Talk:Geology of Pluto

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Geology of Pluto is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ocean#Extraterrestrial oceans|subsurface ocean]] The anchor (#Extraterrestrial oceans) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Longitude definition, position of Charon

Since Pluto and Charon are mutually tidally locked, Charon should stay above a particular longitude on Pluto (with some amount of wiggling back and forth). Do we know what longitude that is in the maps that appear here? If so, that would be a useful addition to the article. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the template {{current}} relevant here?

Should the lead section contain a template {{current}} here? Template:Current and Template:Current related say: ...the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template. I removed the template from the article but it was reverted some times by one user David J Johnson. And finally article was blocked from IP user editing (correct or not?) 37.54.111.51 (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed over at Talk:Charon (moon) and was removed. As I said there, information in this article may not "change rapidly" as the template suggests. Not much information is likely to change at all any time soon, though lots more information is likely to be added slowly over the next months and years. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here. I don't think the template is necessary. --JorisvS (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. Although more details are yet to come, it is unlikely that there will be a dramatic change weeks after the flyby BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Edits here maxed out at 21, with no contention. Maproom (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen busier articles that haven't needed such a template. As others explained above, there isn't likely to be a continuous large number of edits, but small spurts here or there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Seems to be a case of WP:SNOW. “WarKosign ” 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was requested to provide feedback related to this discussion as an uninvolved editor because there might be some unresolved issues that might need some kind of resolution. I've looked at the edit history of the talk page and I consider the article editing to be non-contentious and construction. Also, there seems to be consensus regarding the article and its talk page. I feel like I might be missing something. Can someone let me know what the conflict might be because I don't see it. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 13:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the template; I don't think it's particularly relevant at this point. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you about the issue not being relevant and glad to see that there doesn't seem to be a problem at this time. I would only like to let you know that requesting help from an uninvolved editor has to be 'closed out' by the use of another template designed to do that by the uninvolved editor. Not a big deal, except that this discussion might continue to appear on the 'list' of discussions that weren't closed. Hopefully, removing the template will do the same thing-or I might get scolded by not adhering to the guidelines. Best Regards and thank you to all of you who work to make this article even better,

Bfpage |leave a message 13:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geology of Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629005310/http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/pluto/hrcmap.html to http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/pluto/hrcmap.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]