![]() | Plutoid was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
So what is Ceres? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.31.161 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, August 16, 2006 (UTC)
does the word come from the planet Pluto?-- Sonjaaa 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Pluton? This is ridiculous, for one 2003 UB313 is larger than pluto and pluton just sounds silly.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Aren't Plutoids Trans-Neptunian objects by definition? -- Kheider ( talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Name/Abs Mag (H)/Diameter
-- Kheider ( talk) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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.
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." [2]
It remains to be seen whether astronomers will use the new term.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Please do add pictures or diagrams and peer-reviewed references. Most current references are web pages. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | Plutoid was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
So what is Ceres? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.31.161 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, August 16, 2006 (UTC)
does the word come from the planet Pluto?-- Sonjaaa 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Pluton? This is ridiculous, for one 2003 UB313 is larger than pluto and pluton just sounds silly.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Aren't Plutoids Trans-Neptunian objects by definition? -- Kheider ( talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Name/Abs Mag (H)/Diameter
-- Kheider ( talk) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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.
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." [2]
It remains to be seen whether astronomers will use the new term.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Please do add pictures or diagrams and peer-reviewed references. Most current references are web pages. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
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)