Talk:Pluto/Archive 2

Small Layout Change to the Talk Page
For some reason, several headings were lumped under "Astrology", and the "Discussion Regarding Article Edits/POV" was empty. I'm pretty sure "Astrology" was in fact, supposed to be *under* "Discussion Regarding Article Edits/POV", along with all these other headings that were under "Astrology". I have made it so, I hope no one minds. Tzepish 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Astrology
Pluto was labeled as scorpios planet What will happen now? Do metaphysicist have togoback to a workshop; rather how will they update their education?--Howmee 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Discovery photograph
The 'discovery photographs' of Pluto need an arrow to show which of the 'stars' is Pluto, because I can't see any difference between them! The Singing Badger 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason you can't see any difference is....because Pluto isn't on the lower one! Oops. For some reason, the bottom plate has been cropped above where Pluto is. See this photo.Richard B 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"ninth planet" redirect?
Should it stay or should it go? Starks 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ninth planet RfD'd. Femto 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "ninth planet"-page could be used to explain this synonym for Pluto and offer a link to the main Pluto page. Marisa proposed this

Lawsuit
The article says "Constance Lowell, Percival's widow who had delayed the search through her lawsuit..."

What lawsuit is being referred to?

This article will be moved to...
Just like we call Sedna as 90377 Sedna, Pluto should also have a number.

Since 129,436 such solar system bodies have been numbered, so what if move this article to 129437 Pluto, and move Charon (moon) to (129437) Pluto I Charon? Yao Ziyuan 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Speculation. --GW_Simulations |User Page 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't even know if dwarf planets will be numbered in future, much less what those numbers would be. Shimgray | talk | 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Give the poor IAU a chance to relax and have a cup of tea before they start to sort this stuff out. It's their job, not ours. The Singing Badger 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear hear! They've been through enough already; it was traumatic for all involved, not just the poor public who can't believe Pluto's not a planet. Hint: Santa Claus might need your attention. Too bad WP:FAITH isn't an official policy in the broader world. --Aelffin 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But Ceres is also a drawf planet, and it has a number, called 1 Ceres. — Yao Ziyuan 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And if the IAU gives Pluto a number, then we'll reflect that here. But until then, it's just Pluto. There are plenty of other situations where "extrasystematic" names have been granfathered in--see the "misplaced Trojans" in the Greek Camp of the Trojan asteroids, for example. It's just par for the course. --Aelffin 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No WP:OR, please. Pluto has had a name since 1930 ... I don't think they'll be changing it anytime soon. A lot of smaller moons in the solar system don't have numbers anyway (Titan, Triton, Titania, et al), so there's some precedent for not requiring numbers on every non-planet. -- Cyde Weys 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most people know Pluto and Charon as simply that, so, according to Wikipedia's naming conventions policy, they should probably remain as they are. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Regardless of opinion as to if it is a planet or not, Pluto has not been assigned a number. Robovski 00:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. It's not our job to decide which object gets to be number 129437.  --Arctic Gnome 00:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I strontly agree. Just like every other dwarf planet and asteroid, 129437 Pluto should be given appropriate name. Homo cosmosicus

07:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Pluto will still be called Pluto in any astronomy textbook, despite the redefinition and all of the nonsense that's going around here. The IAU has not given Pluto a number, and only asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects were given numerical designations, and this especially is not going to happen because it is blatant original research. The IAU is not going to rename Pluto, if anything, Ceres, Quaoar, Sedna, "Santa", "Xena", "Easterbunny", etc. will have their numbers removed in formal writing. If anything, this entire debate should be closed. Ryūlóng 08:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Yes Pluto should probably have a number, but it's not up to us to give it a number. Wikipedia isn't for speculation... we'll give the Pluto article a number when Pluto gets a number. Tzepish 02:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * strong oppose.   129437 pluto makes no sense, just like everythig eles.


 * strong oppose. This is getting silly, lets let the cards fall where they may, and then pick them up and decide where they should go. —Taka2007 05:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV attempts
Someone is trying to modify the intro to be a "some people say Pluto is a planet and some don't" thing, which just looks terrible. It's defined as a dwarf planet; we can say (in the appropriate places) that some people still consider it a planet, and we can say that it was historically one, but we can't claim that this is ambiguous. Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's too early to even say "some people still call Pluto a planet". The most NPOV thing we could say and still be accurate is that some people have objected to this reclassification. We'll have to wait a while to see whether the usage acutally changes. --Aelffin 16:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The usage will inevitably change. Look at Ceres ... it was redefined as not being a planet in 1850 and we never looked back (well, except for very briefly in 2006).  -- Cyde Weys  19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not inevitably. 1 Ceres was called a planet for a shorter period of time and with less popular interest in an age of lower literacy. Pluto has been a planet in film and literature for 76 years in a more literate age. People, me for one, will stick with it as such.--T. Anthony 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the usage stays the same. It won't be the first time the public didn't understand scientific terminology. See evolution, organic, there, their, and they're for other examples. --Aelffin 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't seriously compare this to evolution. Natural selection can be shown by the fossil record and the relatedness of species by genetics. You can't show what is or is not a planet in the same way, you can only make definitions which may or may not be accepted. It's like the definition of Megafauna or Continent there are many cases open for debate.--T. Anthony 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can show conclusively that the eight universally accepted planets dominate their orbits while Pluto is one of many objects that is dominated by a particular orbital resonance with Neptune. Whether that's a good criterion for planethood is up to you, but I think if you hand-pick certain Kuiper Belt objects to be called planet based on a trivial size limit, then things would get rather sloppy rather quickly. The IAU Executive Committee didn't think the particular terminology was important, so they tried to match up the term with the public (mis)understanding of the word. But the astronomers who make up the IAU General Assembly decided it would confuse things in scientific circles if they suddenly and arbitrarily made a new definition. So, they rewrote the proposal to reflect current scientific usage. Clear and non-arbitrary nomenclature is important to the process of science, like it or not. --Aelffin 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * MiguelMunoz did fairly well on making me reconsider. I'm not sure I've changed my mind, but I'm considering it. However the one point stands. You can't compare nomenclature to evolution or things that can be basically proven as fact. Nomenclature is important and useful, but it's not a scientific reality the way natural selection or quantum mechanics is. It's a matter of convention in order to make coherent communication in science easier. We could have a solar system with a hundred or a thousand objects called "Planets" and although it'd make things more difficult it would not negate science. We could also quit calling anything a planet and declare the word "planet" to be an obsolete notion of the ancient Greeks. A convention of astronomers however can't declare that Pluto doesn't exist or that it's made of guacamole or that it was created by God 6,000 years ago. Facts are facts, but nomenclature is more about communication. Added to that the facts are that the Gas Giants are already greatly different than the terrestrial planets so having different kinds of objects be called planets is already done. To compare this to evolution, where there's evidence with relationships being long established, is misleading.--T. Anthony 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary relationships appear to go back many millions of years and have only recently become well-established by modern phylogenetic analysis software. Orbital mechanics, on the other hand has been well understood since Laplace concieved of the restricted three-body problem in the 18th century, and the orbital relationships that obtain as a result of these calculations appear to go back a couple of billion years. Evolution and planetology are different, but they both use non-arbitrary classification techniques to clarify communication about the relationships between the objects they deal with. That being said, you're basically saying the same thing as I am: the particular conventions of nomenclature are not factual necessities, but are chosen by scientists to facilitate communication. However, we seem to have a different understanding of the word "arbitrary". If terms match up to natural categories, they are non-arbitrary; if they fail to do so, they are arbitrary. Sure, nomenclature is a matter of convention; we could call forks spoons and dogs cats, but if the terms consistently match up to observable features, then they are non-arbitrary. If, on the other hand we call chihuahuas, lynxes, and Indian elephants "cats" while we call St. Barnards, ocelots, and African elephants "dogs", then we are not matching up our words very well to a coherent classification scheme. Likewise, if we call a small body in an orbit locked in resonance with a larger object by the same term as we use to describe the larger object, well, that would be confusing. Case in point. Moreover, there's a long and established history of calling large, dominant objects "planets" and also a long and established history of calling small members of large families of objects by their own family name. The new definition matches not only observable criteria, but also long-held scientific convention. --Aelffin 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection?
I saw somebody tried to put this page on semi-protection. Considering the incessant vandalism, maybe this is a good idea. --Aelffin 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would second this, particularly after reviewing the history page and seeing that a large amount of traffic is from vandalism from IPs and subsequent reversions. Dsf 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've semiprotected it. Let's try lifting it after a few hours... Shimgray | talk | 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
"From its discovery in 1930 until 2006 it was considered the ninth and smallest of the planets..." I don't think so. Here's what it says later on: "The discovery [of Charon in 1978] also led astronomers to alter their estimate of Pluto's size. Originally, it was believed that Pluto was larger than Mercury..." From 1930 to 1978, was it considered smallest or second smallest? Art LaPella 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My old 1968 astronomy textbook says Pluto has a radius of 3000 km, bigger than Mercury. So I'll change the second paragraph. Art LaPella 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we should cite the all-important study on this (Dessler, A.J., Russel, C.T., 1978. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. 61:690)... Shimgray | talk | 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pagemove
This page just got moved to Pluto (dwarf planet); I've moved it back. Please discuss any such moves; using this as the primary title was decided on long ago. Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's unneccisary disambiguation anyway. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I too concur.--Jersey Devil 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if Pluto isn't a "true" planet, it remains the most important of Plutos.--JyriL talk 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charon is a dwarf planet too or a moon? It can't be a moon since it does not orbit Pluto. double dwarf system? --Noypi380 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation
http://www.ldolphin.org/unruh/planet/ch4ph.html --Gbleem 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Elaborate please. 70.177.71.206 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Smallen ze article
There's a suggestion on the article page to smallen ze article... my suggestion is to split off a Pluto and Charon article, that is similar to the Earth and Moon article. Zzzzzzzzzzz 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Combine 2 sections?
The section "International Astronomical Union meeting" overlaps the section "Demotion to a dwarf planet" they discuss its demotion and I believe that this should simply be another piece as it would complete the timeline (doubt to fact). Deathbob 05:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Demotion
I think the use of word demotion throughout the article is POV. Pusher 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been described as a "demotion" by several media outlets. If the passages are simply references to the way it's been perceived by some observers I don't see anything wrong with using that term, although I suppose describing this decision in a generic sense as a demotion might pose a problem. Ruthfulbarbarity 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it POV? Is it not objective to say that planet is a higher classification than dwarf planet? As such, moving from the latter to the former would be a demotion by a simple dictionary definition. -- Cyde Weys 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the problem is that it signifies some sort of change in status, which is true, to the exent that it will no longer referred to as a "planet."
 * It's more of a reclassification than anything else.
 * That's all that the Astronomical Union did.
 * Nothing has really changed about the essential structure or orbital path of Pluto, regardless of whether it's described as a "planet" or a "dwarf planet" or something else. Ruthfulbarbarity 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, "reclassification" sounds a good neutral term. It also applies to objects like Ceres Shimgray | talk | 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. I have thus edited a section heading to reflect this. Dsf 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of However,
Is it just me, or are you not supposed to begin a sentence with "however?" I edited it out of a sentence, but I was reverted :-\ 72.230.61.217 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's you, rest assured. Ruthfulbarbarity 06:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. However, it's good that you brought it here instead of grinding int an edit war over it. Hbdragon88 08:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had enough edit wars to last me a life time.... It appears, however, that I was correct. (see http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/032.html) 72.230.61.217 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That just says "36% of people think so and another 20% vaguely agree". It doesn't seem to be in Fowler's, for what that's worth. Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Next you're going to tell me that the serial comma isn't mandatory! 72.230.61.217 10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One can start a sentence with "however." The way in which Strunk & White advise writers to do so can be exampled thus: "However this argument turns out, it seems to be relatively irrelevant."  Most sentences starting with "However" followed by a comma can be substituted with "Nevertheless."  --Xaliqen


 * Nevertheless, nobody actually uses the word "Nevertheless" in spoken English. It's too formal for my taste. -- MiguelMunoz 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

IAU Politics in Wikipedia article
A question for Wikipedians: is it appropriate to make a mention of the politics behind the vote? E.g. the cite of 4% of members in the room when they voted. I have no personal stance on this. I am just curious if this is appropriate for inclusion. If it is, then great. If not, then, well... Dsf 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably more appropriate to have details in the article on the debate itself (2006 redefinition of planet); just say something like "was decided by / was voted by) the IAU General Assembly..." Shimgray | talk | 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the very least it should be moved out of the introduction, where it seems out of place. -Do c t or W 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All right. I agree with a move of that part since there is already a discussion of reclassification process itself elsewhere, where it is a better and more natural fit. No outright deletion, just a relocation. Doing so momentarily. Dsf 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Every time I refresh the watchlist this seemed to be being revandalised; just about every edit in the last couple of hours has been reverted. I've semiprotected it again, to give people a break from continually wiping up crap; might want to unprotect it again in a few hours. Shimgray | talk | 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! -- Alex  talk here 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

CAT:Former planets
Category:Former planets was deleted some months ago, because it was deemed not necessarily, and was listified. Are we going to recreate it? I see it at the category listing on the bottom of the page. 132.205.45.148 23:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * List of solar system bodies formerly considered planets
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_23

John Gibson
Hi, I'm a new editor and want to add this to the article. If I forget, which I am prone to do, Im putting it here for you to discuss or possible add. On August 24th 2006 John Gibson wrote an editorial regarding the then recent descision ofthe removal of the celestial object Pluto's planetary status. Instead of presenting scientific evidence against the unkown organization responsible for Pluto's declassification, Gibson argues that "It's been a planet all my life. I learned that in third grade." Furthmore, John Gibson admits himself "I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly. The headline was all I needed to see to know I'm rejecting this attempt at revisionist history." Critics of Gibson argue that this article is a metaphoric example of how conservative traditonalist sentimentalism effects our everyday lives.  Spazik007 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Symbols
Was:At the moment this may seem trivial

But isn't there another symbol for pluto that resesmbles those used for mercury and venus? Is it used anymore? Shouldn't we resprent both symbols at the top of the page? Whatcanuexpect 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See the "symbols" section below - there's one common astronomical one, one astrological one, and at least one long-abandoned one that looks like neither. Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Symbols 2
I'm sitting here with a 1932 astrological handbook on my desk. Leaving aside their touching faith in Pluto as a source for astrological significance (how did they cope before 1930, one wonders?), the interesting detail is that it uses a symbol I've not seen before. They don't use the PL monogram, unsurprisingly, but they don't use the "circle in trident" symbol here.

Rather, it's a circle with an arrow to the top right - like the symbol for Mars - but with two parallel lines running across the shaft of the arrow (I can only describe it - too small to photograph cleanly). They're using it in text with the other symbols, which suggests they at least considered it standard enough to cut a punch for the symbol. Has anyone encountered this one anywhere else? Shimgray | talk | 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like this? (I just drew that based on your description.)  Seems familiar, but not for Pluto.  Symbols.com doesn't list it. DenisMoskowitz 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty much; slightly "stubbier" and the lines are closer together, but that's probably just an artifact of the small printsize. It is familiar, but I'm damned if I can think where... I've seen Mars-with-one-bar before, as a male-and-female symbol, but not two. Shimgray | talk | 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, who is the author of the handbook? I recall seeing the same or similar symbol when leafing through a work from the same period and being surprised. I don't recall who the astrologer was, but it was someone notable such as Elsbeth Ebertin or Koch.  Zeusnoos 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Raphael's Almanac 1933; don't know who actually wrote it. Shimgray | talk | 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this is a different source from the same time period, I think this symbol must have been an early version of the astrological symbol for Pluto. It apparently did not catch on since astrologers then primarily used the floating circle in a cup beneath a cross. Zeusnoos 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

symbols 3
The symbol for Pluto here is different: Alchemical_symbol. Why is the one in the article different? Should we include both? Why are there variations on planet symbols and who decides which ones are official, etc.--Sonjaaa 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Astronomers use one; astrologers use another. Simple as that. We already refer to the non-standard astrological one. As to "who decides", no idea... but I suspect the IAU will assume that role. Shimgray | talk | 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Charon
I was surprised to see shair'-ən /ˈʃɛərən/ given as the pronunciation for Charon in the table under Pluto's moons. The Charon article gives both this and kair'-ən /ˈkɛərən/. The Greek name Χάρων can, as far as I know, never be pronounced with sh as the first sound. The letter Χ in Greek stands for a sound that is similar to German ch in ich or Scottish ch in loch, and it's best transliterated by kh. It can be pronounced as k or h or something in-between, but never sh. Can the suggested pronunciation be reliably sourced? Aquirata 09:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed pronunciation to kair'-ən /ˈkɛərən/. Aquirata 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed it back. Plenty of sources in earlier discussion at Charon article (perhaps archived by now?). Shair'-ən is the common pronunciation of this body among astronomers, as it was among the discoverer and his colleagues. The 'correct' pronunciation of a word is how it is pronounced, and the sh version is by far the more common. kwami 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the object is referred to as a mispronunciation of the deity it is supposedly named after. They might as well call it "$%^&A" for all the sense that this makes.  --Xaliqen
 * One thing that isn't mentioned is that Christy's wife's name is Sharon, and that's the way he pronounces the moon himself. CFLeon 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto Image
Jesus H. Christmas! We can send men to the moon, locate small planets orbiting stars billions and trillions of miles away, perfectly map our galaxy, and have our pet's medication delivered to our door -- but we cannot get one clear picture of Pluto!?--Mdriver1981 02:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) "We can send men to the moon"..oh can we? I thought that was only possible during the Vietnam war, traveling in a glorified tin can, proving our mighty power to videotape a bunch of jack-offs on a huge soundstage! -wikiwiseass


 * That is the worst picture of anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Caesar 03:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the best picture that exists! It is a long way away... We could run with the slightly older, slightly worse resolution, but not quite as hideous, Image:Plutoncharon1.jpg; Image:Pluto artistimpression.gif is detailed, but heavily conjectural. Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even the current image is not a photograph. Even Hubble can't take images at that resolution. The image has been synthetized from brightness curves in two colors during mutual eclipses of Pluto and Charon which occurred between 1985 and 1990. (BTW, why those eclipses aren't mentioned in the article?)--JyriL talk 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it me or does this (Image:Plutoncharon1.jpg) just look like a disco ball? Are there any plans to send a mission to photograph Pluto? Or is there one already in progress? Alexj2002 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just read that section of the article. 8 years until we get a proper photo... Alexj2002 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel the main problem with the image in the infobox is that it strongly suggests that Pluto is spherical. Fracture98 20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think Pluto isn't spherical? Shsilver 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly? I always thought it was "common knowledge" that is was peanut shaped! Not sure where I picked that up. Never mind Fracture98 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like an artist's impression of the planet, you can find one at the Pluto in popular culture page. It's an image created using the brightness curve/albedo images as a guideline. I've attempted to keep the visible surface features (such as the dark equatorial region) as close as possible to those we can "observe". Until New Horizons reaches it's destination, feel free to use this image on wikipedia. --80.6.88.221 09:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Headline image
The headline picture looks extremely pixelated on my monitor. Is this a common problem? (For other users, I mean)EarthGuardian 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the most detailed image NASA has gotten so far, I believe. -- Will Mak  050389  04:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Asterisms
An asterism is a group of stars which is not a constellation. The article referenced does not mention Pluto at all, and says that the IAU ratified a list of constellations in 1930, making every other group of stars an asterism (i.e. an informal grouping). They may have defined Pluto as a planet at the same meeting, they may not have done. --ajn (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1930 ratification appears to have been from a 1928 draft (the wheels of science grind exceeding fine), so I very much doubt it was part of that.
 * Digging through contemporary newspaper reports, I find a lovely article in the Times (7.Apr.30) calling it "what may be an eighth major planet" (running Mercury down, or a typo?), and a letter urging that "The new planet should certainly be called Bacchus, because it has reeled farthest out into space, makes Neptune wobble, was discovered in the land of Prohibition, and is by general agreement a rum-runner." (23.Apr.30) There's a brief claim from Canada for a tenth planet on 24th April, and an announcement in May of the new name, but I haven't been able to spot anything about an IAU pronouncement on the matter. Shimgray | talk | 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On further examination, by late May everyone seems to have just accepted it was a planet, with or without formal pronouncement on the matter. If the IAU did make any formal rulings, one would expect them to be at the 1932 meeting; anyone have access to their proceedings? Shimgray | talk | 22:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried getting a direct link to the original ratification in the 30s. I missed, caught my error via other edits, and noted it has already somewhat been fixed. Good catch. I think we still need a cite to the original ratification for obvious reasons. Electrawn 01:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My changes to the introductory paragraph
As seen in the article's history, there has been an idiotic edit war over the content of the intro, the latest change which was here. Apparently, my changes were seen as werong by another user, who had reverted me many times. I had made those changes to fix the various grammatical errors, redundancies, and diction, but there appeared to be ownership issues by the other editor, who feels that my version of the intro was The Wrong Version. I would like to subject these edits to the scrutiny of other editors of this page, to see what is better. Ryūlóng 20:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro is too long, some things need to be cut
The intro is a bit too long and should be trimmed down a bit. For instance, in an article about the planet, it isn't necessary to mention the New Horizons mission in the intro. -- Cyde Weys 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Move Pluto (dwarf planet) to disambiguation page
As we know that first few dwarf planets are just begining, there is going to be few dozens and perheps over hundreed of them in near future. We also know that on Wikipedia many objects whose name have origin in Greek Mythology, have their pages starting on disambiguation page, like for example: Titan, Charon, Ceres, Juno, Vesta and other objects in space. One of the benefits is that we will have less vandalism on Pluto page.

Homo cosmosicus 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is already a disambiguation page. Incidentally, please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, so people don't have to search to find them.  --ajn (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that search for Pluto brings user to the dwarf planet Pluto, not to the Pluto disambiguation page, in the case of other space bodys, as mentioned above: Titan, Charon, Ceres, Juno, Vesta and others, search brings you either to their respective disambiguation pages, or to ancient god name they are named after. Homo cosmosicus 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And other planetary bodies don't. In the absence of a number for Pluto (e.g. 1 Ceres), I don't see why it's necessary for Pluto to go to the disambiguation page rather than this one.  There is a link to the disambiguation page at the top of this article, and as Ryulong says it's far more likely that someone looking for the name is looking for the planet rather than Disney's dog or the Roman god or the left-wing publishers.  --ajn (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, new discussions go to the bottom of sections. Second, vandalism to Pluto will not change depending on where it is moved to. It is because of the prevalence of the planet in the news as well as being on the front page of Wikipedia that causes this vandalism. Also, Pluto has a disambiguation page, as do other similar items regarding articles with similar names. And it does not have to be disambiguated to be Pluto (dwarf planet); this Pluto is the most widespread of any other Pluto, probably even more than Mickey's dog. There is also another conversation on this page concerning the (dwarf planet) disambiguation. Ryūlóng 09:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor comment to wording in intro:
The sentence:

"Pluto and its largest satellite Charon have often been considered a binary system because they are more nearly equal in size than any other planet/moon combination in the Solar System, and because the two bodies orbit a point not within the surface of either. Two smaller moons named Nix and Hydra were discovered in 2005." seems to imply that Pluto is a planet, by the reference to "Other planet/moon combination".

As this appears prior to the first reference of that Pluto used to be considered a planet, it might look a bit odd.

Best regards 18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Jarand Røynstrand Norway


 * dropping "other" should fix this, right? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Echo
There are many similarities between the French and English articles, including numerous passages which are translations of one another. It seems that borrowing of content has already happened. As it stands, it does not seem that there is any additional content in the French article that could be added to the English article. -- Curps 14:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Theres more in the German Wiki. I don't know anything in that language though, but it's there.--Planetary 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In Memoriam: Pluto 1930-2006
Was at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum today (8/25/06)--the day after Pluto's "demotion"--and there was a black ribbon (a mourner's sash) across the section devoted to Pluto in the Exploring The Planets exhibition and a large "In Memoriam" placard on a stand (titled something like the above) explaining the "loss" of Pluto. Glad to see that they were ready and have a sense of humor about it.

Of course, the symbol for Pluto was blacked out at the entrance to the exhibition, but otherwise references to Pluto and to "nine" planets remained throughout the exhibit. I was tempted to buy up the posters from the gift shop that still listed Pluto as a planet.

70.17.111.234 01:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC) DR


 * I think people are overreacting over this. To think that so many people have such an emotional attachment to a piece of rock 5 billion miles from here that they'll never see in the first place. Besides, it's just a name. PLuto is still there. It's not gone. People are acting like the IAU blew up Pluto. The Wookieepedian 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree! I don't see the huge deal.--Kimbalee1 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU deserves a lot of credit for risking public outcry to give us a cohesive, scientifically rigid definition of planets. Pluto is not unique in the big scheme of things and should not be included in any scheme of classification with objects in the solar system that are. Here's to them! Kensai Max 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not like they risked an outcry in order to save the environment, protect us from asteroids, explain the origins of the Universe, improve interest in astronomy, or even better understand KBOs. They risked outcry to create a consistent nomenclature, there's nothing romantic or noble about that. Sometimes creating outcry is for a good cause, other times it just kind of happens. This is more the latter. It's understandable to want to make them into latter-day Galileos, but it's also unreasonable and silly.--T. Anthony 10:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, you should have bought the poster anyway. It might become very valuable in the future! --Ixfd64 04:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how this talk page has suddenly mushroomed to something like fifty sections overnight, anyone who provokes enough controversy to do something like that for a just cause deserves credit. Now, don't get me wrong, this decision doesn't actually change anything besides some museum displays, but at least science won over sentimentality here, and that's something that doesn't happen a lot nowadays. Kensai Max 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a Planet Anymore!
Pluto STILL is a planet. It is a type of planet. Just like a HUMAN is a type of mammal. That doesn't mean humans aren't mammals. A dwarf planet is a TYPE of planet. So to say that Pluto isn't a planet is simply WRONG.
 * And yet the IAU definition of "planet" SPECIFICALLY excludes Pluto. Mammals, however, still clearly includes humans. That is the difference. Aprogressivist 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss. I'm sad... I liked Pluto, and was hoping 2003UB313 would get a cool name :(.PhoenixSeraph 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some kind of problem with the tags changes made to note that it's not a planet. Can't fix at the moment but if someone has time it's in the first reference tag. Tom K. 13:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Won't someone think of the effect this will have on Sailor Moon?!?!?!?! xD 203.59.184.144 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They did; see the changed entry for Sailor Pluto Lothar76 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Sailor Moon herself is not named after a planet either, I don't see any problems here.

Must suck to be pluto right now... should the Pluto article be nominated for deletion? No longer notable... Hejog 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. It's so notable that they had to invent a new class of solar system objects (Dwarf planets) to account for Pluto! Bluap 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The controversy and reclassification of Pluto's status gives us MORE to talk about, not LESS; hence it fully deserves this article. Aprogressivist 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why delete it? Varuna and Ixion are comparatively insignificant, yet their articles are chock-full of stuff.PhoenixSeraph 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Hejog was joking... --Ckatz chat spy  16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, just call Uranus Pluto and the problem is solved. I'm totally not joking dude. --Aelffin 16:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone's still gonna call it a planet. It's like the SkyDome]... no one's gonna call it the Rogers Centre (doesn't that company have its name plastered on enough stuff?)

BNLfan53 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm devastated by this news. Seriously it's like hearing that the month of February is no longer a month, or that Friday no longer exists! -- Alex  talk here 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind so much if Mondays no longer existed... -- Arwel (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you mean -- Alex  talk here 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong pluto is not a planet according to resolution 5b. Is said that planets would be called classical planets. it was turned down. They were stating that they were not going to have 2 groups of planets, just planets and dwarf planets. its like pools and oceans. they are both made of water, so they are similar, but they are not 2 types of the same thing


 * Isn't it politically incorrect to call it "dwarf" planets? Shouldn't they be called diameter challenged planets instead? 129.78.208.4 05:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No dwarf is a proper term for little people or things. Although in a rare double-whammy move maybe they'll declare that as dwarf planets are not planets dwarf people no longer count as people:)(I'm 3 foot 5 so I can get away with that)--T. Anthony 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This just in; Z now no longer a letter! It has been downgraded to "superfluous lexigram". Also being considered are C, Q, and X. A draft resolution is expected. ;)  (SoniK Traveler 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Q, X, and Z are legitimate letters. We could do without C, though.  S and K are good enough to replace everything that C does.  While we're at it, 'TH' shuold be it's own letter.  --Arctic Gnome 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Pluto a Planet?
I found this article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144868646.html if anyone wants to add information from it please do. there are many more articles like this one.


 * This article is over three years old; it seems less relevant in the light of the decision made today. Aprogressivist 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Important to note that only 300 of the 2,500 members present even voted. Does a minority voice really matter? I think the majority of astronomers the 2,200 that had accepted pluto as a planet simply ignored the ranting of a small minority that does not really matter.
 * And only 122 million out of 288 million people in the US voted in the presidential election. What's your point? You've gotta vote to get your voice heard.--Bobblehead 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The President of the United States elected by these means is without a doubt the President of the United States. But who has the authority to define whether something is a planet or not? It´s just like in Manderlay, where the people chose to vote to decide what time was it. A.Z. 22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the defintions made up by biologists, a whale is not a fish. The public may still define it as such because it looks like a fish and swims in the water. However, biologists know much more about whales and fishes and are able to come up with a lot of points where whales and fish differ, much more than needed to define a whale as a not-fish. You're free to define Pluto as a planet and nobody will come and get you because of that in the middle of the night. But for an encyclopedia it's the definition of the experts that counts. If the experts will use different definitions in the future (what might happen because the IAU has of course no jurisdiction about them either) I'm all for putting it into the Pluto entry that its status is disputed. But first I want to see where the scientific literature it heading. The protests of one Mr. Stern is not enough. Especially since there are good arguments that his protest has more to do with personal prestige and that of his mission than with the science.
 * 84.165.203.4 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was half expecting the "whale/fish" statement despite it being silly. You can show genetically that a Whale is not a fish. You can also do so with regard to its body make up, warm-bloodeness, four-chambered heart, and it bearing live young who nurse. You can not "show" Pluto is or is not a planet in the same manner. The composition of the eight official planets varies greatly. The Gas giants being radically different than the terrestrials. Hence any analogy to "genetics" is not doable as the eight are not the same kind of thing chemically/geologically. Behavioral characteristics could be more analogous to what was done here. Although even there it's debatable. The whale/fish thing is a flawed analogy at best.--T. Anthony 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An analogy is an analogy is an analogy. The main point of the analogy is that one should leave such definitions to those people who have studied this subject and not to people who can basically say that Pluto "is round", "circles the sun", "was always considered a planet". The point of the analogy was not so say that Pluto contains DNA different from the Earth's DNA for heavens sake. But if you (not me) want to stretch the analogy that far: The creation process (among other things) of Pluto is different from that of the planets. In other words, it has a different origin. Again in other words, to say it's "genetically" different is not a bad metaphor at all. And my argument is certainly not "silly".
 * 84.165.203.116 13:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * People don't have to humbly submit to what a small group of people say. To compare that to what can simply be shown by facts is foolish. And as for the different origin prove it. As far as I know they didn't show evidence that Pluto wandered in from the stars or something. Sheesh man the asteroids and the Moon were also created in the forming of this solar system.--T. Anthony 15:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and whales and fish also go back to the same origin if you only dig deep enough. Thanks god I don't have the burden of proof here since IAU and wikipedia are on my side. I have better things to do than spend my afternoon on finding papers for you. I suggest you go to your nearest mirror of the Los Alamos preprint server and look by yourself. Alas, a decision based on the scientifc literature is something you didn't accept in the first place and furthermore the papers are all written by the same "small group of people" you mistrust, namely the astronomers and astrophysicts in this world. They provided all the "facts", including the tiny subset you base your opinions on. So on second thought, there is really no point for you in looking there. And there is also no point in me trying to convince you because I'm an even smaller group of people consisting of exactly one (1) person you will believe even less.
 * 84.165.139.55 18:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous personage you really know nothing of me. Although my college degree is in history it's not like I'm some uneducated fool on this subject. In fact my history thesis concerns science to a certain degree and the history of science is an interest in mind. I can name several astronomy articles I created here if need be. However the analogies you are making are basically a form of Scientism. Things are not scientific merely because we like scientists, trust their judgement, and can find a justification for them. If they were then we'd still have to accept eugenics among other things. The whole notion is practically a debasement of science. Science is a proving or disproving of hypotheses. People are making out like rejecting this verdict is the same as rejecting evolution or the Big Bang. That idea is ridiculous and highly insulting. If you can't see that it's your problem. I'll stop there as a storm is coming in my region.--T. Anthony 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pluto is no longer considered a planet.

I'd use the following definition for planets:


 * Any object that has cleared out it's orbit of objects larger than any of its moons. Moon is defined (?) as any object orbiting another object where the center of gravity of the binary system is within the volume of the more massive body.  This would disqualify Pluto as the COG is outside its surface, and is actually a binary system.


 * Another definition could be, any object orbiting the Sun that is larger (more massive?) than the largest moon of any other planet. Of course, this might eliminate Mercury and Pluto-Charon.


 * Using mass as a descriminator, we'd have 8 planets- Pluto being eliminated. See List of solar system objects by mass


 * Using size as a descriminator, we'd have 7 planets- both Mercury and Pluto being eliminated. See List of solar system objects by radius.


 * thoughts? —Taka2007 14:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the topic is still up for debate. No one knows, and the small group of scientists rising against the new definition has just thrown everything back into chaos. There should, technically, be a total lack of definition again since the decision is far from unanymous (sp?).

Thoughts: There's no point in coming up with your own definitions on Wikipedia. If the IAU members decide to formally reopen the question, it will get reopened. Right now there's a bit of controversy, but I suspect the decision will stand because it's scientifically useful, although they may tinker with the wording. If you read |Steven Soter's paper you'll see that he presents a scientifically useful distinction of planets that are capable of clearing their orbits of rivals. As for the authority of the IAU, its members have agreed to abide by its decisions. It has sole international authority to choose names for objects and define new classifications. For now, the question is closed. -- MiguelMunoz 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to |Steven Soter's paper. It explains the issues quite well.  —Taka2007 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

These so called experts at the IAU
Now I might not be an "astronomer" or have "credentials", but I say those big-wigs down at the IAU are too square for their own good :-). They let everyone get excited about the 3 new planets and the dozens of potential ones that could follow. I think it should have been put to public vote - and we admit one new planet each year American Idol style, complete with Simon Cowell's abuse to planets who have irregular orbits. Orchid Righteous 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They could call it "The Planet X Factor". No, but seriously, the original idea that new planets could be discovered was a much better concept. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:05, 24 August 20


 * Here's my two cent's. Questions like "how big are Pluto" and "What is it's compostion" are scientfic questions. However the question "is Pluto a planet" is not a scientfic question, it's a question of lingustic convention. The question "is Pluto a planet by X formal definition" is a scientfic question though.


 * All I have to say is miss planet-status Pluto TravKoolBreeze 06:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah great idea, let the public vote on something they know nothing about

How could astronomers not have known this for more than 75 years? I dont get it.


 * If you read the article, all will be revealed, my friend. The Singing Badger 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This shows one of the greatest problems with wikipedia: the tendency to jump on the latest fads. PerDaniel 14:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Use the Humpty Dumpty definition
We don't have to accept the IAU's definition of a planet. The word has been in existence long before they were.

Math is fundamental to all science. Lewis Carroll demonstated a basic mathmatical principle when he wrote, '"When I use a word,"Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."' I think math trumps the IAU. We can choose the Humpty Dumpty definition over the IAU's. It allows for the discovery of new planets in our solar system. Science should not be locked in just because some orginization doesn't want new planets.

Pluto is a planet whether the IAU likes it or not. In fact I now know there are 12 planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, Charon, and 2003 UB313.


 * Don't forget Chaos, Ixion, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna, Varuna, 1996 TO66, 2002 AW197, 2002 TC302, 2002 TX300, 2002 UX25, 2003 EL61, and 2005 FY9. Pluto is still officialy a planet under IAU, they just created a new sub-category.  We now have terrestrial planets, gas giants, and dwarf planets.  --Arctic Gnome 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere they indicated being a dwarf planet means it is not one of the planets. If this announcement means there are three kinds of planets(Gas giant, terrestrial, and dwarf) I'd have no complaints.--T. Anthony 04:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact is that someone has to define some rules. "Planet" is a human categoriztion fot "the things in the sky". What the term covers has to be set, and it is quite relevant that a union of international astronomers choose. I mean, it could have been the union of italian bakers, but would you have thought that relevant? Of course, any definition remains arbitrary and cannot be described as ojective truth. Calling Pluto a planet or not is a matter of convetion, I completely agree with the Humpty Dumpty rule. Planet could has well be used to describe any celestial object, if we decide to. There is no iron rule.


 * But how can you state that "Pluto is a planet" as if it were an objective truth? It is not by the IAU definition, it is by yours, and it can be by mine. By the way, accordingly to my definition of a planet, asteroids of the belt, which are solids revolving around the sun, are planets too. Because like you, I think it's cool to have new planets so by my standards we have thousands, which is great!


 * By the way, there is no such thing as "pink". It's "red" like "light blue" is "blue". We chose to make a distinction between pink and red, and because your mind has been used to seeing things this way you interpret it as two different colours. What on earth, apart from human categorization, states that "light red" is "pink" and that "light blue" is still "blue"? Some African tribes have a different way of naming colors, for instance there is one for which "yellow" and "red" are under the same name, something like "warm colour". Though it strikes you and me that red and yellow are two different colours, this is nothing objective. "Navy blue" and "sky blue" are very different colours, much more than blood red and orange, but we name them the same.


 * What I am trying to say is that the HD rule is true, and that any word is a matter of convention. I call a tree "arbre" because I am French, but Germans call it "Baum". Who is right? No one. Everyone has his own convention. The IAU tried to make an international convention, they don't pretend to hold the truth. They could have chosen to name only Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars planets, had they agreed to.


 * 221.249.13.22 02:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)droopy5
 * Okay, Pluto is a planet, but it is officially designated as a dwarf planet by the International Astronomical Union. That is the crux of this whole argument, that everyone's pissed that they suddenly decided to give Pluto a new designation as a planet (and it may become a Pluton or Plutoid or whatever they come up with). There are worse things in this world than a simple redesignation of a celestial object not bigger than the Earth's moon. Ryūlóng 04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome: Sorry, you're incorrect. Pluto is not a planet, it is a separate classification called "dwarf planet" that has an unfortunately confusing name that happens to have the word "planet" in it. "Dwarf planets" and "planets" are mutually exclusive. Amongst the planets you have your four terrestrial planets and your four gas giants, while amongst the dwarf planets you have your icy ones (e.g. Pluto) and your rocky ones (e.g. Ceres). And sorry to the anon above, but the definition of planet isn't whatever you want it to be ... it's what the IAU defines it to be. You can ignore them if you want to, but then you're just making yourself irrelevant, because anyone active in the field is going to be using the same definition. That's one of the ways science works; through standard definitions. You think scientists would be able to communicate effectively if they all used different definitions of other terms merely because they used to be something different in the past, like the meter? Gahhh! Unthinkable! -- Cyde Weys 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Scientists aren't a priesthood, and I'm Catholic so good with priesthoods, so defining a point of dogma doesn't make it something those not of them must accept. Definitions are simply what's useful for them. The public can and does still talk of things like brontosaurus or what have you. Because names or definition are not scientific facts. People have as much right to disregard them as not.--T. Anthony 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but because an international organization of astronomers have decided to make this change to the definition of a planet and Pluto's status as a planet, we will be following their definitions, not those of the public. Ryūlóng 04:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fine by me and I don't intend to change the article. I'm just saying it's not a fact the way the laws of gravity or the physical constants are facts. It's simply a definition or title. It's something decided by a culture. In this case though it's a culture that has more authority over such things and so deserves respect in an informative article. (If not in the general world where it does not)--T. Anthony 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the relevant paper you will see that the new definition is based on facts just as much as gravity or physical constants are. The old definition was arbitrary; the new definition relies on some pretty fundamental cosmology, specficially, accretion of planets from the proto-stellar disk.  -- Cyde Weys  06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not what Anthony meant. The law of gravity is a fact: you will fall to Earth at a speed given by your weight, the air resistance and so on. This is a fact. That Pluto is a planet or not is not a fact, it is a matter of designation. True this is based on facts, but it depends on which facts. They could have decided to name planets only the first four based on the fact that a planet has to be solid. Or they could have called the 8 planets "dingledings" if they had wanted the definition of "dingleding" to be the one they gave to "planet". The fact that the 8 planets of the solar system are called "planets" is only a matter of convention. We name them planet the way we decided to name "red giants" stars of a certain size and temperature or whatever, based on facts and rules. Any definition is arbitrary in the extent that the choice of characteristics associated to the definition is arbitrary. 221.249.13.22 06:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)droopy5
 * Based on facts is not the same as facts. Different criteria could be used to define a planet as is true in other endeavors. Take Dogs for instance. By some definitions they are carnivores and by others omnivores. By some definitions they are a subspecies of wolf and by others they are several subspecies of wolf. These varied interpretations are based on fact. However gravity or the physical constants exist. They are not something created by human definitions. Our interpretations of the facts might make gravity part of some unified-force, but it doesn't make it stop being any kind of force. The ratio of electron mass to proton mass isn't going to change if we wished to call an electron a "really small thingy" rather than a sub-atomic particle. To compare human definitions to universal facets of nature is a rather serious error of logic.--T. Anthony 07:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some quotes that go both ways. "Although 2,500 astronomers from 75 nations attended the conference, only about 300 showed up to vote." "But I understand science is not something that just sits there. It goes on. Clyde finally said before he died, 'It's there. Whatever it is. It is there.'"--T. Anthony 10:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't feel comfortable with the current definition. "Pluto is a dwarf planet in the solar system. It was classified as a planet until it was determined on August 24, 2006 that it is not a true planet.": I think that rewriting this as "It was considered the nineth planet of the solar system until on August 25, 2006 IAU established more severe criteria in order to assign the definition of planet to a celestial body." or something like that could be more objective and less questionable (can we say that the IAU definition states what is a TRUE planet?).User:dawide 18:58, 25 August 2006 (CET)
 * Yes, we can say that. The new IAU definition is very clear about what is a planet and what is not.  A dwarf planet is not a planet; it merely has the word "planet" in its name for ease of understanding, if I understand correctly.  Kasreyn 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the new definition will be tought in schools and universities. In a few decades this will be an anecdote in a footnote in wiki. Vox Populi will always exists not every one follows the norm.DrCito 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
See this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

It seems to me that the issue of Pluto's status remains controversial. Aprogressivist 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * YAY! Glad to see this decision is being fought! :) Shador5529 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

update from IAU and websites to watch
This is from an astronomy mailing list:

"So ... just wait til 8 a.m. CEST Wednesday - and be prepared to be surprised (those planetary astronomers here in Prague who have heard about the ideas put forward in the resolution certainly were).

The resolution, several articles and a detailled Q&A will appear at http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius and also at http://www.astronomy2006.com (including some illustrations as well).

D. from the IAU GA"

Zeusnoos 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the resolution passes the article will have to change. Here's a concept. Have fun critiquing.
 * The Pluto-Charon binary are the tenth and eleventh planets of the Solar system. Pluto recently survived a challenge to its status as a planet and since Charon was of significant enough mass to force Pluto's barycenter with it above the plane of its surface, Charon was redefined as a planet instead of a satellite. Hopquick 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they will be tenth and eleventh when this passes... but it hasn't yet. Here's my attempt at a summary of the draft proposal from the IAU. Shimgray | talk | 09:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When Pluto/Charon are the 10th and 11th, who stole the ninth? Or will Luna be promoted as well? ;-) --Stephan Schulz 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ceres gets promoted too, as does UB313. They've twelve more possible candidates in the outer system, and explicit options on three large asteroids pending further study. Shimgray | talk | 09:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For those following the excitement, "If the proposed Resolution is passed, the 12 planets in our Solar System will be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313" http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html  Zeusnoos 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I almost cried when I saw Ceres on the lists of planets. I was more enthusiastic about Ceres than even Pluto.  This is an awesome day.  The Heavens reveal that we don't yet know everything.  ^_^ Hopquick 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Template:IAU potential planet was removed. Because it was considered "hideous" by one. I think that because it's planet status is uncertain, that it is warranted? comments? McKay 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * it is not a potencial candidate, potencial candidates are Ceres, Charon and Xena. Not Pluto.--Pedro 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the current proposed definition, which has not been finalized, does affect pluto in that it changes it's status. But the real reason I'm putting it here, is that there are other definitions under some level of consideration, some of which would eliminate pluto from having planetary status. Presuming that the currently proposed definition is the one that will be chosen makes wikipedia a crystal ball WP:NOT. The template used the phrase "exclusion" as a parameter, signifiying that the planet is being considered for exclusion. McKay 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The template was hideous. It was also pointless, because we have better pre-existing templates for this kind of thing. HenryFlower 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure the template was hideous, what could be done to improve it? Also, the infobox template that I created has more information that might be valuable. I'm thinking that a WikiProject might be created, and an infobox template might be the best place to start. When the final decision is made, there will need to be changes to dozens (hundreds) of articles. McKay 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have a template for articles related to current events: Template:currentrelated. We don't need to re-invent the wheel (especially when the new version's a triangle).   Yes, changes will be needed on all the affected articles: by all means make sure they're co-ordinated.  But ugly, pointless templates won't help with that. HenryFlower 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest from a IAU member (posted on a public astronomy mailing list):

"There has just been the first open debate here at the IAU General Assembly on the proposed resolution in which only planetary scientists (planets of all sizes) took part: The proposal lost, about 60:40, to an alternative put forward by a group of other planetologists (which would have made "being by far the largest object in the local population" plus roundness the criteria for being a planet and thusly excluding Pluto). The term "plutons" was rejected in a 2nd vote by an overwhelming majority, for the linguistical confusion it may trigger (and has already done so in places). None of these votes is binding in any way: It's up to decide for the IAU Executive now to decide on further action ..." Zeusnoos 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Space.com news article--JyriL talk 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The new mnemonic?
Many very educated men just screwed up nine planets. Evertype 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that wouldn't work... -- Alex  talk here 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * why not? 131.111.8.102 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No P anymore... :'( -- Alex  talk here 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it does (with a slight modification): "Many very educated men just screwed up nine...(silence)" --Ckatz chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

New mnemonics here: http://caprinus.livejournal.com/64781.html --Sonjaaa 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think those are mostly too peppery for schoolkids. "Many vocal entertainers meet jazz singers under nightclubs", "Millionaire Venezuelans enjoyed Monaco's jaunty scenes until nightfall" or something. A mnemonic is easy to create.--T. Anthony 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "Many very educated...nine planets" works very well because of the ironic effect... Linguofreak 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Many violent English men jaded sorry Uncle Newton." or "Many victorious Etruscan men jeered slimy Uncle Nero." --Xaliqen

News
Just heard on FOX News that Pluto is no longer a planet. Martial Law 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! First time we hear about this! And this also has to be the first time that FOX got something at least somewhat right correct! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! Ain't it the truth? The Wookieepedian 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

7 planets?
After carefully analyzing resultion 5A ( the one that excluded pluto from the other 8 ) i noticed a serious flaw. Why is neptune a planet and pluto not? To put it simply the reason pluto isn't a planet is because neprtune crosses its path. I saw now significance in this but i figured they knew what they were talking about. But, the resolution failed to give explanation on why neptunes a planet, if it also crosses the path of pluto. One line cannot intersect the other line without the other line intersecting it? i mean its like thinking about a plus sign. + can u say that the line going down intersects with the line going across, but the line going across doesn't intersect the line going down? PLEASE correct me if i am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.107.246 (talk • contribs)


 * I have heard on NPR that the IAU definition includes a footnote that Neptune is a planet. Alphabetagamma 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the section headed 'Clear its Orbit???' a few lines above your post. The Singing Badger 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I am very sorry I did not read all of the articles, just skimmed their titles i am not an advanced astronomer(no astronomy classes sinse the 5th grade) so i am not familiar with hubble time or all of these big words, so let me get this straight, neptunes gravity is what make pluto cross its orbit so there fore pluto doesn't clear the neighborhood? That sounds pretty shakey but is that what your getting at? pluto isn't big enough to keep a steady orbit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.107.246 (talk • contribs) I believe that the IAU should release another definition. 1 that explains (in the simplist terms) what defines "clear it's orbit". For those who want an explanation (not using things like L4 or L5 or hubble time or algerbra so that we can fully understand why they did what they did. Who's with me?
 * I wish you the best of luck understanding planetary orbits without understanding algebra. But for starters you can go to clearing the neighbourhood.  The basic idea is that a few billion years ago, there were no planets, just a big disk of gas and dust. Over time, a fundamental force called gravity made all the bits of gas and dust want to stick together.  This was complicated by the problem that the entire disk was also spinning at the same time. Oh, and there was a big flaming nuclear fire in the middle of all that as well, pulling everything in, but also spitting radiation out.  Just to make things more complicated and require algebra. Over time, some of the gas and dust clumped together enough to scoop up other clumps as they spun.  Etc. for billions of years.  The end result was a handful of really really big clumps of junk (planets) which tend to orbit in fairly clear space because they sucked up some junk and slingshotted out other junk, some small bits of junk which follow those planets around like groupies (trojans and plutinos, etc.), and a bazillion other clumps of junk which are still all jumbly. Only the really big clumps that have cleared out a lot of space are now considered "planets". Derek Balsam 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Oh so what they are getting at is there is still a lot of clutter in the path of pluto's orbit and a planet is something that would have cleared it out by now. Now why the heck couldn't couldn't someone have said it that way earlier! i mean really " clearin the neighbor hood is when a planet gravity divided by x within hubble time therefore..." i mean really! Thank you so much that makes sense. but... (and im sorry if i'm just not thinking properly) what does that have to do with neptune? as stated befor their orbits don't really cross, so does that mean that neptune cleared the neighborhood of pluto, i get all confused when they mention neptune

I am making mistakes all over the place today! I didn't read the rest of the articall once they mentioned x/m2... Any way i read it and it explained it in realitivly simple terms. A planet has to weigh more than the weight of all of the other bodies in its orbital zone. and neptune weighs much more. short, sweet and to the point.

Second planet stripped of its status?
The article says this:

Weren't the Sun and Moon once considered planets? I can't seem to find confirmation of this on Wikipedia, but surely when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, we must have consdered at least the Sun to be a planet? --Doradus 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ceres was not alone in being stripped of planetary status - the redefinition only came in the 1850s, when there were fifteen minor planets. See here. Shimgray | talk | 15:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got it! Let's rename "Uranus" to "Pluto"! Kids are happy because Pluto's a planet and we'll finally be rid of that nasty Uranus issue. --Aelffin 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * AMEN!!!Alphabetagamma 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, everyone knows that Uranus will be changed to Urectum in 2285, finally making efforts towards a, "less offensive," name,... ;-) Dr. Cash 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't it originally called Herschel? I believe that's German for "Ursphincter". --Aelffin 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To the person who was looking for a citation in wikipedia on when the sun and moon were considered planets, do a search on "planets". It is a good article which will tell all about the original conception of the solar system. 144.141.194.3


 * Another perspective - Ceres was demoted long before movies, radio broadcasts and TV shows ingrained it as a planet in popular culture - it was only a planet in esoteric documents that were frequented by astronomers. Very few people read books about the solar system, and I doubt it was taught in school with any emphasis. On the other hand, Pluto has been ingrained in our culture: Disney's animated dog, movies like "Man from Planet X", Galactica 1980 (The Night the Cylons Landed), and Futurama. The public expects Pluto to be a planet. Popularizing astronomy has made it an expectation that Pluto is a planet, to an extent that the demoters of Ceres could never have imagined. GBC 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree thanks for putting it better than I could.--T. Anthony 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but culture changes faster than you'd think. When I was a kid, we were all afraid of the commies, but most people under 25 are more afraid of a side of beef than they are of a communist and there are signs it's even making a comeback among youth. This will blow over too, and much faster. --Aelffin 13:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet?
As for demoting Pluto, all I can say is: "And yet it moves." But that means we can call Xena Xena, right? What's the convention on naming dwarf planets?

I read once (I wish I could give you a reference, but I can't remember; I hate myself) that Mercury couldn't "clear it's orbit", and the only reason its orbit is clear is due to its close proximity to the sun. Can anyone find this agian for me? Or disprove it? Because, if that's true, then we should demote Mercury, too.
 * We are not demoting anything, the IAU decided to recategorize Pluto as a dwarf planet. Mercury has cleared its orbit because it is large enough and far enough away from the Sun that there is nothing that would prevent it from clearing its orbit. And based off of recent namings of planetoids past Pluto that dwarf planets will probably be named after death deities (Pluto/Hades being gods of death, as are Quaoar and Sedna). Ryūlóng 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "Xena" is only a temporary name; it's also been suggested that it be named Lila. For all that is known, it can be named Osiris or Anubis or after any other death deity. Ryūlóng 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * breaking news: Plutonians declared war on Earth, a fleet of Plutionian troops is expected to arrive Earth on August 2020, due to the huge distance between both worlds. The Pluto’s Astronomical Union declared Earth a midget planet.

Pluto demoted
I have just heard this news only 3-4 hours after it was announced and having come here to see what I could edit into the article, I see that it has already been done in a fairly well-documented manner. Bravo to the early editors on this interesting astrological astronomical news. Here is another source from the BBC on the topic if anyone feels it necessary to add without being superfluous to the article. ju66l3r 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The sections on the debate re. Plutos planetary status needs to be updated further. -- Egil 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Astronomical, not astrological. GBC 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * D'oh. Thanks for the catch, I'm a little hopped up on Advil Cold & Sinus right now. :/  ju66l3r 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What's all the fuss?
So Pluto has been classified as a dwarf planet. So what? A "dwarf planet" is still a planet by virtue of including the word "planet." Sure, it can't in scientifically correct speech be referred to as an unqualified "planet," but it still contains the word. It might be better just to drop the use of unqualified "planet" altogether: There are significant differences between Mercury and the larger rockballs, between the rockballs and the Gas Giants, between the Gas giants and the iceballs, and between the iceballs and Mercury. And it's hard to tell whether Ceres is best thrown in with Mercury or the asteroids. So it might not be good to refer to any object as simply a "planet," but rather, "icy dwarf planet," "gas giant," "rocky dwarf planet," "habitable terrestrial," etc. Linguofreak 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, a dwarf planet is not a planet, it is a separate classification. There's actually a bit of backlash against the new terminology precisely because it has the potential to confuse people, as it did you.  -- Cyde Weys  20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It didn't confuse me, my primary point is really just this: It's all much ado about nothing. The people who don't want to call Pluto a planet can be satisfied, because, after all it is a dwarf planet. And those who want to call it a planet can be satisfied, after all it is a dwarf planet. I am quite aware that the IAU wants it to be a seperate classification, but I also know that in the long run, that really won't influence much in the public mind. So seeing as we've been given a nice broad term that can be interpreted either way, and seeing as it doesn't really matter what we call it (it will after all, still have the same mass, radius, etc.) we should make the best of that and each interpret the term as we wish. But if the IAU wants to avoid all confusion, it would be better to use a single word term like subplanet to emphasize the difference. Linguofreak 00:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is apparently not clear to even all scientists judging by Jocelyn Bell Burnell's statement that "It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist,"--T. Anthony 10:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmh. You could argue that... but when the IAU voted on 5B, it was pretty clear (to me) from the framing of the debate that they intended "eight planets" v "eight classical planets" to be the decider as whether or not "planet" was an over-arching group or a specific term... and we just got the specific term. Shimgray | talk | 10:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From "Nature":

"Demotion

Instead, Pluto is one of a new category of object to be known as 'dwarf' planets (which, not to be confusing, don't fall under an umbrella term of 'planets', and must, by definition, be written with single quote marks around 'dwarf'). These objects satisfy the other criteria, in being round and not a satellite. Ceres, which lies in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, is also now a 'dwarf' planet.

'Dwarf' planets in Pluto's neighbourhood, including the object nicknamed Xena (UB313), will be given a category of their own. But the IAU's most recent suggestion, that these be named 'plutonian objects', was narrowly voted down, by 186 votes to 183."Selfishjeans 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Formally, "planet" is not a set including dwarf planets; the IAU explicitly voted against having "dwarf planets" and "classical planets" instead of "planet" and "dwarf planet". Saying "let's not use unqualified planet" goes entirely against the point of the new terminology, which is to differentiate types of bodies. (I don't much like it, but there you go) Shimgray | talk | 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One suspects that "dwarf planet" was chosen in part because it preserved the sentimental attachment to "planet" for Pluto, while being technically distinct. There have long been bodies called minor planets, though the general public may not have known; this term was discarded with the new decision. (Does this mean the Minor Planet Center will be renamed? How about the Minor Planet Circulars?) As for what the general public will do (or journalists, or politicians), who knows. Science and known facts have only a limited influence. --KSmrqT 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * True, the general public would have their own common vernacular. We called it the neutron bomb, the military called it the enhanced radiation warhead; the movies called them the Russians, even while for 84 years they were officially the Soviets; some movie makers use the term "galaxy" for a group of stars or even one solar system (Battlestar Galactica (original) did that, so did Lost In Space); some movie makers might refer to a group of stars, in the context of space flight, as a constellation, even though once you get out there, most of the stars in a constellation are hundreds of light years apart and don't resemble that constellation at all! So, for us general public, Pluto can still be a planet, it just doesn't fly... or orbit... with officialdom of the IAU. GBC 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pluto being a planet or not doesn't really matter. All this is going to do is hurt science. Religious nuts will jump right on this to say that their crap is just as believeable. -- MJ (Sat Aug 26 19:52:28 2006)

Clear its orbit ???
What does the IAU mean by "clear its orbit"? And they say because it crosses Neptune's orbit that Pluto doesn't meet that definition? What does Neptune have to do with it? Does that mean Neptune isn't a planet either, because its orbit crosses Pluto's? In fact, Pluto doesn't get anywhere near Neptune, due to inclination of orbit and some form of resonance.


 * The IAU definition includes a footnote that Neptune is a planet (I heard this on NPR). Alphabetagamma 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A CTVNews poll shows a 3-1 majority in favour of grandfathering Pluto as a planet. And I'm not aware that the IAU has assigned a number to Pluto just yet. How about skipping other numbers and going with 193009 - i.e., in 1930, it became the 09th planet. GBC 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Neptune is most definitely a planet. Pluto's mass compared to Neptune is absolutely trivial, so Neptune can be considered to have swept its orbit. See this paper for a lot more detail. Warning: real science content. That paper makes an absolutely compelling reason for why Pluto shouldn't be a planet, despite any possible public perception. The degree of difference of orbit-clearing is five orders of magnitude between the eight classical planets and then Pluto. If that isn't a very clear delineation, I don't know what else could be. -- Cyde Weys 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition, at least according to its wiki page, only states that to be classified as a planet the object must have "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit." It doesn't specify the ratio of planet mass:orbiting objects' mass will be the cutoff point, which at this point seems to make Stern's argument that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune are no longer technically planets either.  That paper you quoted is all well and good, but the fact is that when they put forth the definition of a planet they didn't say "read this article" they just put out a definition with too much ambiguity. Chad Hennings 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that Pluto does not actually cross Neptune's orbit, as in, there is no chance that Neptune and Pluto will actually collide. Because of Pluto's inclined orbit it is actually a good distance above/below Neptune when it moves from farther away from the sun than Neptune to closer to the sun than Neptune. --Bobblehead 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not the inclination that does it. Inclination just means that twice in every revolution it is at 0 degrees and thus on the ecliptic (where Neptune is).  It's the orbital distance that prevents such a collision.  See this image for an explanation.  -- Cyde Weys  19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh. Depends what you're talking about, when Pluto crosses the ecliptic or when it and Neptune are the same distance from the sun. Most people have only seen a 2D picture of the orbits and there are 2 points where Neptune and Pluto cross. The assumption being that if Neptune and Pluto were to reach those points at the same time they would collide. Point I was making was that if Neptune and Pluto happen to be at the point on that 2D picture where their orbits meet it's the equivalent of an airplane flying over the top of a person walking on the ground. --Bobblehead 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that by this definition, Jupiter is technically a dwarf planet. There are a number of "trojan" asteroids that are in the same orbit as it. --<font color="#002222">GW_Simulations |User Page 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is utterly false. Jupiter contains, to many, many orders of magnitude of precision, "all" of the mass in its orbit.  Compared to the immense size of Jupiter these little piddling asteroids are nothing.  Please, for the love of god, go read this paper rather than furthering misunderstandings about what "clearing out an orbit" means.  -- Cyde Weys  19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well. Can you show that the orbit of Pluto contains objects more massive than it? From what I recall objects like UB313 are beyond its orbit. Its mass is over eight times that of Charon, Nix, and Hydra combined. What are the other objects in its orbit that make up the 1.14*10^22 kilograms needed to make it not be the most massive object in its orbit? The article also discussed eccentric orbits, but if this is used it would disqualify many of the extrasolar planets. In fact I think its possible this definition will demote future worlds we find on other solar systems even if they're Earth-sized and habitable.--T. Anthony 03:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * T. Anthony, you should read Cyde's post again. He never said that Pluto wasn't the most massive object in its orbit.  Jupiter has very close to all of its orbit's mass in the planet itself, whereas the other objects in Pluto's orbit make up a significant amount of that orbit's mass (even if less than half).  --Arctic Gnome 03:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article indicates that it should have more than a 100 times the mass of other objects in its orbit. However this means that the Earth is not a planet as its mass is only 80 times, aprroximately, that of the Moon. So I could take the article seriously and believe that there are only 7 planets, Earth not being one, or I can pick a different mass differential to matter.--T. Anthony 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The moon doesn't count. "Clearing its orbit, means its orbit around the Sun. Nothing else orbits the Sun with a mass approaching that of the Earth/Moon system. (It's immaterial whether you count the moon's mass as part of the Earth here, because the Earth easily passes the test either way.) -- MiguelMunoz 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I'm uncertain Charon counts either. What is it in Pluto's orbit that comes close to equaling it in size? (And don't say Neptune on some flimsy basis that "Neptune does influence its orbit" because if you go that route Jupiter has an influence on Mars's orbit and radically dwarfs it in size) Also are you certain the Earth or Mars does have a mass 100 times that of all things in its orbit? Because that's what Cyde's link suggested it must.--T. Anthony 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Question. Charon doesn't count either. And you're right, it's not Neptune. Here's what it is: Pluto is the largest of the Plutinos. These are other objects that are locked in a 3:2 resonance orbit with Neptune. There are more than 150 of them known, and they all have orbits very similar to Pluto's. The largest, Orcus, only has about 5% of Pluto's mass, but together, they have more mass than Pluto does. These are the chief reason Pluto doesn't qualify as a Planet. (Actually, the real reason is Pluto's small size, which prevents it from clearing out the other Plutinos, but you get the picture.)
 * You make a good point and do so better than I expected. I guess I didn't know those were in the same orbit, I though they were further out.--T. Anthony 11:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they have to have similar orbits, because they have the same period to go around the sun.EarthJoker 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the Earth, its mass is roughly 108 times that of the largest near-Earth asteroid. Even if there are 10,000 such asteroids with the same mass, the Earth would still be 104 times as massive as all the rest put together. (There may well be 10,000 other near-Earth asteroids, but they're mostly a lot smaller.) -- MiguelMunoz 09:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good on ya, Cyde. It seems like every celestial body article is being edited by people proclaiming either their favorite rock is a planet, or that their least favorite planet "technically isn't". I think most people either haven't read the paper, or their eyes glaze over at phrases like "Hubble time". Rant over. Derek Balsam 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't neglect the Trojan asteroids and other such objects, all the gas giants have cleared their orbits. The Trojans are at very specific points along Jupiters orbit that are defined by Jupiter's gravity. If Jupiter hadn't cleared its orbit they would not be restricted to those points. A massive body collects all bodies near it either into itself, its orbit, its L4 and L5 points with the sun, into resonant orbits, or it ejects them. Its just like cleaning your room. It doesn't mean nothing is in your room, but simply that it's all neatly put away. Linguofreak 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent explanation and even better metaphor. Thank you very much.  -- Cyde Weys  20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that metaphor, too. Very nice. -- MiguelMunoz 09:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read the paper (before the descision was made), and I disagree that 'clear its orbit' must neccessarily refers to what the author of this paper was tallking about. If the definition authors wanted to imply what the paper was talking about, they should have used better terminology, like 'has the most mass in it orbital zone by far'. JamesFox 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the phrase "clears its orbit" wasn't from the article, but from a compromise hammered out at the conference. -- MiguelMunoz 09:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition Clarification
There is so much misunderstanding in the popular press and the blogosphere about when we call a planet "round" and what it means to "clear its orbit," that I expanded on that section in the main article. I didn't bother to put in references, because the information all comes from the same sources already cited, but if somebody feels this is important, let me know here and I can add them. -- MiguelMunoz 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Collision with Neptune Inevitable

 * Ive heard that it will happen at some point in the future.can anyone confirm?


 * Deny: Pluto is locked in a 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune. This means it orbits the Sun twice for every three orbits of Neptune. Neptune's gravity locks Pluto into that orbit. This prevents Pluto from ever getting anywhere near Neptune. -- MiguelMunoz 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To add a few numbers to that, due to the orbital resonance the closest Pluto itself ever gets to Neptune is 18.9 AU. By contrast, Pluto's closest approach to Saturn is 19.6 AU. Bryan 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Gravity can only stop a collision for so long,but eventually like 2 magnets the attraction becomes too strong,thats the argument thats been put to me-and because of both planets weight ratio and attraction to each others gravitational pull,the normal destination is not set in stone ala Earth ,Mars, Venus,therefore because the paths versus the mass and pull of both planets the inevitable clash will occur,and im led to believe its not the first time planets have clashed in space


 * This is incorrect. See Orbital resonance. JoshuaZ 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto in Reference to Biblical Context
Was:Hate to be the Eggheads who demoted Pluto As a minister, I firmly believe when the Bible says in Genesis "God created the heavens and the earth". I would hate to be the atronomers when their Judgement comes and God asks them why they, puny humans, demoted HIS planet!!!!
 * What about the guy who promoted his rock in 1930? Seriously, an astronomer declared it one, astronomers today can decide they were wrong before. Interesting question: Were there tons of complaints when Pluto was originally added? Plumbob78 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when non-scientists give their commentary on science. Like most of our government.  This ruling has no religious implications whatsoever.
 * I was kidding, see response below. Plumbob78 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The solar system is the way it is. I don't understand why anyone bothers to get so upset about what things are called. Nothing of any importance has actually changed!

I think you have misjudged the significance of nomenclature and classifications. It would be like saying fire is still an element because "it's just what it is called".


 * Pluto simply exists. People designated it as a planet. The Wookieepedian 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point. Any claim that it was a planet because of any god (little g) or "natural order" or whatever other reason is nonsense.  Astronomers decided to call the things orbiting the sun "planets". If they've decided Pluto isn't a "planet" anymore, all thy've done is decide to call it something else.  It's still there. It'd still a significant celestial object.  Just because you decide a given flower isn't a rose, but an iris, doesn't been it's not still a pretty flower. Plumbob78 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Separation of the church and state, anyone?
So, the new clergy has decreed that it is now blasphemous to refer to Pluto as a planet? I think it needs to be made clear that while any arbitrary body of academics can create whatever rules they like in this regard, the word "planet" is ultimately a subjective term, to be used by individuals as they please. The IAU's authority does not (and should not) extend to the pedantic enforcement of written and spoken language as a means of describing the universe. In this regard, the IAU's decision is inconsequential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crk (talk • contribs).
 * Instead of using planet, use world in the article and that's solved. --Pedro 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Many scientific terms have non-scientific usage. It's possible that people will continue to use the word planet to describe Pluto, but my feeling is in a generation people will forget about this little blip in history. Just like they forgot about Ceres being a planet. Anyway, changing the term to "world" would not be consistent with common useage in American or British english, so I don't think it would be appropriate. --Aelffin 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * oh, my god! a body of scientists has defined what a term of scientific jargon that's in popular use means! oh noes! Seriously, this isn't a big thing. "Planet" is an astronomical term which is also in general use; it's been redefined before, most significantly in the 1850s, and the English language didn't collapse. Shimgray | talk | 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid that the definition of planet and the astronomical knowledge of the general public be encouraged to hold up to scientific rigor. The only thing that's inconsequential in the grand scheme of things is Pluto, hence the demotion. Kensai Max 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain how the new definition of "planet" is scientific. I thought it was just an arbitrary label.  If it is scientific, I find it interesting that a vote was necessary in order to produce the definition.  --Xaliqen


 * The vote had to happen because the IAU wanted to change the accepted astronomical use of the term in order to match the term up with public usage. Scientists thought that would be silly. And they were right. Pluto is part of a class of bodies that are in a particular orbital resonance with Neptune. No planet's orbit is dominated by the gravitation of another planet. That's essentially the dividing line. --Aelffin 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet implies a significantly large object in the solar system that is not part of a larger debris belt. This automatically excludes Pluto, which is just another KBO, one among millions that should not be included in a category with Jupiter. Scientists don't always agree on these things themselves, hence voting to determine business - what, you think they should be in perfect agreement all the time? That's patently ridiculous, scientists are among the most opinioned men alive. How else would you propose they come to an agreement?

In the end, you can moan all you want about how much you liked Pluto and thinking the Solar System has nine planets, but your world-view is about as valid as someone who says the Earth is hollow. It does not reflect the reality of things, and though you can say that you don't have to abide by the new rules or whatever, you're just taking yourself out of the scientific loop and making yourself irrelevant to an informed discussion.

Earth is a planet. Jupiter is a planet. Ceres is not a planet, it is an asteroid (or a "dwarf planet") now. Pluto has more in common with Ceres than Earth and Jupiter, hence it is not a planet and should not be called a planet. In order for the term "planet" to keep its meaning in the modern day and exclude every new big KBO that is found from planet-dom, there has to be a lower limit, and it has to exclude Pluto. Anything else is a ridiculous, sentimental grandfather clause which should never belong in science. Kensai Max 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not convinced me that the term "planet" is anything more than an arbitrary label. No matter where you draw the line, it is still arbitrary.  There is no "reality of things" when it comes to making up some definition of what you're going to call a planet.  There are no objects with a neatly printed caption labeling them as "planet" floating beneath them in letters thirty kilometers tall.  You suggest that a different definition does not belong in science.  I suggest that whatever arbitrary definition you use has nothing to do with science anyway. --Xaliqen


 * Well, you can call it arbitrary if you want. But you could also say it's arbitrary to call a whale a mammal. If scientists wanted to define a fish as anything with fins, they certainly could have. However, if they decided to do that then whales, dolphins, and '57 Chevys would also be fish. I'll let you decide which "arbitrary" definition makes more sense. --Aelffin 18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aargh. You know I'm actually starting to come around on the decision, but please don't use the whale/fish thing. It's, to be blunt, stupid. If you have a lick of knowledge of biology you know that. The only reason to say it is so you can compare your opponent to fools who think a whale is a fish. We can show what warm-blooded, mammary glands, four-chambered hearts, mammalian DNA, etc are much more thoroughly/non-arbitrarily than we can show the difference between a planet and a dwarf planet. We have evidence of the evolutionary differences. Do you have evidence that Pluto was formed hundreds of millions of years after the planets? (As whales came long after fish) Although if people still insist on this goofball analogy whales and fish are both vertebrate animals(Animalia Chordata). So if one wishes to think of planets as analogous to vertebrates than they can deem Pluto a planet by this analogy.--T. Anthony 04:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you misunderstand my analogy because you misunderstand the nature of objects in the solar system. Like animals and all other objects in nature, solar system bodies fall into clearly definable natural categories. The trick to good nomenclature is to use labels that correlate closely with these natural categories. There is always some room for interpretation, but a good taxonomist will choose criteria that appear to be fundamental to the area that he or she wishes to investigate. In modern biology, cladistic heirarchy is deemed to be more fundamental than, say mode of transportation (as Aristotle used). This determination is based upon what we want to know about the animals; because we're trying to understand the genetic relationships, we adopt a cladistic nomenclature. In other fields, a different nomenclature may make more sense--for example, environmental scientists are more interested in classifying animals by their trophic niche than their evolutionary relationships. In a certain sense these choices are arbitrary...a scientist decides which sub-field to go into based on whim or personal situation...but they are non-arbitrary in the sense that the nomenclature is designed to highlight what is functionally useful in that field. In the field of planetary science, orbital mechanics is deemed to be extremely important because nearly all bodies in the solar system fall neatly into particular families which share orbital elements that have formed as a result of the evolution of the solar system. That's why these families of bodies are considered important; because they shed light on the evolution of the solar system. They don't fall into these families quite as neatly as organisms fall into cladistic heirarchy, but orbital elements are a great deal more readily investigated than genetic descent. One such family is a group of small objects locked into a 1:1 orbital resonance with Jupiter; we call these the Trojan asteroids. Another such family is the group of small objects locked into a 1:2 orbital resonance with Neptune; these are called twotinos. Yet another such family is the group of objects that are locked into a 2:3 mean orbital resonance with Neptune; we call these the plutinos. Pluto is clearly and unambiguously a member of the plutino class of objects. It cannot be classified with the twotinos nor with the Trojans. This is non-arbitrary and indisputable. Is it possible to cross-classify some, but not all of the plutinos within the family known as "planets"? Certainly. Is it desirable? No more so than calling a whale a fish. --Aelffin 13:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhh no. I'm no longer interested enough in this to go on too much though. Also at a point these discussions go nowhere. Essentially though "Is it desirable? No more so than calling a whale a fish" is still strange hyperbole. I fear most of what I could say on this would be a repetition. However that a certain thing can be more studied doesn't change anything about the "not fall neatly" part which is the more important aspect in discussing classification. That whales are not fish involves no fuzziness and can be obvious simply by dissecting them as the organs will be different. You are going on qualities of orbit which you value quite highly, but what we know of the meaning of planetary orbital systems is far less than I think you want to believe. Added to this it does little to deal with the fact that gas giants and terrestrial planets are already so different that calling them all "planets", yet excluding other objects, is not at all obvious. The gas giants rotation in particular has significant differences from terrestrial planets as does the chemical composition and size.--T. Anthony 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we can agree to disagree but I recommend comparing a few definitions of the word species before you make up your mind that astronomical nomenclature is less tidy than biological nomenclature. --Aelffin 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not callign Pluto a planet IS arbitrary, it is a convention. Every word is. You stop calling that bladed thing a "sword" when it becomes to small, you call it a "knife". Where is the scientific reality? In my world, Pluto is a planet and I eat with a sword and a rake. I don't listen to these pesky people who try to impose me their ridicule and arbitrary conventions that Pluto is not a planet and call my eating tools a knife and a fork. By the way, we call a chihuahua a dog, a wolf a wolf but a German Shepherd a dog, though by many aspects it is closer to a wolf. Who said this animal hed to be wild to be called a wolf? Arbitrary scientists. Conventions conventions...


 * Anyway, it was arbitrary to call Pluton a planet at its dsicovery. Had we thought and asked the question of its planetdom at the time, no fuss would have been made of "OMG demoting Pluton" and "FFS Pluton is teh planet!!! Since I was a child it is so you cant take it back, oh NOES!!!"221.249.13.22 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, when Pluto was discovered, it did appear to fit the current definition. In fact, the current definition is not new at all, it's just setting in stone what scientists have thought for a long time: a planet is a big object in a unique orbit. Pluto appeared to be such an object, as did Ceres at its discovery. As more asteroids were discovered, and as more plutinos were discovered, it became clear that Ceres and Pluto did not fit the common understanding of the word planet, so the bodies were reclassified. According to Wiktionary, arbitrary means "Determined by impulse rather than reason; chosen for no reason or at random." The public's notion of planet is quite arbitrary. The scientific understanding of the term always had a rough set of criteria, so it was never totally arbitrary but now it's officially non-arbitrary. --Aelffin 13:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The impulse of the scientists, then, was to assign their arbitrary label "planet" to any object that fit a certain number of facts. Just because the label is based on certain criteria does not make the criteria or the label any less arbitrary.  The study of "planets" is scientific, the reasons behind the definition of "planet" are not.  Therefore, the definition of what constitutes a "planet" is truly arbitrary as far as the science is concerned.  --Xaliqen


 * Look up the word "arbitrary" and you will understand your mistake. --Aelffin 12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two distinct listed definitions for "arbitrary" that I find. One is "erratic" and the other is "authoritarian."  It seems to me that I used exactly the word that I intended.  --Xaliqen


 * Um, I've never heard anybody use the word arbitrary to mean "authoritarian". But even if that were the case, I don't see what's authoritarian about looking at the solar system and calling things what they are. The word arbitrary means "Determined by impulse rather than reason; chosen for no reason or at random." It seems to me that the new definition is determined by reason but calling Pluto a planet is just truthy for some people. --Aelffin 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From the Wiktionary definition for "arbitrary" that you referenced: "Something is arbitrary if its value is not determined by anything but choice." Is this not precisely what occurs when creating a definition for planet?  The definition rests solely upon the choice of what to include in determining the status of an object as "planet," "non-planet," or, as the case may be, "dwarf planet."  The definition is not based on reason, but choice.  --Xaliqen


 * The decision to limit your choice of criteria to natural boundaries is less arbitrary than the choice to define something as a planet based on the fact that it randomly happened to be the first KBO discovered. Anyway, these semantic debates are silly. Astronomical nomenclature is the domain of the professional astronomer because their lives will be affected for better or worse by the decision. Your life and my life won't change a damn bit. --Aelffin 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The lives of professional astronomers will not be made better or worse by the decision. The decision has no bearing on astronomy and none whatsoever on science.  The properties and facts pertaining to the objects studied do not change in accordance with what we choose to call them.  You speak of "natural boundaries," which I do not believe exist.  There is no natural boundary between "planet" and "non-planet." Such boundaries are created by people who imagine them and create them and argue with one another about them and then put them up for a vote at the next meeting of the IAU, where the most popular possibility is then adopted.  Please do not mistake such activity for science.  --Xaliqen


 * I didn't say it was science. I said it was nomenclature, which is an important tool that scientists use to communicate. Did you actually mean to say that you don't believe any natural boundaries exist, or just the boundary between planets and non-planets? Because if there were no such thing as natural boundaries, then we couldn't have this debate because you and I (and for that matter, Pluto and this cup of coffee) would all be the same object and we wouldn't need names for anything. --Aelffin 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I believe I recall reading once that Pluto's atmosphere extends far enough to be shared with Charon. Is this true? Linguofreak 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New Horizons will study this, I think?--Sonjaaa 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure through all of the confusion, but I'm sure Pluto and Charon now share a duo-planet status? And Pluto's atmosphere is usually frozen, so doesn't extend anywhere really unless it is close to the sun.


 * No, they are not a double planet. Neither Pluto or Charon is a planet. Pluto, however, is a dwarf planet. In the original definition of a planet draft they both would have been planets. You're correct in that Pluto's atmosphere is expected to freeze when it moves further from Sun. One probable reason why is so bright is that it its Pluto-like atmosphere is now frozen.--JyriL <sup style="font-size:x-small">talk 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"prototype of a yet to be named family"?
I'm curious about the "prototype of a yet to be named family of Trans-Neptunian objects" claim in the intro. I thought IAU was going with classifying it as a "dwarf planet" and the type specimen of a Plutino? The sentence is confusing to me, but I don't see how to clarify it. --Grahamtalk/mail/ e 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They were going to pass a resolution saying "This is the first of a class of TNOs we will call 'plutonian objects'". Only the first half of this passed; we now have it resolved as the first of a new class of TNOs, the name of which has not yet been decided on (it'll go to an IAU committe, I guess). Plutino was already in use to mean something with a specific resonance, and isn't what they mean - this new class is "big TNOs like Pluto" not "TNOs with orbits like Pluto" Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Many thanks! --Grahamtalk/mail/ e 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal mention
The Wall Street Journal article on this mentions how quickly the Wikipedia entries were updated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Santa?
"as well as a moon (nicknamed "Gabrielle"), discovered in September 2005. Trans-Neptunian object 2003 EL61 (nicknamed "Santa") has two moons (one of which is nicknamed "Rudolph") and is the fourth largest TNO behind 2003 UB313, Pluto, and 2005 FY9 (nicknamed "Easterbunny")."

Can we get some proof for this? How do we know it's not just vandalism? --Kiwi 22:11, 25 August 2006


 * If Gabrielle, Santa and Rudolph, and Easterbunny don't convince you, they are at least a good place to start researching the subject. Art LaPella 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

At present: wasn't Pluto the Eight planet?
I know as a fact that the orbits of Pluto and Neptune intercept one another and in intervals, the two switch positions in the Solar System: didn't this change occur around the year 2000, thus making Pluto eight in order? Articles keep on addressing Pluto's former status as the ninth planet.

Planets aren't ordered by whatever distance they happen to be from the Sun at the exact moment. They're given an overall numbering. And in the overall numbering Pluto is indeed the ninth planet (or was). -- Cyde Weys 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC


 * No, Pluto was inside the orbit of Neptune between 21 January 1979 and 11 February 1999. -- Arwel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, talk about confusing facts. Thank you for the clarification. --Talv 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, Pluto has been the 9th planet in order of distance since it crossed over Neptune in 1999, and spends most of its orbit farther away from the sun than Neptune. Schubatis1 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, planetary order is defined by AVERAGE distance from the sun Nbound 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Was. Now, planet order is finally consistent. --Aelffin 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Typography
Hbdragon88: Can you tell me why you reduced the capitalization of some of the titles? Main headings are traditionally set in "Title Case," Which means capitalizing all words except prepositions, articles & conjunctions. -- MiguelMunoz 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not on Wikipedia. See WP:MOS.  --ajn (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk on Pluto:Talk
Was:Editing

I cleaned-up and edited this Talk page a bit to tighten up the spacing. Also removed some unsigned comments about the planetary statis or lack of. This is not the place for a discussion group on the subject, and if you won't sign your opinions, then they go bye-bye. CFLeon 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a broom to the talk page too. Electrawn 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation really needed?
Under the headline, "Planetary status controversy," there's a 'citation needed' tag. Is this really necessary to cite a source for something that's pretty common knowledge? I guess we could quote one of the thousand news articles that makes this claim, if necessary. Here's an AP article, for instance: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/08/24/state/n015101D65.DTL

Or we could use the NASA pluto page: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Pluto

Thoughts?--Trypsin 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the citation request may be for the notion that the controversy has existed "since the discovery of Pluto in 1930", ie that it's been a controversy over the whole "lifetime" of Pluto rather than just in recent years. That's something I'm not sure of myself. Bryan 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That was the way I read it also. If there has, in fact, been controversy over the whole "lifetime" of Pluto (not my area), then keeping the wording and providing a citation would be best; otherwise, rewording would be a better solution. -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#008040">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">or <font color="#0000a0">W 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pluto as a planet controversy erupted after Charon's discovery in 1978, however, I imagine there was debate even before then considering Pluto's orbit eccentricity and size. Electrawn 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Move "symbols" paragraph from intro to body?
What do people think about moving the "symbols" paragraph from the intro to the body? It seems a little less important / more peripheral than the other introductory material. Perhaps it could become the first section. -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#008040">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">or <font color="#0000a0">W 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comparing against Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110154),

the symbols are relevant to the article summary. They symbols pararaph probably should be condensed to one or two sentences and expanded on later in the article. Electrawn 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we have the symbols in type, with a unicode template for IE, and with images as alternates, rather than forcing everyone to display the images? kwami 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Lowell?
This article mentions the influence of "Dr. Percival Lowell." Some quick research (including Lowell's own wikipedia page) gives no indication he was ever awarded a doctorate and, despite founding an observatory, was in many ways really an amateur astronomer. Can anyone confirm if he did recieve one and provide citation, or should this be removed? --71.205.107.102 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter it he got it or not. We don't use academic titles in article text. Pull it. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.space.com/spacewatch/050311_pluto_guide.html References Dr. Lowell. Whether that is correct or not could be answered by Percival Lowell. Electrawn 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer plaque and Voyager record
I thought it might be interesting (and perhaps even a bit consoling to the "Pluto is a Planet" faction) to include a reference to the Pioneer plaque and Voyager record which will perhaps be the longest-lasting "memorials" if you will to Pluto's planetary status. 23skidoo 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout
On my PC the Pluto article appears to be poorly laid out, like some of the paragraphs with margins a few inches in from the left, but mostly looking normal. Does anyone know if that's just because of my browser, or is it a real problem? Kris 18:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it too. What causes that is when people with small resolution screens format the article specifically so that it shows correctly on their screens, and then when people with larger resolutions come through, the text wraps more and becomes more tightly spaced than the images. Combine this with the bug of images on the left not wrapping properly and you get the terrible margin problems. My suggestion is to move images over from the left side ... too many are over there. -- Cyde Weys 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at rearranging pictures and such, however, a better web editor is needed. The Contents box and Infobox provide big challenges. Perhaps a gallery is needed, but pictures/layout are not my general expertise. Electrawn 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit by Xanthine
Could anyone elaborate on this? It's just a statement at the minute, but what's the rationale? Is it because Neptune technically didn't clear Pluto and Charon from its orbit? Xanthine you need to include a reference if possible. Kris 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've cut the edit down to a simple statement of Stern's views (Xanthine did give a reference to the New Scientist website, where Stern expands on this). This is not the place for people to construct their own arguments about why the IAU is or is not wrong.  No original research, remember.  --ajn (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, that's not original research, and you can see that in other discussions, even references, but I know there's a strong anti-Pluto bias in wikipedia and views over categorization of celestial bodies, which does not reflect many important references. Some astronomy/planetology articles are not balanced in this wikipedia. I wouldn't worry with it, but many use this wikipedia to translate (especially smaller ones), without a critical view over what they translate. --Pedro 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You really need to read WP:NOR.  This has nothing to do with an "anti-Pluto bias", it's to do with accurately and neutrally reporting the current situation and the responses of notable, informed people.  If you mean there's a bias against people writing speculative wishful thinking which happens to reflect your own opinions, you are quite right, there's a bias against that.  Wikipedia is not a blog or discussion board, it's not a place for people to spout off about subjects they are cross about.  There has been far too much of that going on in this article.  --ajn (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I cleaned a lot of bias (inadvertly introduced some too) but we are starting to see irrelevancy and bias creep in the article again. Electrawn 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Apologies if my edit seemingly contained any lack of NPOV. I assure you, I was in no way attempting to construct reasons why the ruling was wrong. I was reading the New Scientist Space article, and simply thought that Dr Stern had a valid point which hadn't yet been mentioned in this wiki entry. The article in question can be found here -- and as ajn mentioned, I did reference it. The section I was citing can be found under the sub-heading "Four Planets". As for the line I wrote reading; "Being as the IAU has no way of enforcing it's new definition, many astronomers may opt to simply ignore the recent ruling. The IAU may yet change it's decision to appease these major problems in it's ruling, but this remains a matter of speculation", this simply summarises the following section (entitled "Minority Report") of the same article. In hindsight though, that could be misconstrued as an opinionated statement, for which I apologise. Whether I agree with Stern or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he has exposed a major flaw in the new definition of what a planet is. One that should probably be addressed by the astronomical community at large before such a definition is accepted. --Xanthine 22:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Split!
was: Fork!

I am suggesting we fork the entire controversy into a seperate article such as Pluto (Controversy) or Pluto as a planet or something similar. While Definition of Planet is relevant, It doesn't apply 100% to Pluto (For instance, Ceres was briefly considered a planet).

The debate on Pluto is probably worthy of a seperate article as it has begun since at least 78, heated up in the last decade, and likely will remain heated for quite some time. It just doesn't belong in Pluto, only two or three summary paragraphs on it, not an entire article. Parts of the new article can/will roll back into Pluto and Definition of planet

What to call the new article is a stickler. The_Great_Debate is a good reference. The Great Pluto Debate? heh heh...or something much more simpler? Electrawn 18:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm such an article already exists, see 2006 redefinition of planet. -- Cyde Weys 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The context of that article is the IAU decision in 2006, not specific to Pluto and the debate leading up to the 2006 decision. I suppose the article could be retitled, made pluto specific and the IAU specific stuff flushed into Definition of planet, but I imagine that would be unpopular at the moment.


 * Currently Definition of Planet and 2006 redefinition of planet are the same article, with the latter essential an overexpanded section of the former. Electrawn 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversary could be forked into Pluto planetary status controversy. Voortle 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is just far too much waffle, duplication and original research going on about the whole subject. I've just redirected Voortle's Pluto_planetary_status_controversy to point here, rather than being a fork of a section of this article.  We need to be careful of terminology here - we should avoid forking, though it's arguable that splitting the article (moving the stuff about planetary status to another article and removing it from this one) might be appropriate.  My feeling is that the Pluto article should be about Pluto, the 2006 redefinition of planet article should deal with the recent reclassification of solar system objects, and there should be as little overlap as possible (and possibly some of the other articles need merging).   --ajn (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Splitting was the term I was looking for. Forking is a term from Computer Science, one that is familiar. Electrawn 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * " (Splitting) to create an article which is substantially the same as a section of this one to redirect the POV edits is not a solution - the problem is that a lot of the stuff about planetary status which has been in this article isn't appropriate here or anywhere else." I only disagree with anywhere else. The debate itself is quite relevant in a historical context, how to classify and organize the articles on it is the quandry. We all agree the amount of controversy needs to go "squish" into at most a paragraph or three. We have to write the article as how it should read 50 years from now and it currently fails. Electrawn 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the debate, but I think it needs to go into 2006 redefinition of planet rather than here or in a new article, and it needs to be reporting of the debate outside Wikipedia, not editors here putting forward their own views. What I do have a problem with is "the IAU decided X, but this is illogical because A, B and C means that Pluto is still a planet and the brave rebel astronomers may force the stupid IAU to change its mind soon".  --ajn (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My strategy is to Divide and Conquer. If we need to merge later, fine. Its a lot easier to keep a pluto article about pluto (Pluto), a pluto controversy article about pluto controversy (Pluto controversy), an IAU controversy article about IAU and the internal political debate (2006 redefinition of planet), and an overall definition (Definition of planet) that encompasses everything, but "means" nothing. This should provide a solid framework that we can work with rather than 100 edits in 1000 different directions. Electrawn 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Belongs in the 2006 redefinition of planet -- Nbound 05:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See above thoughts. Electrawn 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Physical characteristics
I cannot help noticing that the lede (and much of the rest of the article) talks a lot about how it is classified rather than what it actually is. I appreciate we have little idea about its composition, but can't we at least say it is composed of rock and `ice'/frozen methane (as opposed to say gases&mdash;excepting the tiny atmosphere), preferably in the lede. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo of the girl
Is the photo really necessary for the article?--Nixer 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. More importantly, I feel that while we might be able to claim fair use of the photo in the article about the girl, but I do not believe that a fair use is justified for the Pluto article. Bluap 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)