Talk:Plutoid

Ceres

So what is Ceres? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.31.161 (talk • contribs) 02:56, August 16, 2006 (UTC)

It's a planet, according to Bloomburg.com. It's large enough and orbits the sun. Plutons are all planets, so we're now up to 12 (add Ceres, Charon, and 2003 UB313) Benabik 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be a pluton though, since Ceres has an orbit of 4.6 years: far less than the plutonic 200. I hope we'll get a more clear decision on its status soon.

By the way, there are likely far more than 3 plutons. At best we can say there are 8 major planets, Ceres, and an unknown number of plutons with at least 3 recognized so far.... -- Jordi·✆ 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my sleep deprived state, I meant to say that Ceres is a normal planet and that that plus the plutons add 3 planets... And, sure there may eventually be more Plutons to add to the list, at the moment there are 3.

~~ Benabik 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Ceres not be a Terrestial, like Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, then you'd have the Jovians of Jupiter through Neptune (the Gas and Ice Giants) and then the Plutons? - User:Burwellian 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrestial planet is not one of the new proposed subcategories. Ceres is a planet, more specifically a dwarf planet. If the draft becomes final we'll have 8 large planets, and 4 dwarf planets: Ceres and the three plutinos. -- Jordi·✆ 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Three plutons. Plutinos are different (Xena will be a pluton, but it's not a plutino). Henry^Flower 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said Terrestial was a proposed category. I'm sure the spelling is wrong but the term is in use before this. - JVG 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

etymology

does the word come from the planet Pluto?--Sonjaaa 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

...or maybe Mickey's dog: Pluto :-) Vsmith 02:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the IAU, Pluto is the "prototype" and thus it makes sense that Plutons are named for the planet. Also, I think Pluton might be the Greek name for the planet but don't hold me to that one... - JVG 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bandwagonism

Wow - a proposal that isn't even to be voted on for a couple of weeks - and everybody jumps in to be a part of the action I guess. And no one seems to pay a bit of attention to the what links here thingy. Prior to today's blitz, essentially the only links were from geology articles being redirected to a sorta synonymous term Intrusive. It seems that not one of the bandwagoneers seemed to care or check and try to fix all those now erroneoulsy linked geology articles. Now, we have a not yet defined term replacing a geologic term with a history going back to the 1700s and still widely in use. Yes, I agree that someone should have written an article on the geologic pluton rather than just have a redir, and the stub on plutonism is rather a mess. I would propose that the current content go to an article entitled Pluton (astronomy) with this spot in wiki be either used for the historic pluton usage or turned into a disambiguation page. I am aware that all the astro types watching probably won't like the idea, but as it is a new use of the term and not even official or accepted yet, seems we should consider things a bit. At the least some of the more rational bandwagon crowd might think about the bad links the spurt of activity over the last few hours has produced. Cheers, Vsmith 02:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluton should be a disambiguation to Pluton (geology) and Pluton (astronomy).Derek Balsam 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Pluton (missle). Derek Balsam 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Pluton now redirects to a disambiguation page for astronomy, geology, and missles. Good call.Derek Balsam 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. I've started adjusting the geology article links per your action. Thanks, Vsmith 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In French

• This will be tough in French as French considers the planet Pluto as Pluton

• • It is a problem in EVERY Latin language: French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, it is a bad term... I already taked about that in Definition of planet‎.

from the latin wikipedia they have:

Plūtōnĭum (-ii, neut.; Palaeograece: Πλουτώνιον, locus Plutonius), vulgo pluton

so in Portuguese: Plutónico/Plutônico or Plutoniano given that Plutonio is already used by Plutonium.

I was to translate this article yesterday, but I couldnt, I'm waiting if some of the above languages start appearing to see what name they choose. Obviously none, cause everyone has the same problem. --Pedro 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• just saw this: fr:Roche_plutonique. Thus Plutonique in French, Plutónico in Portuguese. --Pedro 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Sounds like geologists would prefer that this would be called something other than pluton, say plutonic planet instead... like in the Romance languages.

Yes -- studying magma intrusions on Charon would be confusing, what with the references to the plutons in the pluton.01:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

lame name

Pluton? This is ridiculous, for one 2003 UB313 is larger than pluto and pluton just sounds silly.

• you bet and a real issue to translate. I prefered Tartarus planet. Or another thing from Greek Underworld.
  • What about Elysian planet? They can be a picture of heaven, all cold and frozen to perfection.

Merge

Seeing that the IAU committe have already backtracked on the term "pluton", and that there's no widespread support for any of the other proposed terms. This article should be merged into the article for the (already existing and widely used) term "ice dwarf". 195.137.85.173 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say we can wait a couple of days more and see what the final descision. - TexasAndroid 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be useful to retain this page (with an appropriate name) as a record of the discussions, proposals and vote on the status of Pluto. If a merge does take place, is it better to merge it into the Trans-Neptunian objects? -- MightyWarrior 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of merges possible, hard to say where some of the redirs will end up pointing. I've done a little tidying, but when in doubt I recommend we wait until the dust clears a little more. Andrewa 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammar of title

• is this title not incorrect? a pluto prototype would be something that is a prototype for pluto, not something for which pluto is a prototype. the prototype IS pluto

The full temporary name is "Pluto-prototype trans-Neptunian object". I'd expect the article to be renamed as soon as the IAU announces the official name and as such the article in its current form is meerly a placeholder. --Md84419 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I first conceived "Pluto+oid", something that look like "Pluto" but isn't. However, reinterpreting as "Pluto+id", something that look like "Pluto", of which "Pluto" being the prototypic one, the term seems to be correctly formed. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if IAU decides that the real name of "dwarf planet" in fact is something like "ceresid" or some such "+id", much irritation on the linguistic malformedness of "dwarf planet" would be solved. IAU could throw an eye on how IUPAC is doing, they have a long history of creating a long-lived complicated generic terminology which is fairly unambiguous and accepted. Instead of monstrosities like KBO, TNO, QSO and all those darned TLAs! Said: Rursus ☻ 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cererid". kwami (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So why are'nt these things called "Plutonids"? Don't these astronomers know Latin? Couldn't they at least have consulted someone who does? Rwflammang (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is this Pluto-id or Plut-oid? A guide (or a statement that either is heard) would be useful. — crism (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Plutoid

Now that I re-read the reference I see that they do have basic rules with the absolute magnitude (H) < 1 (brighter) for this category. Will objects be listed as plutoids before they are listed as dwarf planets? -- Kheider (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More info on Mike Brown's blog. -- Kheider (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Brown's blog is factually incorrect. Plutoids are not defined in terms of brightness; brightness is only used as an indirect indication of size for naming purposes. kwami (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but absolute magnitude is a lot easier to estimate than size and mass. In a few years we will likely have a handful of Plutoids while the number of official "dwarf planets" probably stands still for the time being. -- Kheider (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're incorrect here. The obstacle to "adding" to the formal dwarf planet list is that there isn't an official hydrostatic equilibrium test. The obstacle to adding to the formal plutoid list is that there isn't an official hydrostatic equilibrium test. One will eventually get adopted—I have no idea what the timeline might be, and the IAU mighn't either—and then objects like Sedna will simultaneously get listed as dwarf planets and plutoids. The Tom (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Category

Aren't Plutoids Trans-Neptunian objects by definition? -- Kheider (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a subcategory, so the latter is not necessary. kwami (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't plutoids those "dwarf planets" that also are TNOs? Said: Rursus ☻ 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the definition of the term. kwami (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

List of also rans

Name/Abs Mag (H)/Diameter

• 90377 Sedna 1.6 (1500)
• 90482 Orcus 2.3 (946)
• 50000 Quaoar 2.7 (1260)

-- Kheider (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub?

As I write this, the article is for some reason still listed as a stub. I'm removing that tag now. Oneforlogic (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Should the lead say something to the effect: "A plutoid is a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet with specific rules for being initially categorized as such"? You could also say, "with specific conditions for receiving a name". Without some kind of modifier it makes the terms Plutoid and Dwarf Planet completely redundant, if not lame! (I know Ceres is the only exception.) -- Kheider (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to how the lameness of the decision, but I think you're actually kinda missing the point. The terms "Dwarf Planet" and "plutoid" are almost completely redundant. All plutoids are dwarf planets. All dwarf planets, sans Ceres, are plutoids. In NASA's own glossary section that they just updated, this very point is made.

This whole H < +1 requirement was not made up purely as a way of "justifying" having two very close definitions, as you seem to be implying. H has no bearing on whether you're formally a plutoid or not. You could travel out to Pluto and paint it black and nothing in either the spirit or the letter of the resolution would make Pluto any less of a plutoid afterwards than it was before.

The H test kicks in only for the purposes of figuring out which committees get involved in naming. The IAU could have just said "the small bodies naming people now get to name dwarf planets too" and there would have been no need for H to come into this at all. However, it seems as if they thought it was the best for the planet features naming people to also have a hand in things whenever you were dealing with a body that was big enough it would probably eventually be classified as a dwarf planet someday. The Tom (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that absolute value (H) has little bearing on whether something is a dwarf planet or not. But based on the IAU's press release it does appear as if they they will only be officially giving Plutoid status to objects with H<1. With H=1, all objects will be at least 800km in diameter (and that is assuming an albedo of 1.0).

Still if this is all the IAU is going to do with the category plutoid, they should have just modified the definition of 'dwarf planet'. They could have defined "clearing the orbit". Thus the lameness. -- Kheider (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

At a guess—and I mean, I know nobody personally who's an IAU member, so this is the ultimate in armchair know-it-all-ism—I reckon there's a wariness of being seen to be making important rulings at the Executive Committee level... Remember, all the General Assembly mandated them to do was clarify the nameless Pluto prototype category. If the Executive or some specific nomenclature committee or working group or whatever started to issue fiat rulings left right and centre on things like what comprises hydrostatic equilibrium or what comprises clearing the neighbourhood, there's the risk of inflaming the whinging about the IAU dictatorially kicking around Pluto (that's going on around the edges of the scientific community already) even more. I imagine that resolutions on what comprises hydrostatic equilibrium and what comprises clearing the neighbourhood will be the sort of thing that comes up for a much broader-based decision at the next General Assembly.

By the way, running the albedo calculations was a smart idea. I've included the figure in the relevant section. The Tom (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Plutoid candidates

I don't think the IAU will be dealing with dwarf planets that have an absolute magnitude (H) of greater than 1. Thus I think it might be premature to assume that all Dwarf Planet candidates = Plutoid candidates. -- Kheider (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather move it back to List of dwarf planet candidates (from the current name: List of plutoid candidates) Bluap (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article currently makes no mention of the albedo convention, so it doesn't fit the title well as currently worded. kwami (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new title

I'm going to add a new title on this article, "Controversy". Please give me some feedback, thank you. Patrick21488 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. For now, it has been removed from the article as it appears to overlap content that is already well-covered in the main article dwarf planet. I'll post the text here for comment from others. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Removed text

"Controversy" IAU's (International Astronomical Union) decision in 2006 to strip Pluto of its planet title was highly controversial. Some people called the voting process, "absurd", as only 424 astronomers were allowed to vote, out of some 10,000 professional astronomers around the globe, that is less than 5%.

The decision establishes three main categories of objects in our solar system.

Planets: The eight worlds from Mercury to Neptune.

Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."

Small Solar System Bodies: All other objects orbiting the Sun.

After they officially come up with the new name, Plutoid, for those objects like pluto on 11 June 2008 , IAU already recognized it is adding to the ongoing controversy. The IAU has been responsible for naming planetary bodies and their satellites since the early 1900s. Some astronomers have said that they simply would not heed it and questioning the IAU's validity as a governing body. "The IAU is a democratic organization, thus open to comments and criticism of any kind," IAU General Secretary Karel A. van der Hucht told SPACE.com by email on 11 June 2008 . "Given the history of the issue, we will probably never reach a complete consensus."

It remains to be seen whether astronomers will use the new term.

---

I agree with User:Ckatz on this one. The degree of alleged "controversy" is given sufficient coverage in dwarf planet and 2006 definition of planet; there's no need to repeat ourselves here as well. The Tom (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Makemake

Is it time to "promote" Makemake in the article to official status? Everyone but this article has stated the IAU has officially proclaimed Makemake a plutoid. Paxsimius (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plutoid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm going to review this GA nomination. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I read the article, and everything seems to check out, so I'm going to promote this to GA status! Here are my findings:

1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good Article criteria.
2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources.
3. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.
4. Written from a neutral point of view.
5. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars apparent.
6. No pictures, so it's compliant with image use policy.

Some suggestions I would have if you were aiming to improve this for FA review: Get rid of the red links in the article and add a picture! Apart from that, good job! Feel free to keep working on it and to read over it any time you want to! Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass Error for EL61

The "Plutoids for naming process purposes" table lists EL61's mass as 0.42 x 10^21, but the referenced page (136108)_2003_EL61 lists it as 4.2 x 10^21. Looks like a slipped decimal here. Tbayboy (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can not find 0.42 x 10^21 number (which is obviously wrong). Ruslik (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Link Error

The link for Reference item #12 is broken. The "/" at the end of the link needs to be removed. VirtualDave (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential GA delisting

Please do add pictures or diagrams and peer-reviewed references. Most current references are web pages. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are not really any peer-reviewed papers sine the concept of a dwarf planet (Earth moon like non-planet) is fairly new (2006). -- Kheider (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Unless I am very much mistaken, User:Hevron1998 is systematically vandalising this and other astronomy articles by randomly altering numbers, and has been at it for months. I don't have the energy or knowledge to revert these edits without ditching good edits in the process. Please look into the problem. Rothorpe (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not random numbers. This edit, for instance, is reasonable. Ruslik_Zero 15:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching him. But Hevron1998 does need to provide edit summaries and some references. Often he will quote a jpldata absolute magnitude and not show the reference. He also uses JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System for generating apmags of objects. His edits are well meaning. He also may not have noticed that FAs/GAs have more demanding reference requirements. -- Kheider (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plutoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103145836/http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html to http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706143614/http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/icedwarf.html to http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/icedwarf.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

As this has been redirected to the Dwarf Planet article, I've removed the GA tags (as it's no longer pertinent.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)