Jump to content

Talk:Pluto: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Replaced content with 'Heyyyy Everyone this is your fat ass mom saying you dont need to know nothing bout pluto and go suck a dick'
Line 1: Line 1:
Heyyyy Everyone this is your fat ass mom saying you dont need to know nothing bout pluto and go suck a dick
{{Skiptotoctalk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory

|action1=GAN
|action1date=06:33, 1 October 2006
|action1link=Talk:Pluto/Archive 6#GA on hold
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=78807562

|action2=FTC
|action2date=22:45, 15 October 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System/archive1
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=81659417

|action3=GAN
|action3date=06:22, 30 March 2007
|action3link=/Archive 7#GA Failed: Explanation
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=118975150

|action4=GAN
|action4date=2 April 2007
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=119826980

|action5=FAC
|action5date=29 April 2007
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pluto
|action5result=promoted
|action5oldid=126712099

|action6=FTC
|action6date=05:31, 27 August 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Dwarf planets
|action6result=promoted

|action7=FTR
|action7date=21:15, 4 September 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System/addition8
|action7result=removed

|ftname=Dwarf planets
|maindate=October 7, 2007
|aciddate=October 15 2006
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{ messagebox
| image = Stop hand nuvola.svg
| text = This article is not the place to discuss or complain about '''Pluto's reclassification as a dwarf planet''', to suggest alternative definitions, or to compose new [[Planetary mnemonic|mnemonic]]s. [[WP:NOTFORUM|Wikipedia is not a forum]]. Unless a complaint relates specifically to improving this article, it should be left off the talk page. If you have a question about Pluto's reclassification, please see the articles [[Definition of planet]] and [[2006 definition of planet]], or ask at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]].
}}
{{oldrmmulti|
The following are formal [[WP:RM|Requested move]] discussions to rename the '''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''' article. <br/>
*Move: "Pluto (planet)" → "Pluto" as the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]], August 2005: Accepted ([[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 2#Requested Move|Discussion archive]])
*Move: "Pluto" → "134340 Pluto", September 2006: No consensus for move ([[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 5|Discussion archive]])
*Move: "Pluto" → "Pluto (dwarf planet)", May 2008: Opposed ([[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 9#Requested move|Discussion archive]])
*Move: "Pluto" → "Pluto (dwarf planet)", August 2009: Opposed ([[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 11#Requested move|Discussion archive]])
}}
{{WPBannerShell|
{{WikiProject Solar System|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|class=FA|importance=Top|object=yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Natsci|VA=yes|importance=High}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-03-19|oldid1=6413881|date2=2005-03-19|oldid2=16334945|date3=2006-03-19|oldid3=44443576|date4=2007-03-19|oldid4=116146037|date5=2008-03-19|oldid5=199354568|date6=2010-03-19|oldid6=350703870}}

== Dead link for telegraph article ==

The 12th source no longer links to the telegraph article. The correct link is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3349184/Pluto-should-get-back-planet-status-say-astronomers.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.165.169.120|137.165.169.120]] ([[User talk:137.165.169.120|talk]]) 17:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{Done}}. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

== Size? ==

Is there a consensus on the exact size of Pluto? This article gives diameters of both 2306 and 2320km, while on recent web articles I've also seen 2342 and 2344 km diameter claims, and the error bars don't overlap (±20 resp. ±10km). (With Eris' size estimate reduced to "probably <2340km", it'd be interesting to know which is larger in size.)--[[User:Roentgenium111|Roentgenium111]] ([[User talk:Roentgenium111|talk]]) 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

:[http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/24568 We don't really know the size of Pluto either.] This is much like the old debate between the asteroids [[2 Pallas]] and [[4 Vesta]]. Pallas was discovered first and Vesta was known to be more massive, but it was years before they were somewhat confident that Pallas was larger. And remember the preliminary result of Eris<2340 figure comes from small scopes using long exposures with poor timing resolution and larger than wanted error bars. The Eris vs Pluto volume issue can not currently be solved, but Eris is still the more massive and dense body. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 16:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

== Clarity of Expression ==

In the second paragraph, Pluto is said to be "relatively small". Small compared to what?
Certainly not other Kuiper belt objects. Shame the article has to be locked. [[User:Stivc|Stivc]] ([[User talk:Stivc|talk]]) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
: I see your point but the sentence does go on to compare Pluto to Earth's Moon, and I really don't think adding anything would make the sentence clearer. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
:: I wasn't suggesting anything should be added. I would suggest replacing `and is relatively small' with a period. Removing vagueness would make the rest more clear. I'm going out of my way to achieve a stylistic fix on a locked page-- is this a waste of time? [[User:Stivc|Stivc]] ([[User talk:Stivc|talk]]) 23:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Only if you think so. Personally, I disagree that that information should be removed. But then, Wikipedia is built on consensus, so let's see what others think. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

:::I support the replacement suggest by Stivc. Vagueness is never a good thing. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 02:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

::::As long as the comparison to Earth's moon is left in, I don't mind. Pluto is small compared to the moon and HUGE compared my desk. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 02:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually why even have the comparison at all, it is arbitrary. Within Pluto's own class of dwarf planets it might well be the largest, at the very least currently the second largest. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 02:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

::::The moon is a good frame of reference for the common reader. Many people still do not known that Pluto IS smaller than our moon. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 03:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

== Pluto *may be* larger than Eris! ==

Many are now reporting that Pluto is infact larger than Eris.

Here is one article..

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/11/surprise_plutokilling_eris_is_actually_smaller_tha.html

Space.com also has a nice one as well. The article needs to be changed, as does the Eris one. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.187.252.143|67.187.252.143]] ([[User talk:67.187.252.143|talk]]) 08:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Results are currently too preliminary to draw any firm conclusion as yet. And anyway, Eris is demonstrably more massive than Pluto, however big it is. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 08:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::Pluto has been estimated to be as low as [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/24568 2290 km.] Bruno Sicardy was using [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/24569 2340km for Pluto.] So if Eris is 2340ish, it could still be the larger body. The numbers are to close with to large of an [[error bar]] to accurately call. We need to wait for more official results. See above [[Talk:Pluto#Size.3F|Size section]]. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
===For God's sake!===
This has gone way too far. So far we have a set of extremely preliminary results that haven't even seen the inside of a peer-reviewed journal, giving a diameter for Eris that may or may not be smaller than Pluto, for which we don't have a precise diameter either. Why are we rewriting these articles to suggest that Eris is smaller than Pluto, when we have no confirmed evidence that it is? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

:Bruno Sicardy does seem to be the leader in [http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?mID=2704&sKey=91ea750d-febb-4140-90a7-18400852e1d2&cKey=74324b85-5c97-4767-a0a4-eee3306e8b98 TNO occultations] There is enough data that the articles do need to adjust some. And as I said on my [[User_talk:Kheider#Eris: I think you may be jumping the gun a bit|talk page]], if we do not wiggle some, the anon-IPs will make major edits claiming things such as [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29&action=historysubmit&diff=396328953&oldid=396211771 Pluto is at least 4 meters in diameter larger than Eris.] -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 19:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

== Edit request from VeganLoverOfScience, 17 November 2010 ==

The wikipedia article indicates that Eris is larger than Pluto, but this has can under dispute in the past couple of weeks. In short, recent measurements suggesting the size of Eris is actually 1,454 miles in diameter, while the current accepted value for Pluto’s diameter is 1,456.5 miles, thus Pluto is arguably the largest dwarf planet.

Source:
*http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=is-pluto-the-biggest-dwarf-planet-a-2010-11-08
*http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/07/5426255-plutos-rival-gets-downsized
*http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/11/08/new-bragging-rights-for-pluto-it-may-be-the-biggest-dwarf-planet/

[[User:VeganLoverOfScience|VeganLoverOfScience]] ([[User talk:VeganLoverOfScience|talk]]) 07:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

:Eris is more massive than Pluto. The diameter (volume) debate is mentioned in [[Pluto#cite_note-wiki-kbo-15|note #9]] and the bottom of the [[Pluto#Mass and size]] section. We have already discussed this twice in the [[Talk:Pluto#Size?]] and [[Talk:Pluto#Pluto *may be* larger than Eris!]] sections. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

==Mike Brown size estimate==
Brown's meta-analysis puts both at ~ 1165 km (Pluto ± 25, Eris ± 15 km). I don't want to change anything, because of the other figs which depend on this, but would this be a reasonable figure for both articles, given that the more specific numbers don't agree all that well, and seem to have underestimated their errors? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 05:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
:I have [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pluto&curid=44469&diff=398435725&oldid=397514793 added] this to the main article to help explain that Eris and Pluto are the same diameter, but I am not sure this is something we want (or need) to add to the infobox. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
::No, I don't think we want the details there, but I thought it might be good to use Brown's estimate as our primary number. That is the latest figure we have, it includes the older data, and accounts for reliability of that data from someone who has some idea what he's talking about. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Or someone could replicate and add to both articles [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QIN9Dot7WZg/TOtAEEUVhQI/AAAAAAAAAH8/jrkxUfPwH38/s1600/figure.jpg the figure], citing the error bars to the papers involved, and then we could say that the blog's meta-analysis suggests this number, ''with'' the error bars, which aren't currently mentioned in the article.
:::Then the completely-rumour Eris occultation number can be shown in its proper context. (The main problem with this whole kerfuffle on the two articles has been a drive to view numbers without error bars as meaningful, and preliminary unpublished results off announcements as citable.) [[User:Iridia|Iridia]] ([[User talk:Iridia|talk]]) 04:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::::The only problem here is that Mike's error diagram is copyrighted by him so we can not legally upload it as [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en creative commons] without getting his specific permission in an e-mail. We can always add the error bars to the text (and infobox). I have not added the error bars to the text yet simply because I have dumbed it down to the [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29&curid=2337257&diff=398624564&oldid=398624258 least common denominator] for any reader. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::Since his numbers rather felicitously turned out to be the same for the two planetoids, I think we could just use 1165±xx km, and mention that, within the margin of error, they are about the same size. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

== formatting error ==

For some reason, it looks like reference 9 cuts off and the following part of the description is left hanging off somewhere in the margin "belt, so Pluto becomes the largest Kuiper belt object." Does anybody else see this? I would fix it but I don't know what's wrong or how to unmake it. I'm on chrome/OSX. - [[User:DaoKaioshin|DaoKaioshin]] ([[User talk:DaoKaioshin|talk]]) 00:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
:[[Pluto#cite_note-wiki-kbo-15|Note 9]] looks good under Firefox. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
::The problem seems to be in Chrome, since Safari, Firefox and IE are all fine. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 08:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== Pluto artist's conception ==

This was composed as part of a presentation, but perhaps it could be of some use here?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto.jpg <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:C m handler|C m handler]] ([[User talk:C m handler|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/C m handler|contribs]]) 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Nice, but we tend to stay away from artists' conceptions, especially since New Horizons is on its way. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 09:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from 67.169.72.25, 11 January 2011 ==

{{tl|edit semi-protected}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please change The web page
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pluto
which shows Pluto's radius
Physical characteristics
Mean radius 1,153 ± 10 km[2]
(0.18 Earths)
1161 km[3](solid)
and also shows
Radius estimates for Pluto:
2007 1161 km Young, Young, & Buie [3]

and also it states under:
Mass and size
Pluto's mass is 1.31×1022 kg, less than 0.24 percent that of the Earth,[71] while its diameter is 2,306 (+/- 20) km, or roughly 66% that of the Moon

The new estimate should be listed as shown below

"The radius of Pluto, according to NASA researcher
Dr. David R. Williams, dave.williams@nasa.gov
NSSDC, Mail Code 690.1
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
is 1195 km
according to the web page
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html
dated 17 November 2010
Pluto Earth Ratio (Pluto/Earth)
Equatorial radius (km) 1195 6378.1 0.187

which would make the diameter 2390 km

Also, the NASA web page
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/solar_system/planets/pluto_index.html
states the following for Pluto's diameter

Diameter
2,390 km (1,485.08 miles)
(not the 2330 km in diameter shown on the Wikipedia page)

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/67.169.72.25|67.169.72.25]] ([[User talk:67.169.72.25|talk]]) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

:You might find [http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2010/11/how-big-is-pluto-anyway.html this article] interesting. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 08:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::Even though that NASA page was recently updated, we do not know when the diameter was last updated. the 2,390km figure is just one of [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/24568 MANY] estimates in the last 20 years. Many estimates are smaller than 2,390km. Results from [[Solar eclipses on Pluto|mutual event data]] place Pluto's radius at R=1160 km. Though I like David R. Williams NASA page, I also know from personal experience that it does not always have show the most recent research results. Besides with Alan Stern so emotionally involved with Pluto being a planet, it is remotely possible that NASA's website is biased in favor of the largest estimates. The exact diameter of Pluto is just a best guess at this time. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

{{ESp|n}} There doesn't appear to be consensus for this change. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== Date of perihelion ==

Hi. I suggest that the [[perihelion]] date be mentioned within the infobox based on JPL [http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Pluto&orb=1 Epoch 2454000.5] data (May 8, 1989). The parameter within the infobox however causes it to be displayed as "time of periastron". The message over the template noted that discussion was required. Thanks. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]][[User:AstroHurricane001/U|U]])</sup> 18:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:The date of perihelion is an epoch dependent calculation. The important point is that [http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?faq#B06 osculating elements at some epoch] are always an approximation to an object's orbit (i.e. an unperturbed conic orbit or a "two-body" orbit). The Pluto-Charon [[Barycentre#Barycenter in astrophysics and astronomy|barycenter]] actually came to perihelion on 5 Sept 1989.[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=9](set Observer Location to @sun to place the observer at the center of the sun) The Pluto-center-point came to perihelion "1989-Sep-08 03:00 29.6555658977902 -0.0004811".[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=999] Do we want to use the simple barycenter version or should we go all out with the more complicated Pluto-center-point version? Using the barycenter version it is easy to see when the Pluto-Charon systems deldot goes positive (moving away from the observer=Sun). If you use the Pluto-center-point, Charon pulls Pluto around like an asteroid making the deldot jump all around. Just for the record, Charon's perihelion on 4 Sept 1989 was closer than Pluto's on Sept 8th. :-) -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 19:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::K, at this point, don't you think you should put this in the article? :) <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Should we add something like this as a footnote after the barycenter date? "The discovery of Charon in 1978 allowed astronomers to accurately calculate the mass of the Plutonian system. But it did not indicate the two bodies' individual masses, which could only be estimated, until the discovery of Pluto's outer moons in late 2005. As a result, since Pluto came to perihelion in 1989, most Pluto perihelion date estimates are based on the Pluto–Charon [[Barycentre#Barycenter in astrophysics and astronomy|barycentre]]. Charon came to perihelion on [http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=901 1989-Sep-04.] The Pluto–Charon barycenter came to perihelion on 1989-Sep-05.<ref name=jpl-ssd-horizons/> Pluto came to perihelion [http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=999 1989-Sep-08.]" -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 00:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Seems good to me. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
==length==
This article's getting really really long. I've been looking for a place to trim it and I'm thinking the heaviest subsection is "[[Pluto#Classification|Classification]]". I think that section to be trimmed to 2-3 concise paragraphs and the rest moved to [[IAU definition of planet]]. Any takers? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 15:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:Given how controversial the whole "Is Pluto a planet" topic is, the [[Pluto#Classification|Classification]] section does not look that long to me. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:The article length is not an issue to me. There isn't anything there that should not be there. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 04:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
::The prose is acceptable at 40k, trimmed the code to 100k, which is so-so. Maybe some external links could go. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 06:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from Rawars, 4 February 2011 ==

{{Tld|edit semi-protected}}
<!-- Begin request -->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. [[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Richard_Warshak|Richard 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]


<!-- End request -->
[[User:Rawars|Rawars]] ([[User talk:Rawars|talk]]) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

{{ESp|n}} 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. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 06:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== Sizes of Nix and Hydra ==

The physical diameters of [[Nix_(moon)|Nix]] and [[Hydra_(moon)|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. -- [[User:Henriok|Henriok]] ([[User talk: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 [[Special:Contributions/98.117.186.191|98.117.186.191]] ([[User talk:98.117.186.191|talk]]) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

::Pluto is a planet. So I find it surprising. [[Special:Contributions/98.117.186.191|98.117.186.191]] ([[User talk:98.117.186.191|talk]]) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Not according to [[Planet#21st_Century|this]]. Argue with the IAU if you want that to change. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

::::[[Argument from authority]] [[Special:Contributions/98.117.186.191|98.117.186.191]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists [[Special:Contributions/98.117.186.191|98.117.186.191]] ([[User talk: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. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 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? [[Special:Contributions/98.117.186.191|98.117.186.191]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

*{{ESp|n}} as it has not been classified as a planet since 2006. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk: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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.117.186.191|98.117.186.191]] ([[User talk:98.117.186.191|talk]]) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::::::::Please see the article '''[[Terrestrial_planets#Solar_terrestrial_planets|Terrestrial Planets]]'''. It clearly differentiates Pluto into a separate category, '''[[Plutoid]]s'''. 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. --[[User:Xession|Xession]] ([[User talk: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 [http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/navstarchart.pdf 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 [http://www.springerlink.com/content/e637756732j60270/ 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 [http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/people/conrad/research/pub/WGCCRE2009-preprint.pdf Report of the IAU working group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2009] (published [http://www.springerlink.com/content/g272325h45517581/]) 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. — [[User:Joe Kress|Joe Kress]] ([[User talk:Joe Kress|talk]]) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:53, 4 March 2011

Heyyyy Everyone this is your fat ass mom saying you dont need to know nothing bout pluto and go suck a dick

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pluto&oldid=417115709"