three name changes, we wanted to select a name that would stick. Accordingly, the name Pluto was proposed to the American Astronomical Society and the Royal Astronomical Society of England. Both of these bodies approved the name unanimously. By taking the first two letters, the planetary symbol became "♇," for Percival Lowell. Years later, as a result of the naming of Pluto, the well-known fissionable element was named "Plutonium."

I once came across another source, can't find it now, that the promotion of Burney as the namer of Pluto was primarily because it was a delightful story that made good copy. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing in that text that says Burney didn't propose the name, and in fact it corroborates her story, because it mentions other astronomers, and the name would have been sent in by Falconer Madan or one of his American colleagues. If you ever find that source, I think it would be a fantastic inclusion, but without it I don't feel confortable saying she didn't do it. Serendi^podous 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course she proposed the name. I never said she didn't. The problem is the romanticized account that makes it look like it was her suggestion that won everyone over. According to Tombaugh, Pluto was the favorite of the top 3 in the thousand or so suggestions they received. Burney's nomination was just the first for Pluto that they received, but there were presumably dozens, perhaps hundreds of others who also nominated Pluto, but whose letters arrived later. That other source I saw also didn't deny that Burney had proposed the name, just said that the reason for Lowell Obs. and the newspapers to promote her story was that it was romantic and made for good copy. As for the interviews with Burney herself, I'm not suggesting anything inappropriate, just that she was only a witness to that morning in Oxford when she heard the news and made the suggestion; no reason to think she knew anything of the selection process at Lowell.

BTW, also added Christy's acct. of the name Charon to that article. Good to hear it in his words, as it differs in detail from what I'd understood of it. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't know the full story wasn't in the article, but then I haven't edited Charon much. Serendi^podous 10:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The current state of the article wasn't bad. I hadn't read it in years (I just now copy-edited it a little), and my impression was from years ago. Still, it might be handy to have Christy's account on the discussion page for future editors. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that the sentence "Outside the Lowell staff, name "Pluto" had first been proposed..." implies that the Lowell staff concieved the name Pluto before or precisely when Burney did, and there's no evidence of that. Serendi^podous 10:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We report what sources say, and that's what the source says. We'd need much better sources to determine the timeline. Most sources are based on either contemporary newspaper accounts, or on interviews with Burney, neither of which are going to tell us much: the press announcements were minimal, and Burney wasn't there. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ferris (2012) Seeing in the Dark says "a French astronomer had suggested the name 'Pluto' for Planet X in 1919," though that's not directly relevant as we don't know whether any of the nominations of 'Pluto' were based on it. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, another account: Kevin Schindler & William Grundy (2018) Pluto and Lowell Observatory, p. 73–79:

Hundreds of letters and telegrams quickly overwhelmed observatory staff. This correspondence, much of it preserved today in Lowell's Putnam Collection Center, offers valuable insight into global issues and prevailing thoughts of the day while revealing the personalities of many of the individuals submitting ideas.

One of those who suggested a name was Venetia Burney [what follows is the typical acct of her suggestion] ... H.H. Turner, who then telegrammed it to Lowell Observatory.

This note would be one of hundreds received by the observatory but stands alone in importance, as indicated in the last paragraph of the May 1, 1930 Lowell Observatory Circular. V.M. Slipher wrote, "It seems time now that this body should be given a name of its own. Many names have been suggested and among them Minerva and Pluto have been very popular. But, as Minerva has long been used for one of the asteroids it is really not available for this object. However, Pluto seems very appropriate and we are proposing to the American Astronomical Society and to the Royal Astronomical Society, that this name be given it. As far as we know Pluto was first suggested by Miss Venetia Burney, aged 11, of Oxford, England."

[follows several paras detailing a "planet-naming craze" and naming contests held by US newspapers etc.]

The precise number of incoming letters and telegrams to Lowell is lost to history. According to a June 23, 1930 letter from the Lowell secretary to Dene, the "observatory received literally 100s of letters and telegrams offering suggestions. Out of this number, some one hundred and fifty suggested the name 'Pluto' be given the planet." With the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the naming, one can imagine that staff simply threw away much of this correspondence.

[Letters/telegrams came from 37 of the 48 states + Alaska, also] Canada, Germany, Korea, England and Mexico. A total of 171 different names were proposed, with 13 listed at least five times:

[these are Pluto, 25 nominations; Minerva, 17; Pax, 14; Juno, 13; Vulcan, 11; Hercules, 8; Apollo, 6; Erebus, 6; Eureka, 6; Peace, 6; Percival, 5; Osiris, 5; Athena, 5]

[this appears to be the numbers in the surviving correspondence, as we have 25 nominations for Pluto rather than 150. — kwami (talk)]

[...]

While many of these suggestions undoubtedly made for good reading, the Lowell staff ultimately chose Pluto. Putnam explained in a press statement the decision to go with a Roman god, in accordance with the other planets. He said, "There have been many suggestions which have been weighed and sifted and suitable ones were narrowed down to three—Minerva, Cronus and Pluto." Minerva was the staff's first choice but was already used for an asteroid, so they decided on Pluto, "the god of the regions of darkness where X holds sway." Putnam pointed out that Pluto's two mythological brothers, Jupiter and Neptune, were already represented in the solar system. "Now one is found for him [Pluto] and he at last comes into his inheritance in the outermost regions of the Sun's domain." In addition, the first two letters of the name—P and L—are Percival Lowell's initials. They serve as the basis for Pluto's official scientific symbol, forever linking Lowell to the planet.

(The parenthetical [Pluto] is in the original text.) The announcement of the discovery was March 13. Turner's telegram was 3 days later:

oxford mar 16
wlt-
    lowell observatory
                flagstaff ariz.
naming new planet please consider pluto, suggested by small girl, vebtia nurney [sic], for dark gloomy planet.
                                turner.

— kwami (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

So what the source are saying is that the Lowell staff did not propose Pluto. They got 25 suggestions for it, but preferred Minerva, which they could not use because it was already the name of an asteroid. So the line "Outside the Lowell staff..." is wrong. Serendi^podous 09:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not "wrong". We have no source saying what the staff may or may not have proposed, only that Burney was the first "outside of the staff." Nonetheless, I've already removed that wording from the article and replaced it with the number of nominations they received for Pluto (which was 150, not 25), saying that Burney's was the first of those. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Resonance ratios

When precession is accounted for, the orbital periods of Styx, Nix, and Hydra are in an exact 18:22:33 ratio.

What does the qualifier clause mean? — I notice that the reciprocal ratio (period vs frequency) can be expressed in smaller numbers, 11:9:6; worth mention? —Tamfang (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction of Roman => Greek origin of the name Pluto

I made Revision as of 02:34, 26 December 2021, correcting Pluto's etymology (the Greek god of the underworld) from "Roman" to "Greek". That revision was reverted. I see now that the page is locked. I'd like to ask that my edit be reinstated.

Thanks! ~Ted/Oliepedia Oliepedia (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT, it's both Greek and Roman. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

From Hades: The Etruscan god Aita and the Roman gods Dis Pater and Orcus were eventually taken as equivalent to Hades and merged into Pluto, a Latinisation of Plouton (Ancient Greek: Πλούτων, romanized: Ploútōn), itself a euphemistic title often given to Hades. I believe Plouton means 'rich', referring to the wealth of mines.

Maybe "Roman" is preferred here because all the classical planets have Roman names (rather than Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares, Zeus, Cronos). —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If "Pluto" was an epithet of Hades, but only became the usual name of the god in Rome, then one might argue that the god "Pluto" was Roman. Not sure that's what happened historically, though. More relevant IMO is what people thought at the time, and as you note, there was a tradition (broken by Uranus) of using Roman names. In the thread below, I quote,

Putnam explained in a press statement the decision to go with a Roman god, in accordance with the other planets. [...] they decided on Pluto, "the god of the regions of darkness where X holds sway." Putnam pointed out that Pluto's two mythological brothers, Jupiter and Neptune, were already represented in the solar system.

but also, from Tombaugh's account,

Pluto, the Greek god of the Lower World, seemed the best one to pick.

So we have a contemporary account that the name was Roman, and half a century later Tombaugh recognized that it was Greek. But Putnam explains that it was the Roman connection that was relevant. So I think it's fair to call it Roman, but we should certainly mention the Greek connection because otherwise people will repeatedly object that it's 'really' Greek. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

I suggest adding a reference to the contribution of Elizabeth L. Willians to the discovery of Pluto. She did the necessary calculations for Lowell to predict the location, and in fact her calculations and predictions based on them led to Lowell capturing an image of Pluto in 1915, which went unnoticed. Eventually, finding Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh indeed relied on the work she did. Multiple references exist in Elizabeth's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Langdon_Williams and also in other sources, such as https://www.space.com/human-computer-elizabeth-williams-pluto-discovery.html (see more sources within).

Please change: Lowell and his observatory conducted his search until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, his surveys had captured two faint images of Pluto on March 19 and April 7, 1915, but they were not recognized for what they were.

to: Lowell and his observatory conducted his search, based on the mathematical calculations made by Elizabeth L. Williams, until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, his surveys had captured two faint images of Pluto on March 19 and April 7, 1915, but they were not recognized for what they were.

77.127.190.148 (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Done, with a link. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

More of a suggestion than a request, but I think the "Quasi-satillite" subsection should be moved from the "Orbit" header to the "Satellites" header. I know why it's currently under Orbit, but I think it'd make sense under Satellites as well. 47.20.182.16 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

agree, it makes more sense. moved. Artem.G (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

When Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune

I know that Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune between 1979 and 1999, but this also happened between 1735 and 1749 and between 1483 and 1503. But what is interesting about this is that this phenomenon also happened in the year 1AD, according to my mental orbital calculations. Is that true? Ar Colorado (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Could be, but I don't see why that would be any more interesting than 1999. 1 AD and 1999 are fairly arbitrary dates. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you subtract 8 orbital periods from the perihelion date of 1989, you get 5.5 AD. That's a consequence of Pluto's orbital period being very close to a quarter millennium, but I don't know if it was closer than Neptune for 20 years in that orbit as it was in this orbit -- and that's assuming the orbit has been stable that long, which isn't yet known. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly known now, given that the orbits of highly eccentric asteroids can be calculated very precisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.111.118 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Add "Trans-Neptunian object" link

to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object Sisu-agape (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already in the lede. Click on "bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune". Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Pluto's Northern Hemisphere should be Southern Hemisphere?

Pluto rotates by 122.53° from the Plutonian ecliptic plane, meaning Pluto is "upside down" and rotates backward relative to 6/8 of our major planets.

According to NASA's "Eyes in the Solar System" planet viewer, this would make the "Heart of Pluto" actually "upside down" compared to the 6 major planets and the orbital directions of all planets. Do you think we should change the caption of the main photo from Northern Hemisphere to Southern Hemisphere. IapetusCallistus (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Per Axial tilt#Standards, the standard is to say that the north pole is the one on Earth's north side of the invariable plane. Everyone's using it, so let's stick to it. (In IAU terminology, what's going on is just that the positive pole of Pluto is its south pole, whereas the positive pole of Earth is its north pole.) Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean Pluto's rotation is retrograde? We seem to be somewhat inconsistent in our usage. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose so, since its tilt is >90°. Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass and Size

"On July 13, 2015, images from NASA's New Horizons mission Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI), along with data from the other instruments, determined Pluto's diameter to be 2,370 km (1,470 mi), which was later revised to be 2,372 km (1,474 mi) on July 24, and later to 2374±8 km."

Unfortunately, 2370 km is (1472.6 mi), not (1470 mi). It really jumps out because the next diameter given is only 2 km more than 2370 km but the conversion jumps up by 4 miles. I didn't change anything because I didn't have time to go through all the source material to see if the mistake is on the Wikipedia page or in the source material. But if someone does have time, please have at it. 2600:1002:B039:3FA9:CD58:FAE6:35C1:3C6C (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I was originally going to comment that this was probably a matter of significant figures. But then I noticed that the source gives Charon to single-kilometer precision, so presumably Pluto also was and just had the bad luck to end in 0. So, corrected to 1473 mi according to the source. Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The rotation period is wrong

The time it takes for Pluto to complete one full rotation is 6.387 days and not 6.386 days. OrangeAedan (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The article does say 6.387 days. Double sharp (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It says 6.386. Look: [[Pluto#:~:text=Synodic rotation period,[8]]] OrangeAedan (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You're looking at the synodic rotation period, which is different from the sidereal rotation period. ArkHyena (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

please add a link to the moon Triton when it's mentioned (Mass and size section) Lejack 007 (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for hyperlink

Hello, new user here. In the first paragraph of this article, the term "Trans-Neptunian object" is used to describe Pluto. As someone who was unfamiliar with the term, I went and found information about what that is on another page here on Wikipedia. I think it would bring clarity to link that page explaining what a trans-Neptunian object is. K74HM86 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@K74HM86 Thanks for the suggestion. We currently have a link to that article for the phrase "bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune". I do think linking trans-neptunian object would be effective in removing confusion but am unsure how we should approach it given the previously mentioned link. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@K74HM86 and Panamitsu: I just linked it. This sounds like a clearly useful link to me, especially to a reader unfamiliar with the concepts discussed in the article. Clarity beats style. Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Pluto." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pluto. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Pluto. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

make it to 134340 Pluto now redirect it 2601:2C6:580:EEB0:BEA4:E316:34E3:5BA5 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

i agree with you 261:2C6:580:EEB0:BEA4:E316:316:34E3:5NA5 Shallom B Adepoju (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Pluto to 134340 Pluto

name it to 134340 Pluto right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 2601:2C6:580:EEB0:BEA4:E316:34E3:5BA5 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no point in such a move. As per WP:COMMONNAME, doing so would not be constructive and is advised against. ArkHyena (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

but we have to because its not a planet Shallom B Adepoju (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Halley's Comet isn't at the title 1P/Halley, either. Double sharp (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ok Shallom B Adepoju (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Odd Object Out

In the opening paragraph in the article, it is cited that [Pluto] "was always the odd object out." This statement is vague and warrants clarification. Is this in reference to its size? If so, perhaps a reference to a source pointing Pluto out as unique would be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.255.21 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

+1, this is really weird phrasing. 68.175.116.82 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It was common phrasing throughout the 20th century. It's not just size, but the fact that when classifying the planets, Pluto didn't fit in anywhere (now of course it does). There were the terrestrial planets, the gas giants, and then odd Pluto at the fringes of the SS. Part of the appeal of Pluto was that it was the oddball. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

'common phrasing throughout the 20th century' doesn't cut it. We are in the 21st century, and that wording is biased and unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.111.118 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly irrelevant, considering that the words in question are describing the situation in most of the 20th century. Pluto only stopped being the odd object out once some actually large TNOs started being discovered, like Varuna or Quaoar. Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with this claim that this phrasing should at least be modified. The sentence even works without it; you could continue with "and its planetary status" without adding that statement about being the "odd object out." TIMBITS42 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've tried changing it to but it never fit well with the other eight. Double sharp (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

is Pluto still considered a planet?

???? 71.212.121.60 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "planet". Our planet article covers the issue. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If Jupiter counts as a planet despite the Jupiter Trojans in it's orbit, than clearly Pluto is a planet 70.124.130.114 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument that the Jupiter trojans are all planets. — kwami (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The IPU really confused things when they came up with their new definition of planet in 2006. I don't object to Pluto being excluded from the definition, but I do object to the term "dwarf planet" - on purely linguistic grounds. Firstly, they said that, after 80 years, Pluto was no longer to be regarded as a planet. It was instead a "dwarf planet", which, to any reasonable person, means a type of planet. So it's still a planet, of sorts. Except, it's not. Any term would have been better than "dwarf planet". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

But that was exactly the point: Pluto was to be a 'dwarf planet', and a 'dwarf planet' would be contrasted with a 'classical planet'. Thus Pluto would still be a planet through the back door. Except that Part B was voted down, so we're left with a silly term than was intended to pave the way for Part B.

'Planetoid' would be better IMO if you think that dwarfs are not planets. 'Dwarf planet' is fine for planetary geologists who continue to regard them as planets.

Why is it that 'minor planet' doesn't create the cognitive dissonance that 'dwarf planet' does? No-one seems to be bothered about them not being planets (though they were until the early-mid 20th century). — kwami (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I never felt there was anything strange about skew fields not being fields in mathematics. Why then should "dwarf planet" be any different? ;) Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, probably because "dwarf planet" is the result of a conflict between two fields of science with, in this case, opposing interests. However, instead of two parallel category systems being created (which, in my humble opinion, should've been done), "dwarf planet" was what we got. It doesn't really help that the term's original proponent is now one of the most vocal critics of the 2006 reclassification, with the intent that DPs would be planets as dwarf galaxies are galaxies... really, I wish the term hadn't become so loaded. Oh well. :Þ ArkHyena (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Only mathematicians have ever heard of a "skew field", and only they can make the distinction you refer to. A lay person coming cross the term would almost certainly believe it's some type of field - because that's the way the English language works - and they'd be wrong, for the same reason that "dwarf planet" is not a type of planet, despite appearances. Only specialists sit and discuss skew fields, but pretty much all humans know a few things about the planets, so to tell the lay world that Pluto is no longer classified as a planet but in the same breath appear to say it is nevertheless a type of planet, and therefore still a planet, makes a mockery of the whole exercise which resulted in its exclusion from the definition in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@JackofOz: So you mean that the problem is that while only specialists say "skew field" or "minor planet", the lay world will talk about "dwarf planets", and so the misleadingness of the term becomes much more important?

They talk about "dwarf planets" solely because that's the term they've been lumbered with by the IAU. What's more likely is that, given that it made huge news at the time, most people know that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but ask them what its official classification is now, and many/most will not know. Suggest to them the term "dwarf planet" and they'll probably say "No, that can't be right. That's still obviously a planet but we've just been told it's not a planet so it must be something else like an asteroid or whatever". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that it would've been better to do something like use "planet" for the 8 dynamically dominant ones, and then use "world" as Jean-Luc Margot suggested for "anything rounded". So Pluto and the Moon are worlds, but not planets: whereas a big asteroid in close orbit around Proxima Centauri might be a planet but not a world. Probably this is the kind of parallel categorisation ArkHyena was talking about. Unfortunately we're stuck with the results of 2006, but I guess they might be revisited when we discover enough weird exoplanets that it becomes untenable.

(There's also the line of geophysical-definition proponents, who would simply ignore the IAU definition and tell you that dwarf planets are planets, and so are "satellite planets" like the Moon or Titan. I guess that would also get over your objection.) Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I am seriously tempted to link a song here about Pluto "not giving a shit that it's a dwarf planet", but I'm not sure the funny is worth it :P Sirocco745 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite closeness (%) of Pluto's average distance from the Sun to a 5-AU multiple

Proposed addition at the end of the second paragraph of the Pluto Article:

The pattern of distances from the Sun being close (within 4.6%) of 5 AU or its multiples has been noted in the articles on "Giant planet" and "Dwarf Planet (in "View history” for 7 June 2024). For Pluto, the average distance from the Sun (or the semi-major axis of its orbit) at 39.5294 AU is -1.2% from 5 AU x 8. VativonHans (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose @VativonHans: This is WP:Original Research. The changes to the articles mentioned have already been reverted on similar grounds ("trivial, unsourced, possible OR"), as have been additions to various dwarf planet articles you made. If you have a reliable source (a published scientific paper) that there is a pattern in those distances, as you suggest, please share it with us and we can discuss it. Microsoft's AI chatbot is not a reliable source (in fact, what your chatbot allegedly said about is plain nonsense). Renerpho (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune and pluto are at 15, 25, 50, 75 and 100 Hermitian [Mercurial] units from the Sun. That's obviously the more valid comparison. Earth is just the 3rd planet, but Mercury is #1 ! — kwami (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Kwami,

Would publication in Reports of the AAS be acceptable? 68.108.51.9 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Kwami,

I should have indicated "Research Notes of the AAS." 68.108.51.9 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

depends on what it is. what is the claim, i.e. how is it interesting enough to mention? — kwami (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

46.217.64.77 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Pluto is not a dwarf planet, its the ninth planet from the sun and farthest from it and not Neptune the international astronomical union is the worst union ever created, Pluto is a planet this is true the people who edited this sucks, Pluto is a planet in solar system and smallest of all planets,dont believe in iau because they wanted to gain more popularity, Pluto is a planet this is true.(Not a blank edit request).

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. _ZZ^Z'S 18:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Orcus section

Does Orcus really need a separate dedicated section in here? Orcus's opposite location of Pluto isn't all that remarkable since that can be said for other known plutinos (i.e. 2003 AZ84, as shown in this diagram) and the only identifiable justification for its importance is that Orcus had a nickname (which is never used outside of pop science, mind you) describing that characteristic. This section just feels like a random tangent that isn't inherent to Pluto whatsoever. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Serendi^podous 01:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)