This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I updated the "Quasi-satellite" section to indicate that the quasi-satellite hypothesis has now been disproven by New Horizons. Since the whole thing turns out to have been wrong, perhaps it should be removed altogether now. StormWillLaugh (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently the lead says: "After 1992, its status as a planet fell into question". Please correct this as follows: "After 1992, its status as a planet came into question". Alternatively, "was called into question". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
YHalf done. That sentence could indeed be improved, but there are other ways to improve it further. For one, there is the verb "to question". Also, it issn't a status issue per se, but a scientific question about what the nature of Pluto within the Solar System (i.e. planethood). --JorisvS (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I changed some numbers based on NASA fact sheets and they were reverted to the numbers provided by universe today. While I respect this site, I think that it should not be a source for numbers. Opinions? - Duff06 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you talking about your edit from 6 August 2015, more than a year ago? Looking at the revision history of this article around that time there appears to have been a bit of back and forth about the Pluto Fact Sheet being out of date. With the hindsight of history, using Internet Archive, we can see the editor who reverted your edit appears to have been correct about the values being inconsistent. While the values you were entering appear on the July 29 2015 version of the Fact Sheet, a month later the August 28 2015 version had been corrected to the values that match what this article was already using before your attempted change on 6 August 2015. But this entire discussion is moot, as this article is no longer citing the source you find objectionable. —RP88(talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "because its mass is only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit" to "because its mass is only 1.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit" as the former infers that Pluto is smaller than the objects around it, which it is clearly not. Wcliffordbrown (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please provide a source for this claim. -- Dane2007talk 19:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Pluto is the largest member of the Kuiper belt. Most of the known Kuiper belt objects cross the orbit of Pluto and can potentially collide with it, these are the objects being taken into consideration when determining if Pluto has cleared it's neighborhood. Pluto's mass is about 7% of the Kuiper belt’s mass. —RP88(talk) 21:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)