Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 6 July 2014

	Pluto is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Pluto is part of the Dwarf planets series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 7, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 1, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted March 30, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed April 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed April 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted August 27, 2008 Featured topic candidate Promoted September 4, 2008 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 15, 2006. Current status: Featured article

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 mnemonics. Misplaced Pages 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 Reference desk.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: The following are formal Requested move discussions to rename the Pluto article. Move: "Pluto (planet)" → "Pluto" as the primary topic, August 2005: Accepted (Discussion archive) Move: "Pluto" → "134340 Pluto", September 2006: No consensus for move (Discussion archive) Move: "Pluto" → "Pluto (dwarf planet)", May 2008: Opposed (Discussion archive) Move: "Pluto" → "Pluto (dwarf planet)", August 2009: Opposed (Discussion archive)

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Solar System This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy: Astronomical objects Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 19, 2004, March 19, 2005, March 19, 2006, March 19, 2007, March 19, 2008, March 19, 2010, and March 19, 2013.

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. Serendious 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. Serendious 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. Serendious 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 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. Serendious 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. Serendious 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". Serendious 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)

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?

Yes. That's what hyphens are for. — kwami (talk)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 --RacerX Talk to 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Serendious 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. Serendious 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pluto

Pluto is a dwarf planet.It is named after the greek god Hades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.36.90 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 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.

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. Serendious 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Serendious 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages uses. The definition of the Kuiper belt that Misplaced Pages uses covers an area from 30 to 48 AU only. In that region, the likelihood of finding another Pluto-sized object is tiny. Serendious 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. Will102 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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?

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. Serendious 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? Serendious 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)"

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• FA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics Dwarf planets featured content
• High-importance Featured topics articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• Unassessed Astronomy articles
• Unknown-importance Astronomy articles
• Unassessed Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Solar System articles
• Unknown-importance Solar System articles
• Solar System task force
• FA-Class Astronomy articles
• Top-importance Astronomy articles
• FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
• FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
• Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2013)