Talk:Pluto

Odd Object Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune

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

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

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

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

"Pluto." listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

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

Add "Trans-Neptunian object" link

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

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

Pluto's Northern Hemisphere should be Southern Hemisphere?

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

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

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

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

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

is Pluto still considered a planet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass and Size

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

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

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

Suggestion for hyperlink

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

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

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

The rotation period is wrong

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

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

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

Redirect Pluto to 134340 Pluto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose @VativonHans: This is WP:Original Research. The changes to the articles mentioned have already been reverted on similar grounds ("trivial, unsourced, possible OR"), as have been additions to various dwarf planet articles you made. If you have a reliable source (a published scientific paper) that there is a pattern in those distances, as you suggest, please share it with us and we can discuss it. Microsoft's AI chatbot is not a reliable source (in fact, what your chatbot allegedly said about [1] is plain nonsense). Renerpho (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)