From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Pluto is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Pluto is part of the Dwarf planets series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 14, 2015.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Pluto is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Hi, @JorisvS: File:Pluton, par la sonde spatiale New Horizons, le 14 juillet 2015.jpg is obviously much better. Could you explain why you reverted me? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at it. Those colors are not what it looks like. It may be of higher resolution, but it is misleading because Pluto does not look like that. Whenever available, the infobox image should be a true-color image. --JorisvS (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The current image is also a composite. Higher resolution beats blurry images any day. The details in the higher resolution image are photographic, only the color has been enhanced. Visitors want to see surface features. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No, visitors want to see what Pluto looks like. That is not what Pluto looks like. Serendipodous 17:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The present image does not show what Pluto looks like either. So what is your point? Also, the background has been removed in that image. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - earlier edit rv - *entirely* agree with User:JorisvS and User:Serendipodous - original image is better - and preferred - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That is a doctored, composite image. The surface structure and color come from different cameras. Please stop forcing this crap. 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"The surface structure and color come from different cameras" This is true of every modern NASA image. It is also true for many iconic images of the Eagle Nebula, Pillars of Creation, etc, that are among the most interesting images on Wikipedia. Practically all modern photography involves some level of post-production color balancing, including all modern smartphone images. Don't be a luddite. Curedwales (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
So, between two images that both do not show what Pluto looks like visually, why go for the one of lower quality? We are here to educate people, so the higher resolution image should be preferred. Anyone with interest in astronomy wants to see details. Even a grey-scale image would be better than the current one. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It does show what Pluto looks like, as faithfully as was possible with New Horizons' instruments. And people don't just want to see greyscale topographical details, but also colors. --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
People with only a superficial interest maybe. And btw, the high resolution image is not without color. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Images should be for the general public. Most people don't care about details. Huritisho 17:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

People who look up Pluto do. In some countries the "general public" is somewhat more interested in details than in other counties. Want me to hint at stereotypes about some countries' general public? This is an international encyclopedia existing to educate people about details. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cush: Perhaps both POVs re images can be accomodated to some extent - I've added your "favored image" to the "other versions" section of the "original image" description - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So, almost half a year after the flyby, is there any better image than the fake in the info box at the top of the page? ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Official naming[edit]

Despite of reading quite a lot sources about history of Pluto's discovery, I can't find anywhere that "The object was officially named on March 24, 1930". This was inserted in 2007 by an IP (without any sources), both sources, which now hang on this phrase, are inaccessible, and the given quote from the second of them does not confirm this statement. Actually the name "Pluto" was officially proposed by Lowell Observatory 1 May 1930, and the second given source (also cited here) say about some announcing on May 25, but not March 24. Moreover, it would be very strange if newspapers wrote about some event 2 months after it. So, it's very probable that the statement about March 24 is a vandalism or mistake. I want to ask users with access to old numbers of The Times and The New York Times to check this info. Stas (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea for now. If someone wants to pay to look up the online archives, that would be great. Serendipodous 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not mean "pay yourself, because I don't want". Maybe, somebody is a subscriber. Stas (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Mean Elements and TOP2013[edit]

I'm excited that there are now analytic theories of planetary motion that include Pluto, and there are online elements for the solutions of TOP2013, the Theory of the Outer Planets by the Institut de mécanique céleste et de calcul des éphémérides (IMCCE) along with VSOP2013. the abstract is here.

The elements are in radians for angles and the numbers in general are in a less familiar format. So I made a spreadsheetwith elements and other figures derived from them, and in degrees and julian days and years, online. Saros136 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015[edit]

The Photo for Pluto is not accurate. This is a true colour image of the Dwarf Planet . The image currently there has its colours exxagerated so scientist would have a better view of the very subtle colour shifts of each area of the planet. Please change the imge (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems we're going to be whack-a-mole-ing that for the foreseeable future; for some reason, some people think hi-def is preferable to reality. Serendipodous 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Major Axis[edit]

This article lists Pluto's Semi Major Axis as equal to 39.54 AU. But the sum of the listed Perihelion + Aphelion divided by two is equal to 39.49. Why is there a discrepency, or are the measurements really only known to three significant figures?Inkan1969 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The numbers do seem inconsistent. The perihelion and aphelion should be a*(1 +/- e), so their average should be the same as a as you say. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no mistake here. In the textbook ellipse, the semimajor axis is perihelion + aphelion divided by two. The actual orbits are not perfect ellipses. In fact the extreme distances always change. So do the mean elements. Saros136 (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Pluto[edit]

The article (and corresponding section in the main article) seems to have serious problems. Maybe, somebody would be interested in rewriting. Stas (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, be bold and go ahead with rewriting it. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)