Talk:Pluto#Barycenter; Inclination

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 {{tq|but it never fit well with the other eight}}. Double sharp (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pluto.&redirect=no 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 {{slink|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)

???? 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 some type of field - because that's the way the English language works - 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 from the definition in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|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?

::::::: They talk about "dwarf planets" solely because that's the term they've been lumbered with by the IAU. What's more likely is that, given that it made huge news at the time, most people know that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but ask them what its official classification is now, and many/most will not know. Suggest to them the term "dwarf planet" and they'll probably say "No, that can't be right. That's still obviously a planet but we've just been told it's not a planet so it must be something else like an asteroid or whatever". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::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 [https://seti.ucla.edu/jlm/epo/planet/AAS09JLM.pdf 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 {{u|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)

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)

::{{re|K74HM86|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)

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)

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 {{re|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwarf_planet&diff=prev&oldid=1227795529] is plain nonsense). Renerpho (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::Jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune and pluto are at 15, 25, 50, 75 and 100 Hermitian [Mercurial] units from the Sun. That's obviously the more valid comparison. Earth is just the 3rd planet, but Mercury is #1 ! — kwami (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Dear Kwami,

:::Would publication in Reports of the AAS be acceptable? 68.108.51.9 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Dear Kwami,

::::I should have indicated "Research Notes of the AAS." 68.108.51.9 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::depends on what it is. what is the claim, i.e. how is it interesting enough to mention? — kwami (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Pluto|answered=yes}}

46.217.64.77 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Pluto is not a dwarf planet, its the ninth planet from the sun and farthest from it and not Neptune the international astronomical union is the worst union ever created, Pluto is a planet this is true the people who edited this sucks, Pluto is a planet in solar system and smallest of all planets,dont believe in iau because they wanted to gain more popularity, Pluto is a planet this is true.(Not a blank edit request).

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. _ZZ^Z'S 18:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

pluto is not a dwarf planet from the kuiper Belt its the 9th planet from the sun and the farthest and Neptune is not the farthest 46.217.64.77 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:Source, please! _ZZ^Z'S 18:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::They are not the only ones saying this. I don't know what their source is, but see https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/10/world/pluto-planet-status-trnd/index.html which says in part Pluto is most definitely a planet – and should never have been downgraded, say some scientists.

::: Actually, the problem is the other way round: Pluto should never have been classified as a planet in the first place. Skeptic2 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Save the Planet Pluto. I think someone should sell merch such as T shirts etc saying that. I'm sure they will sell. Maybe they already do? Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It's a non-argument and the headline is misleading. The IAU definition is not ambiguous: there is no alternative definition that returns us to those nine planets, and ones that include Pluto would not bring us to nine, but dozens of planets. Remsense ‥ 论 20:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::True. But the IAU is not the only reliable source, and sources do not agree on this. So, we should not in Wikipedia's voice support any one of these POVs, but rather report them all. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:NOTFORUM, please. ArkHyena (it/its) 23:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Good point. I was trying, in a humorous way, to point out that there are various POVs on this. And as is said above, we should not endorse any one of them, but rather we should report them all. Andrewa (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Keep in mind that even though the IAU definition isn't "official" (insofar that Alan Stern can call Pluto a planet in all of his papers and nobody can stop him), it is still accepted by astronomers and broadly acknowledged by planetary scientists. Additionally, we cannot report every caveat lest each Wikipedia article be hopelessly lengthy, so we consolidate: the IAU definition of a planet and competing/alternative definitions are discussed on Definition of a planet, and we link there when appropriate. ArkHyena (it/its) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::OK, I should have said every significant POV. Agree that we cannot report every caveat. I think that is obvious. But is it now clarified? Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Does Orcus really need a separate dedicated section in here? Orcus's opposite location of Pluto isn't all that remarkable since that can be said for other known plutinos (i.e. {{mpl|2003 AZ|84}}, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plutino-orbits_with_2017OF69.png as shown in this diagram]) and the only identifiable justification for its importance is that Orcus had a nickname (which is never used outside of pop science, mind you) describing that characteristic. This section just feels like a random tangent that isn't inherent to Pluto whatsoever. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. Removed. Serendi^podous 01:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Pluto is Planet Nine because it is round, it orbits the sun, its geologically active.

Pluto is the ninth and outermost planet in our solar system! Gage3491 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's not a planet under the IAU definition because if it is then Eris is too cause it's bigger and a lot more than 9 things are round Ceres is one of them. Planet Nine is about the possible planet in a specific area of the sky beyond Pluto if Pluto was a planet it'd be Planet Ten. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Pluto infobox has its own unique color-scheme, even though all other TNOs (including the consensus dwarf planets) have the blue TNO minor planet one? After all, isn't Pluto also a Kuiper Belt object?

When you look at the Asteroid minor planet infobox color-scheme, even Ceres (a dwarf planet) shares it.

Additionally, I noticed that a month ago an editor removed Pluto's minor planet number from the infobox name - should this edit be kept? And if so, only in Pluto's case or in the cases of other consensus dwarf planets beyond Neptune? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph about Brian Marsden's original 1998 proposal to assign Pluto a minor planet number. Marsden had first suggested in 1980 to stop calling Pluto a planet and instead consider it a minor planet.[http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/ICQPluto.html] That background did not go unnoticed, and the public outcry following in late 1998 and early 1999 urged the IAU to issue a press release, to "clarify" Pluto's planet status.[https://web.archive.org/web/19990422054633/http://www.iau.org/PlutoPR.html][https://www.spacedaily.com/news/pluto-99a.html] I believe this episode played an important role in why the subsequent reclassification in 2006 was perceived as a demotion by so many.

I don't know if there's a reason why this was left out of the article so far. If so then please let me know. Renerpho (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Let me paste the full text of the 1999 IAU press release here, because I think it is quite a remarkable document. It is in the public domain as a NASA publication. [https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/text/pluto_iau_pr_19990203.txt] Quote:

:IAU Press Release 01/99
For immediate release
February 3, 1999
THE STATUS OF PLUTO: A CLARIFICATION

:Recent news reports have given much attention to what was believed to be an initiative by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to change the status of Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system. Unfortunately, some of these reports have been based on incomplete or misleading information regarding the subject of the discussion and the decision making procedures of the Union.

:The IAU regrets that inaccurate reports appear to have caused widespread public concern, and issues the following corrections and clarifications:

:# No proposal to change the status of Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system has been made by any Division, Commission or Working Group of the IAU responsible for solar system science. Accordingly, no such initiative has been considered by the Officers or Executive Committee, who set the policy of the IAU itself.

:# Lately, a substantial number of smaller objects have been discovered in the outer solar system, beyond Neptune, with orbits and possibly other properties similar to those of Pluto. It has been proposed to assign Pluto a number in a technical catalogue or list of such Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) so that observations and computations concerning these objects can be conveniently collated. This process was explicitly designed to not change Pluto's status as a planet.
A Working Group under the IAU Division of Planetary Systems Sciences is conducting a technical debate on a possible numbering system for TNOs. Ways to classify planets by physical characteristics are also under consideration. These discussions are continuing and will take some time. The Small Bodies Names Committee of the Division has, however, decided against assigning any Minor Planet number to Pluto.

:# From time to time, the IAU takes decisions and makes recommendations on issues concerning astronomical matters affecting other sciences or the public. Such decisions and recommendations are not enforceable by national or international law, but are accepted because they are rational and effective when applied in practice. It is therefore the policy of the IAU that its recommendations should rest on well-established scientific facts and be backed by a broad consensus in the community concerned. A decision on the status of Pluto that did not conform to this policy would have been ineffective and therefore meaningless. Suggestions that this was about to happen are based on incomplete understanding of the above.

:The mission of the IAU is to promote scientific progress in astronomy. An important part of this mission is to provide a forum for debate of scientific issues with an international dimension. This should not be interpreted to imply that the outcome of such discussions may become official IAU policy without due verification that the above criteria are met: The policy and decisions of the IAU are formulated by its responsible bodies after full deliberation in the international scientific community.

:Johannes Andersen
General Secretary, IAU

:(End quote) Renerpho (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)