Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 8

2685:. While its title states that Interamnia is a transistional object between a dwarf planet and an irregularly shaped body, the text of the abstract itself seems to state that Interamnia is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which therefore would make it a dwarf planet. Specifically it states, "Our observations reveal a shape that can be well approximated by an ellipsoid, and that is compatible with a fluid hydrostatic equilibrium at the 2 σ level. The rather regular shape of Interamnia implies that the size and mass limit, under which the shapes of minor bodies with a high amount of water ice in the subsurface become irregular, has to be searched among smaller (D ≲ 300km) less massive (m ≲ 3x1019 kg) bodies." 1530:

been a judgement, it was over a decade ago and the field has moved on, as you've noted. So we have Eris, which is universally assumed to be a DP, Ceres and Pluto, which have actually been shown to be DPs, then a bunch that are believed likely to be DPs by various researchers, including conservatively Makemake, Haumea, OR10, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna as a consensus list. That could change in the future, of course, but such is true for any science. Exoplanets have varying degrees of confidence too. But cutting off the list at an in-house bureaucratic decision is unscientific. We should be updating our coverage to follow developments in the field. —

2412:

so I don't see how they tell us anything about HE. The IAU four are distinct in surface composition, which might mean that they are the only DPs, which would be at odds with your summary of Pinilla, or it could just mean that they're big, which we already know. But Pinilla doesn't draw either conclusion. He never answers his first question, and in his conclusion doesn't even address the second. It's a very odd paper when you set out to answer two key questions, and then conclude by ignoring those questions. Unless his conclusion is simply that his methodology can't answer those questions, in which case there's nothing for us to report. —

1356:, the columns Π = 1 or Λ = 1. That's the distance where the body transitions from planet to dwarf. For Jupiter, it's about 64000 AU (about a light year) for Π. Mercury might not be a planet if it were out past Neptune. "planet" is mostly a dynamic category rather than a physical one, and always has been (since little was known about the physical bodies until relatively recently, historically speaking). Similarly, Earth would not be a planet if it were orbiting Jupiter. I think a lot of the controversy is driven by people not realising that they're trying to categorise two orthogonal concepts under one category. 2738:

Some Planets will have slightly higher surface gravity, a few will be slightly lower, and the Gas Giants will have slightly lower surface gravity (top of the clouds ). For example: Earth's Volumetric mean radius is about 6371.008 km, and its density is between 5514, and 5515. The GPS Gravity is taken as 9.80665 m/s^2. So 9.80665 X 3582688 = 35,134,167.28. Then divide by the radius of 6371.008 to get a non rounded density of 5514.695 206. Now you can round to 5514.7 kg/m^3. This is between the 5514 that NASA currently uses, and the 5515 they used previously.

2402:

result is a result. Tancredi and Favre, not Tancredi et al., recognize in their publication the limited access to measures of sizes of TNOS " There is a limited number of TNOs with reliable size measurements." and they explain that they take a conservative approach that may not be ideal, but is the best they can do at that moment, this means using pv=10%. This value is known to not be accurate for most of these bodies nowadays, as can be seen in Muller et al. 2019, and that is why it is important to include that reference also.

2543:

Brown's list is because he was one of the few sources we had when we started this article, and because he's notable for discovering and working on many of them. I suspect that eventually we'll drop the Brown list as not really contributing anything -- he's never addressed the issue of Dione & Iapetus not being in HE, for example, and how that would affect his estimates of how large an icy body would need to be to be "likely" to be in HE, so I don't really see much point to his list any longer. We certainly don't need

295:

about explaining the requirements for how HE might be attained in this specific context. Also, it's not about the moons of Saturn, it's about the well observed objects that straddle the boundary between rigid and plastic; where they're from is coincidental, and Vesta, Pallas, and Proteus should be mentioned, as well, so not just moons of Saturn. Since this is specific to DP, and not used elsewhere, I think it is a better fit here than in the hydrostatic equilibrium page. A separate page might work, too, like with

31: 2597:

modify the HE requirement, which would affect DPs as well. How close to HE would they need to be, and how could we possibly determine that for TNOs without measurements from an orbiter, even for Pluto? At that point the definition is even more obviously impractical, and there is no effective difference between "dwarf planet" and "planetoid". We might as well go with Stern's definition and call them 'DP' if like Stern we accept them as planets and 'planetoid' if like Brown we don't. —

1714:

IAU. We don't need to repeat that with every section. A list of '(possible) dwarf planets' considered most likely by RSs, which are Tancredi, Brown and Grundy et al. I'd remove MS4 and Salacia from the list because of the latter. So this is what we'd have. It's much handier to have them all together. Is there any way is which this doesn't reflect the scientific consensus? (We could add an 'acceptance' column if you think that's needed.) —

203:

Lineweaver-Norman (which is a bit different from Cole and more directly relevant to DP-ness). Including the empirical evidence from the well-observed moons belongs here, too, since it's the closest data we have to what the transition might be like in the trans-Neptunian zone. And little Methone illustrates that even equilibrium is not sufficient, that DP-ness requires the equilibrium to be due to the breaking of the material bonds.

388:”, because of the article title, need no DEFAULTSORT.) Also, the given name can begin with any of 26 characters (discounting accented vowels, etc.), whereas the MPN can only begin with one of 10 characters (assuming MPN < 100,000 means that the first character is 0). Thus, alphabetizing by given name results in more possible initial characters, preventing clutter in the alphabetic lists. Okay?-- 1582:". It (and similarly Makemake) is as much a DP as the others by IAU reckoning. A line in the sand is being drawn regardless: either we pick the IAU line, or we make our own line by deciding what constitutes "consensus" (especially since it seems few astronomers care, other than to pump up the importance of their discovery in the pop press). That said, I like your list (the first, shorter one) in 1481:"the" DPs, and go by consensus of astronomers, as we do for every other astronomy article? I think if Brown, Tancredi and Grundy et al. all agree that a body is likely to be a DP, we should go ahead and list it in the chart as a DP. We may not be sure of any but Pluto and Ceres until they're visited, but even the IAU five aren't certain, so requiring perfect confidence is a bit unreasonable. — 2476:

wouldn't that countra-indicate the 36 CDPs, and thus contradict IcesAreCool's claim that Pinilla-Alonso agrees that the larger TNOs are likely to be DPs? Did Pinilla-Alonso find a single CDP that's compatible with being a DP? A literal reading is that they didn't, that none of the CDPs have similar spectra to the IAU four, and there is no evaluation of viable candidates in the raw list.

2320:= 450km (to within 1 sigma), simply a population of potential objects so all likely candidates are included in the comparison, and pace the summary I deleted, the article is not an evaluation of how likely any of them are to be DPs that would be comparable to Tancredi et al., but rather a proposal that spectral imaging by the JWST should prove informative. The article summary says, 2458:"which are really peculiar among the TNO population" -- and this is key, the only point that they seem to make. The only conclusion, if you had to draw one, is that only the IAU four can be DPs. There's certainly nothing in Pinilla to suggest that he agrees with Tancredi or Grundy on Orcus etc. being likely to be DPs, as you stated -- if anything, he says the opposite. — 1625:

DPs. Makemake and Haumea are not. Who got to name them is irrelevant for determining their nature. Noting who had ID'd which body as a DP is important. But elevating the IAU above the scientific consensus, as if they actually determined such things, is silly. And IAU press releases written by who-knows-whom do not trump peer-reviewed articles in refereed journals. —

2485:

scientists before publications. "Key project", again, is the name that the Herschel Observatory gave to this program, it is rigorous referring to it like that. 2007 OR10, Quaoar, Orcus, 2002 MS4, Sedna, Salacia, are the six objects that are included in table 1 as the best candidates to be dwarf planets, not sure where you see the contradiction.

2526:

and respected in the field. The first did extensive characterization of the dwarf planets, back since 2005 and 2006. The latest is an expert in size estimation from thermal measurements of the geometric albedo, with Spitzer and with Herschel. They are recognized in the field and their work on this chapter is worth mentioning.

2440:

Salacia) with sizes above 900 km. Pinilla-Alonso et al. also show that the surface properties of these CDPs, typically used as a proxy of their surface composition, are not distinguishable from those of TNOs with sizes below 450km, which suggests that the physical properties of the dwarf planets in the TNb are unique.

279:"there is very little difference in the physical characteristics" It's not the characteristics that are at issue, really. It's what's being discussed that is. The similarity seems better handled at a page designed for dealing with the common issue than at one intended for something quite different in objective. 2612:

I highly doubt that they do. I haven't been able to access the reference being used for Venus (and Mercury) but I am disinclined to trust a paper published in 1984 that has only 3 reference and 6 citations. The Gudkova reference was a presentation at the European Planetary Science Congress in 2008,

2525:

I am honored that you think I might be one of the coauthors of an Elsevier book chapter, but even if that is not the case, I am close to the field and I got to know and understand the job from Brown, Ortiz, Tancredi, Grundy et al... but also Pinilla-Alonso or Stansberry are serious researchers, known

2479:

So, again, this edit appears to be bullshit. It's worded in a way (e.g. "final results of this key project") that suggests these articles contributed something to our knowledge of DPs, when it appears that they're just summarizing previous research and proposing future studies. And the one evaluative

2411:

There's a diff in albedo, with the IAU four high (+ one smaller object, presumably a haumeid), and Sedna intermediate, but Sedna's albedo isn't well constrained, so that might not mean anything. For the next two tables, not only are the CDPs not distinct from other TNOs, but neither are the IAU four,

2401:

This work evaluates the different observable characteristics from the list of candidates e.g. albedo, color, etc. and studies if, according to them there are other indicators, apart from the size, that could be used to detect more dwarf planets. This is a good and needed exercise, and even a negative

1674:

that! We don't get to dictate which object are DPs, and neither does the IAU. Substituting authority for research is pseudoscience. So, let's reflect the scientific literature rather than legalistically substituting a bureaucratic decision for science -- like we do with every other science article on

1620:

During the first few years, I could see putting it on the back burner to see what the IAU would do next. But it's pretty obvious by now that they aren't doing anything. An "IAU dwarf planet" is not a scientific concept, and has no business in a scientific article except as a side-note for how DPs are

1510:

There's nothing obvious about the IAU position, since there's been nothing for them to do: nothing new has met the naming criterion, and the whole question of when something becomes a DP has only become murkier. Brown's argument is premised upon Mimas and Enceladus meeting the physical criterion, and

1154:

by R. Malatesha Joshi and P.G. Aaron documents clearly how un-transparent orthografies encourage poor literacy, and slow down the process of learning to read and write. That un-transparent orthografies encourage poor literacy and result in time needlessly wasted in the process of learning to read and

2542:

But it is not "a description of the TNOs that are thought to be candidates to be called dwarf planets". It's just a list of large TNOs. There's no evaluation to propose which of them are or are not in HE, the way Tancredi and Grundy et al have. It's more like Brown's list, and the only reason we use

2433:

They just say that they review the previous decade's scholarship and will "entertain the idea of the science that can be done in the next 10 years". And the 2019 paper, which "was extended" from this one, doesn't update Tancredi & Favre's research. It only "updates the list" in the sense that it

2429:

From that moment, the key program TNOS Are Cool, which is called like that by the Herschel Observatory, not by me, has provided the most comprehensive study of the sizes of TNOs, only occultations can provide sizes of TNOs so reliable. Yes, the table in PinillaAlonso et al is only a compilation, but

2152:

Given that so many people unthinkingly follow the IAU press releases as if they were eternal scientific verities, I suppose it's useful to have a separate list for the IAU five. But we should have a full list for the scientific consensus. The first list won't change unless we discover something else

1693:

If you really think that the IAU has declared those five to be DPs, then please share the resolutions which declared them to be so. I know they declared Pluto to be a DP is their resolution for Plutoid, but I can't find anything else but press releases. And, as you noted above, organizations tend to

1529:

Exactly. So shouldn't Haumea and Makemake be listed as 'likely DPs'? The fact that their magnitude is greater than 1 doesn't make them DPs. That was just a bureaucratic decision to settle which committee gets to name them, not a scientific judgement, which is beyond their mandate. And even if it had

2532:

is to do it in chronological order. Tancredi & Favre made the first list, and the first suggestion back in 2007-2008 using the standard channels in the community that are peer-review publications. There is no reason to start with Brown's web list. A chronological order should be preferred here.

2531:

Finally, this article contains a description of the TNOs that are thought to be candidates to be called dwarf planets. There are different authors that have different criteria and opinions, I think this page makes a good job of including all of them but the best way to make an objective description

2325:

Surface compositions of TNOs appear to be correlated with size, with the largest TNOs, the dwarf planets, exhibiting dynamic, volatile-dominated surfaces. We refer to the next lowest size tier as candidate dwarf planets. These objects appear to be vastly different from the dwarf planets in terms of

1713:

All I'm proposing is that we merge the two tables. Rather than a "Bureaucratic List" from 2008 and a "Scientific List" from 2019, we should have just one list reflecting RS's in 2019. We say multiple times which bodies were named or accepted -- or, in the case of Pluto, declared -- to be DPs by the

1624:

As for there not being a lot of people working on DPs, again, so what? There aren't many people working on any individual exoplanet either. We do the best we can with what is being published. Eris, Pluto and Ceres are (AFAIK) universally accepted as demonstrated. Therefore we can just say the "are"

1480:

It's been over a decade since the IAU five were announced. The IAU is obviously not in the business of announcing whether something is or is not a DP, though if another bright object is discovered it will presumably be named under the assumption that it's a DP. So, is it time to abandon the five as

2737:

To make a quick estimate of the surface gravity in meters per second squared, multiply the radius in Kilometers by the density in kilograms per cubic meter, and then divide by 3,582,688. The 3,582,688 is the product of a Radius X Density that will give almost exactly 1.0 m/sec^2 surface gravity.

2509:

I wonder if there might be a COI here, as otherwise I don't know why anyone would push the trivial updating of a raw list and a recap of previous research on them as a "key project". Granted, Brown doesn't do any more than that with his list, but he's notable for having co-discovered many of them.

1616:

There was never an official decision that DPs were defined by their magnitudes. That was always for naming purposes, just so they could decide which committee got to name them. If the IAU did make such pronouncements officially, it would be a pseudo-scientific organization and we would ignore them

1612:

Of course we follow the astronomers! This is an astronomy article. A press release by the IAU is just a press release. They trump up things too, and dumb them down, so the popular press will pick up on them. If we took NASA press releases literally, we'd end up claiming all sorts of things that go

1429:

This article gave the same date for Ceres that the name 'Eris' was approved, but I don't see anything about that in the Ceres article. I would think that Ceres, Eris and Pluto have been considered DP's since Resolution 5A was passed. They were the primary objects under consideration, weren't they?

294:

The problem is that it isn't hydrostatic equilibrium (the section is poorly named as well), it is having "sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces". Hydrostatic equilibrium (and the commensurate shape) is a consequence of that. The section is not about explaining HE, it's

2596:

hold up, and Venus, Mars and Mercury are not planets by the IAU requirement for HE, is that requirement tenable? There's no way that astronomers are going to accept the other terrestrial planets being demoted to a Small Solar System Bodies. Unless they just ignore it, the IAU would be required to

2572:

So, the point of the articles seems to be, "After the big four, none of the TNOs apart from the haumeids stand out spectrally. We should check them with the JWST, to see if there's any way to distinguish DPs at longer wavelengths. Here's a partial Herschel/Spitzer list of the bigger TNOs that we

2475:

What Pinilla-Alonso "shows" of the surface properties is also a review of previous research, and doesn't address individual objects, so this isn't research at all. Rather, it's a textbook-like summary. And if the physical properties of the DPs (= the IAU four) are unique, as Pinilla-Alonso says,

2439:

This work was extended in 2019 using the final results of this key project. The final list contains 40 objects, the four dwarf planets already defined by the IAU in the trans-Neptunian belt, and 36 additional candidate dwarf planets (CDPs), six of them (2007 OR10, Quaoar, Orcus, 2002 MS4, Sedna,

2484:

Those articles, Muller et al. 2019 and Pinilla-Alonso et al. 2019 are chapters in a book that compiles the actual knowledge on TNOs, they do not need to do new research but to be honest and knowledgable and honor research made by their colleagues. A book that is refereed and evaluated by peers,

2450:

It means that, if we exclude the actual five DP, the surface properties, that are studied in that chapter, are similar for CDPs and regular TNOs. Surface properties that we can measure at this point are e.g. color, presence of ices, geometric albedo. This means that, until JWST can give us more

2553:

This isn't a question of whether they are serious researchers, but of whether they say anything notable. The only thing I see of interest is the claim that there's a break in surface composition between the IAU four and the rest of the TNO population. But what that means, I don't know, because

202:

I've been thinking of re-writing the last couple of paragraphs. They confuse the idea of gravitational relaxation with having a particular shape (the shape is a consequence of the relaxation, and so a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition), misunderstand Cole's work, and add in

117:

I've just removed info related to moons of Saturn. The paragraph I removed was entirely about moons, and it added nothing of value since it contradicted itself (first, it was taking into account Mimas was in hydrostatic equilibrium, but later, it turns out it was not). That's just fluff.

162:

The point of mentioning them is to sketch our knowledge about when objects can be expected to be round and which of those can be expected to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. The Saturn system is the only system that can provide us with examples relevant to the trans-Neptunian region.

2793:

I should've removed this years ago, but was waiting for a better ref and forgot about it. The reason is that Stern was counting satellite planets as dwarf planets (p.c. 2012). So the quantity "dozen" here doesn't tell us anything about how many TNOs Stern considered to be DPs. —

2335:

of the bodies, referring instead to previous studies for their conclusions, they don't really say anything new at all. So I don't see any point in mentioning this article, certainly not elevating it to the status of a new study. Unless I missed something in skimming it over? —

2451:

details on what is on the surface of the TNOs, we cannot say that those TNOs in hydrostatic equilibrium are really different (as per surface properties) to those that are not. Except, for Eris, Haumea, Pluto, and Makemake, which are really peculiar among the TNO population.

2613:

that is not peer-reviewed and thus not suitable for a wikipedia reference and I've removed it at List of Solar System Objects. The Perry reference and the book reference for Mercury both seem to be talking about rather small deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium.

2263:

Pinilla-Alonso, Noemi; Stansberry, John A.; Holler, Bryan J. (November 22, 2019). "Surface properties of large TNOs: Expanding the study to longer wavelengths with the James Webb Space Telescope". In Dina Prialnik, Maria Antonietta Barucci, & Leslie Young (ed.).

1158:

Or, could the language template be removed altogether, and the language-variety be unspecified, like with the vast majority of Knowledge articles? Honestly, it felt kind of odd that this article was in British English (Oxford or otherwise); given that the article

2434:

updates the list of large TNOs that might be considered, but that's trivial. Any child who can add and subtract up to a thousand could do that. We wouldn't even need to cite Pinilla-Alonso for their list. We could instead directly cite the public DB they used.

1123:

templates state, "According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.") Did they achieve such consensus? Or did someone change the language template without such consensus? Should we restore the Oxford-British template?

2714:

There are images of other angles in the journal article that look way more spherical than the one chosen for the infobox image, it may be that there is a big crater with a central peak like on Vesta. No way to know for sure until clearer images come

2510:

Stern's comment doesn't have any detail to it, but he's notable as the coiner of the term 'dwarf planet' and the head of the NH mission. Tancredi, Ortiz, and Grundy all did actual research, which it would seem Pinilla-Alonso did not. —

2148:

The problem is not having two lists. The problem is presenting a naming decision from 2008 as if it were the scientific consensus. There's no question that in a scientific article we follow the scientific consensus. Anything else is

2390:

You can access the proceeding PinillaAlonso 2016, I downloaded it and read it from this Cambridge webpage where the article is accessible with a publication date in 2016, why you could not read the paper is something that I do not

2732: 2573:

might want to start with." They don't even discuss how the big four stand out spectrally, though they do note that they don't all stand out for the same reason. Is there anything in that that's notable enough for us to cover? —

1246:

is officially in American English, for which, as i pointed out, i can see justifications. Otherwise, does this article really hav any particular ties to one spelling convention or the other? Btw, for "relevant style guide", see

2660:

This article no longer meets the featured article criteria. There are unsourced statements, statements ascribed to sources that do not support the statement and material that has been tagged for attribution since October 2017.

1678:

Who do we have to work with? The IAU press releases, since even if they're not scientific are followed in a lot of 2ary sources. Tancredi. Brown. Grundy et al. Maybe a couple others. That's enough for an article like this. —

1444:

Also, no announcement dates for Orcus or Sedna in our articles. Was Quaoar really announced the day after it was discovered? (The dates in our article were off by a day, which makes me wonder if this was just a mix-up.) —

1649:. We are not a recognised authority on anything, least of all astronomy. We report what others say; we do not draw our own conclusions. Knowledge is a scrawl on a public bathroom linked to citations. Nothing else. 2454:

And what does that mean? How did they determine which TNOs are in HE and which are not, that they could say that their surface properties aren't different? I don't see how you draw your conclusions from the

2444:

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Yes, the list contains 40 objects, but that's just a blind copy of the Herschel & Spitzer results at the "TNOs Are Cool" public DB, a raw list of objects :

2809:

Several posters by Runyon, Stern et al. list many more, of both satellites and TNOs, but they ignore their own definition as they do so. Not clear how much input Stern had, or if he just signed on. —

2480:

claim, that Pinilla-Alonso accepts Orcus, Sedna etc. as likely DPs, seems to be contradicted by at least the 2019 article. If there is something worthwhile here, perhaps IcesAreCool can point it out.

133:

Saturn's moons are discussed because Saturn has 7 large spherical moons and we know them better than any other set of moons in the Solar System. I think deleting that content might be a bad idea. --

2750: 1580:

The International Astronomical Union (the IAU) today announced that the object previously known as 2003 EL61 is to be classified as the fifth dwarf planet in the Solar System and named Haumea

663: 2408:

Their goal is to answer, "are these the only objects in the TNb that, according the IAU definition, can be considered dwarf planets? And if not, which are their physical characteristics?"

2167:

Since the IAU five are a subset of the current scientific consensus of nine (not counting Charon), why not just have one table and specially highlight and mark the rows for the IAU five?

943: 833: 687: 547: 1302: 1586:

with the columns showing the various evaluations. It shows the transition from near-universal acceptance (IAU DPs) to the uncertainty of Grundy's Xs paired with Tancredi's checks.

1332:

Why? Jupiter is 218 Earth masses; the Oort cloud is about 5 earth masses. And very likely there wouldn't be an Oort cloud if a Jupiter-sized object were flying through it anyway.

1613:

against the scientific consensus. Instead, we look at the academic publications that those press releases are based on. We should do the same here, and in any scientific article.

961: 957: 851: 847: 705: 701: 565: 561: 819: 2741:

You can estimate the surface gravity of every Planet, Dwarf Planet, Moon, or any other spherical, or semi-spherical object by: Radius X Density / 3,582,688 = __________ m/s^2.

2446:

450km for possible evaluation. There is no actual evaluation of those objects the way Tancredi et al. evaluated their raw list, and concluded that some are likely to be DPs.

2220: 265:

Other than the potential for tidal forces acting on a moon, there is very little difference in the physical characteristics of a dwarf planet and a large spherical moon. --

248:

Since the page is "dwarf planet", not "moons of Saturn", I'd tend to disagree, too, but...I can see a need for explaining. I'm just not sure this is the place for it. Isn't

2554:

Pinilla doesn't draw any conclusions from it, doesn't do more than mention it in passing. He doesn't say that only the IAU four seem to be in HE, or that some of his : -->

151:. That size and mass section (now called "hydrostatic equilibrium") is already long enough. Also, there is a "main article" link, so the section should be just a summary. 1191:). Makes me think that the language-variety should be unspecified, particularly since the subject in question does not hav clear ties to any one part of the Anglosfere.-- 2244: 2365: 1120: 1297:

Unexpected by me, it looks to me that the definition of a "dwarf planet" is locational. So even Jupiter would be a "dwarf planet" if far enough from the sun, or as a

2746: 2384:

In 2016, Pinilla-Alonso updated the list in Tancredi and Favre incorporating geometric albedos from thermal measurements of the Herschel Key Program “TNOs Are Cool”.

1313:

related threshold lines separating major planets from others. So even Jupiter would become a "dwarf planet" if further than ~60,000 AUs (1 lightyear), but within

1670:"We are not a recognised authority on anything, least of all astronomy. We report what others say; we do not draw our own conclusions" Exactly right. So let's 1511:

that has been shown false. Grundy counters some of Tancredi, casting doubt upon T's process. The changes since 2008 have been in the direction of less likely.

2775: 2093:

Kwami, no matter how many individual sources we cite, unless we can account for the entire astronomical community, we are taking sides. We cannot take sides.

497: 364:(MPN); because in most contexts minor planets, at least the bigger, better known ones, are usually called by their given name only, e.g. “Vesta” rather than “ 313:"A separate page might work" That makes sense to me, more than trying to shoehorn it in here. Let's not make this page more complicated than it needs to be. 1164: 2253: 1430:

There was an official announcement for Pluto (Res 6A), but nothing in our Ceres article about anything similar for Ceres, so I removed the claimed date. —

1206:

Note that this article does have some connection to Commonwealth spelling: the IAU spells it "neighbourhood" in their documents, which we're quoting here.

1032: 1024: 664:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130731133553/http://siba.unipv.it/fisica/articoli/A/Annual%20Review%20Earth%20Planetary%20Sciences_vol.34_2006_pp.193-216.pdf

653: 2360: 2345: 2116:

But you're the one advocating taking sides. I'm advocating we follow the scientific consensus. Which is what we need to do in any scientific article. —

2533: 2486: 2403: 2379: 2372: 2153:

with a magnitude greater than +1. The second could potentially change with every new publication, but that's the way a scientific article should be. —

90: 2351:

450, we list a hundred. So these 30 weren't selected just for size, but for whether they have size estimates from Spitzer or Herschel observations. —

2635: 1617:

completely. But it doesn't. The official publications are all about HE and clearing the neighborhood and which committee is in charge of naming what.

1054: 1306: 1282: 1260: 1215: 2555:

450km bodies are also in HE, or anything else that I can see. If I've missed where he said something worth reporting, please point it out to me. —

2311: 2125: 1708: 1664: 1563: 667: 2190: 2176: 2818: 2724: 2709: 2564: 1469: 2647: 2622: 2350:

Hm, the only thing they list that was numbered since 2005 is 2007 UK126. Whereas they list thirty bodies smaller than 900km but D + sigma : -->

2143: 1347: 1127:

I myself would never, ever, in good conscience, be able to perform de-Oxfordizing edits on any Knowledge article; i.e., change <realize: -->

185: 124: 110: 820:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070224221409/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=a9591aed-f19f-4ac3-a324-1f8bb46d9379&p=2

260: 2162: 1634: 1595: 1539: 1520: 1505: 1009: 899: 753: 507: 435: 321: 308: 287: 274: 104:

So? The article says it is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. By the way, why are moons of saturn being discussed in the dwarf planet article?

2501: 799: 613: 243: 197: 172: 157: 142: 2221:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2019-10-28/scientists-say-asteroid-could-be-smallest-dwarf-planet-in-earths-solar-system

1703: 1688: 1490: 2582: 2519: 2467: 2421: 1365: 643: 426:

Most are not listed here. I don't see why it would be special enough to mention here. Note, though, that officialness is a non-reason. --

212: 2606: 2225: 2108: 1454: 1439: 1723: 823: 184:

we know a great deal about the Saturn system. I may revert you because other people do not agree that all of this belong at HE. See:

939:

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

829:

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

683:

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

2258:

I removed the rather lengthy para on the following article as nearly unintelligible (and not much point to what was intelligible):

1399: 1248: 1028: 517: 397: 2700:

Their constructed image sure looks irregular. Could be a case like Phoebe. But is it really rotating fast enough to be scalene? —

673: 2587: 2240: 1475: 1496:

I have no problem calling them "likely DPs", but there is no reason Knowledge should declare what *is* or *is not* a DP. --

1200: 2694: 2593: 2386:

I can't access the paper (which dates to 2015, not 2016) to verify, but the abstract doesn't mention anything about this.

1389: 498:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141113225430/http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspective.php?page=piPerspective_08_24_2012

2248: 929: 2803: 2742: 2100: 1656: 1555: 1424: 1339: 1155:

write, is a fact, not an opinion. I beg you fellow Wikipedians to hav a conscience the way i do, and never de-Oxfordize.

783: 487: 237:

I strongly disagree with re-adding information about the moons of Saturn, but if that's a consensus, then what can I do.

2670: 1410:

The pie chart showing the masses of the dwarf planets relative to the Moon should probably be a bar graph of some form.

809: 654:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131207024954/http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspectives/piPerspective_09_06_2006.php

448: 2319:

Turns out it's accessible at Arxiv (changed the link in the ref). The "36 candidates" are merely anything with D : -->

2326:

color, albedo, and surface composition, even though they are closer in size to the dwarf planets than the small TNOs.

904: 758: 618: 1419: 921: 775: 635: 479: 2783: 1326: 1140: 1119:

Did they actually agree to change the official language-variety? (Albeit only in removing the "Oxford" part.) (The

1088: 501: 456: 98: 2007: 1897: 1239: 1095:

five dwarf planets: Ceres in the asteroid belt, and Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris in the outer solar system.

462: 420: 960:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

850:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

704:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

668:

http://siba.unipv.it/fisica/articoli/A/Annual%20Review%20Earth%20Planetary%20Sciences_vol.34_2006_pp.193-216.pdf

564:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1583: 657: 2134:

There is no problem with having TWO lists. The largest dwarf planets will in general be more significant. --

2304: 1371: 1256: 1196: 1004: 894: 748: 608: 393: 177: 2230: 2215: 508:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100323180835/http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/asteroids/sizemagnitude.html

1233:(at least in the article title), tho' there hav, understandably, been proposals to change it to <neigh 69: 64: 59: 979:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

869:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

800:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060525051103/http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/papers/2006/DJ06.pdf

723:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

583:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2430:

a compilation of the most updated results in Muller et al. 2019 reference that you insist on removing.

2235: 1779: 1353: 1225: 920:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 774:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 634:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 478:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 296: 38: 1078:"The exclusion of dwarf planets from the roster of planets by the IAU has been both praised and critic 644:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071012225232/http://curious.astro.cornell.edu:80/question.php?number=624

2655: 2226:

https://www.cnet.com/news/tiny-mysterious-asteroid-is-likely-the-solar-systems-smallest-dwarf-planet/

2492:

900 km. That's trivial. We don't need a chapter to tell us that, we can use the same DB they did. —

2288: 1057:.) However, in the lead part of the article, Oxford spelling seems to be consistently used for said 1545: 1150:; the plight of millions of functionally illiterate English-speakers cries out to me too strongly. 1062: 1020: 824:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=a9591aed-f19f-4ac3-a324-1f8bb46d9379&p=2

361: 357: 511: 2103: 1659: 1558: 1342: 1252: 1192: 995: 885: 739: 599: 389: 343: 249: 964:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

854:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

803: 708:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

568:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

518:

http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/dmsghc/planets/html/v_minimum_radius_and_mass_for_a_planetary_body.htm

2675: 2172: 980: 870: 724: 584: 452: 180:

probably just makes it more difficult for the reader to know about examples of HE. Because of

2814: 2799: 2720: 2705: 2690: 2643: 2602: 2578: 2560: 2515: 2497: 2463: 2417: 2356: 2341: 2186: 2158: 2121: 1719: 1699: 1684: 1630: 1535: 1486: 1465: 1450: 1435: 967: 857: 711: 571: 94: 1187:, the first, and so far only, spacecraft to visit Pluto, was launched by the United States ( 674:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070921162818/http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/minorplanets.php

2755: 2618: 2062: 1818: 1788: 1772: 1544:

Once again, Kwami, the situation absolutely sucks, but it's not Knowledge's job to fix it.

987: 877: 793: 731: 647: 591: 538: 444: 416: 377: 319: 285: 258: 252:

the place, if anywhere? There, the examples can be used without straying too far afield.

8: 2032: 381: 299:, but it might be small to be a page of its own, and I don't see an obvious name for it. 239: 181: 153: 120: 106: 2273: 2095: 1994: 1651: 1550: 1415: 1405: 1334: 1292: 1172: 1144: 946:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 930:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100211161824/http://astronomy2009.nasa.gov/topics_sep.htm

836:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 690:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 550:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 986:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

876:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

784:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html

730:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

590:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

488:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html

89:

Mimas is known not to be in hydrostatic equilibrium despite its roughly round shape.--

2202: 2168: 2139: 1747: 1591: 1516: 1501: 1380:

into the body. A bit brutal perhaps, but the intro needs to be clean and readable. -

1361: 1322: 1278: 1211: 431: 304: 270: 208: 193: 168: 138: 47: 17: 810:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080125225956/http://www.plutopetition.com/unplanet.php

677: 2810: 2795: 2716: 2701: 2686: 2639: 2598: 2574: 2556: 2511: 2493: 2459: 2413: 2352: 2337: 2182: 2154: 2117: 1715: 1695: 1680: 1626: 1531: 1482: 1461: 1446: 1431: 1096: 1014: 2733:

If one is interested in the surface gravity of spherical planets and dwarf planets

2779: 2666: 2614: 2067: 1385: 1036: 917: 771: 631: 475: 412: 314: 280: 253: 148: 2784:

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspective.php?page=piPerspective_08_24_2012

502:

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspective.php?page=piPerspective_08_24_2012

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2676: 2037: 2003: 1753: 1168: 933: 373: 2207:

Some scientists say that 10 Hygiea meets the conditions to be a Dwarf Planet.

952:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 842:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 787: 696:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 556:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 491: 1793: 1411: 1180: 402: 84: 2763:

In 2012, Stern stated that there are more than a dozen known dwarf planets.

2395: 813: 658:

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/piPerspectives/piPerspective_09_06_2006.php

2210: 2135: 1587: 1512: 1497: 1357: 1318: 1298: 1274: 1207: 1184: 913: 767: 627: 471: 427: 353: 349: 300: 266: 204: 189: 164: 134: 2682:

An abstract of a new paper analyzing SPHERE data was posted on ARVIX here

2631:

Yeah, we should be able to find corroborative sources if they're correct.

1963: 1928: 1893: 1858: 1823: 1765: 1310: 1147: 1069:"The term dwarf planet was adopted in 2006 as part of a three-way categor 1058: 953: 843: 697: 557: 369: 1167:, and i can see a reason for that: Pluto was discovered by an American, 2662: 2231:

https://news.yahoo.com/unknown-dwarf-planet-solar-system-153700978.html

2216:

https://www.space.com/asteroid-hygiea-may-be-smallest-dwarf-planet.html

1381: 1314: 408: 1143:; de-Oxfordization means moving even further away from the idea of a 2236:

https://news.yahoo.com/solar-system-family-five-dwarf-202500501.html

2683: 1967: 1958: 1932: 1396: 1862: 1827: 1176: 365: 1694:"pump up the importance of their discovery in the pop press". — 1376:

I've just cleared a lot out of the intro, and bunged some of it

186:

Talk:Hydrostatic_equilibrium#Article_too_focused_on_astrophysics

2398:

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2016

1923: 1888: 512:

http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/asteroids/sizemagnitude.html

368:”. Thus, {{DEFAULTSORT:Sedna}} or {{DEFAULTSORT:Salacia}} (see 2550:

450km" -- we can just link to our list of TNOs ranked by size.

2262: 2382:, is back, still without justification. The first claim was, 1853: 1243: 1160: 804:

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/papers/2006/DJ06.pdf

385: 1273:

Yes ... as mentioned; see the quote in the History section.

523:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1188: 924:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

778:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

638:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

482:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

794:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=624

648:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=624

1249:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#National varieties of English

2774:

Stern, Alan (August 24, 2012). The PI's Perspective.

2634:

A possibly similar 1977 paper on Venus is available

956:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 846:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 700:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 560:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1141:English spelling is already disgustingly irregular 2371:well, what can I say, appearances are deceiving. 1301:. There's a log-log mass vs semimajor axis graph 1055:American and British English spelling differences 678:http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/minorplanets.php 411:sufficiently official to be listed on this page? 348:I've been using {{DEFAULTSORT:}} to alphabetize 1039:basically means that the spelling <-ize: --> 2491:All they are is TNOs estimated to have D : --> 1131:, etc.; or equivalent with derived words like 942:This message was posted before February 2018. 832:This message was posted before February 2018. 686:This message was posted before February 2018. 546:This message was posted before February 2018. 1309:that perhaps would aid this article, with a 934:http://astronomy2009.nasa.gov/topics_sep.htm 1548:, and if he can't do anything, how can we? 788:http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html 492:http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html 2331:Since they never mention JWST results for 912:I have just modified one external link on 2396:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921316002970 2310:CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list ( 814:http://www.plutopetition.com/unplanet.php 766:I have just modified 5 external links on 626:I have just modified 4 external links on 470:I have just modified 4 external links on 360:(if they have one), rather than by their 2768: 2211:https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1918/ 1730:Objects most likely to be dwarf planets 1460:Found the dates. Quaoar's was wrong. — 1228:" currently uses the spelling <neigh 14: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1546:Even Mike Brown's pissed off about it 535:to let others know (documentation at 2594:List of Solar System objects by size 1152:Handbook of Orthography and Literacy 1033:British English with Oxford spelling 178:Blanking the information about moons 25: 23: 2782:, August 24, 2012. Retrieved from 2254:"Surface properties of large TNOs" 1352:See the Numerical Values table in 24: 2830: 2592:If the sources recently added to 1242:. On the other hand, the article 1116:Same in the rest of the article. 916:. Please take a moment to review 770:. Please take a moment to review 630:. Please take a moment to review 474:. Please take a moment to review 1089:International Astronomical Union 29: 2266:The Transneptunian Solar System 792:Corrected formatting/usage for 516:Corrected formatting/usage for 441:a dwarf planet is not aplanet 2191:02:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC) 2177:05:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 1584:list of possible dwarf planets 1470:22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC) 1455:19:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC) 1440:18:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC) 1073:of bodies orbiting the Sun..." 1031:, "This article is written in 1023:, "This article is written in 1010:15:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) 13: 1: 2804:09:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) 2725:22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 2710:09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC) 2671:09:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC) 2648:23:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2623:22:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2607:21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2583:20:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2565:07:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2520:20:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 2502:07:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2468:07:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2422:08:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 2361:21:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC) 2346:10:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC) 2163:19:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 2144:15:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 2126:19:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 2109:09:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 1724:22:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 1704:22:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 1689:21:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 1665:19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 1635:01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 1596:17:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 1564:17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 1540:16:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 1521:13:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 1506:08:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 1491:06:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 1476:time to update the 2008 list? 1103:this official recognition..." 754:01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC) 614:03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) 398:23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) 376:). (Obviously, the articles “ 2751:20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 2695:22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 2547:trivial lists of "TNOs : --> 2366:Still appears to be bullshit 2249:04:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2060: 2030: 1991: 1956: 1921: 1886: 1851: 1816: 1786: 1400:12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1390:04:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1366:17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC) 1348:16:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC) 1327:13:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC) 1027:..." Previously, it had the 322:03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 309:02:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 288:20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 275:19:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 261:18:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 244:17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 213:16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 198:13:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 173:12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 7: 2819:09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC) 2588:if Venus isn't a planet ... 2181:That works for me. Done. — 1425:When did Ceres become a DP? 1019:This talk page now has the 457:18:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 158:17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 143:17:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 125:17:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 111:17:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 99:15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 10: 2835: 2778:November 13, 2014, at the 2760:I removed the following: 2061: 2031: 1992: 1957: 1922: 1887: 1852: 1817: 1787: 1354:Clearing the neighbourhood 1226:Clearing the neighbourhood 973:(last update: 5 June 2024) 909:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 863:(last update: 5 June 2024) 763:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 717:(last update: 5 June 2024) 623:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 577:(last update: 5 June 2024) 467:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 297:clearing the neighbourhood 147:Good. But discuss them in 1709:Proposed table (top half) 1420:16:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 1283:16:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 1261:13:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 1216:13:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 1201:03:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 436:19:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 421:19:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 1735: 1578:From the announcement: " 900:03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC) 905:External links modified 759:External links modified 619:External links modified 463:External links modified 250:hydrostatic equilibrium 1114: 1105: 1084: 1075: 1106: 1087:"As of July 2008 the 1085: 1076: 1067: 42:of past discussions. 2437:The second claim is 1647:THIS IS NOT OUR JOB! 1372:Tidying of the intro 1130:to <organise: --> 954:regular verification 844:regular verification 698:regular verification 558:regular verification 378:Ceres (dwarf planet) 2549:600km", "TNOs : --> 2548:900km", "TNOs : --> 1732: 1129:, <organize: --> 1128:to <realise: --> 1040:, not <-ise: --> 944:After February 2018 834:After February 2018 688:After February 2018 548:After February 2018 527:parameter below to 382:Eris (dwarf planet) 362:minor planet number 2378:Our edit-warrior, 2295:Unknown parameter 1728: 1253:Solomonfromfinland 1193:Solomonfromfinland 1173:Lowell Observatory 998:InternetArchiveBot 949:InternetArchiveBot 888:InternetArchiveBot 839:InternetArchiveBot 742:InternetArchiveBot 693:InternetArchiveBot 602:InternetArchiveBot 553:InternetArchiveBot 390:Solomonfromfinland 2656:Featured article? 2281:External link in 2091: 2090: 1163:is officially in 974: 864: 718: 578: 459: 447:comment added by 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:Talk:Dwarf planet 2826: 2787: 2772: 2534:user:IcesAreCool 2487:user:IcesAreCool 2404:user:IcesAreCool 2380:user:IcesAreCool 2373:user:IcesAreCool 2315: 2308: 2302: 2298: 2292: 2286: 2285: 2279: 2277: 2269: 2106: 2098: 2000: 1733: 1727: 1662: 1654: 1561: 1553: 1345: 1337: 1165:American English 1008: 999: 972: 971: 950: 898: 889: 862: 861: 840: 752: 743: 716: 715: 694: 612: 603: 576: 575: 554: 542: 442: 317: 283: 256: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2791: 2790: 2780:Wayback Machine 2773: 2769: 2758: 2735: 2680: 2658: 2590: 2368: 2309: 2300: 2296: 2294: 2283: 2282: 2280: 2271: 2270: 2256: 2241:184.176.152.135 2205: 2102: 2096: 1998: 1993: 1711: 1658: 1652: 1557: 1551: 1478: 1427: 1408: 1374: 1341: 1335: 1295: 1112:dwarf planets" 1037:Oxford spelling 1025:British English 1017: 1002: 997: 965: 958:have permission 948: 922:this simple FaQ 907: 892: 887: 855: 848:have permission 838: 776:this simple FaQ 761: 746: 741: 709: 702:have permission 692: 636:this simple FaQ 621: 606: 601: 569: 562:have permission 552: 536: 480:this simple FaQ 465: 405: 346: 344:Alphabetization 315: 281: 254: 182:Cassini–Huygens 149:Moons of Saturn 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2832: 2822: 2821: 2789: 2788: 2766: 2765: 2757: 2754: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2679: 2677:704 Interamnia 2674: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2632: 2626: 2625: 2589: 2586: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2551: 2537: 2536: 2528: 2527: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2456: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2409: 2399: 2392: 2376: 2375: 2367: 2364: 2329: 2328: 2317: 2316: 2255: 2252: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2150: 2149:pseudoscience. 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2065: 2059: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2046: 2043: 2040: 2038:Scattered disc 2035: 2029: 2028: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2004:Scattered disc 2001: 1996: 1990: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1961: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1945: 1942: 1939: 1936: 1926: 1920: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1891: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1866: 1856: 1850: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1791: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1754:Orbital period 1751: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1737: 1710: 1707: 1668: 1667: 1645:Again, Kwami: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1524: 1523: 1508: 1477: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1426: 1423: 1407: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1373: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1350: 1294: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1219: 1218: 1169:Clyde Tombaugh 1016: 1013: 992: 991: 984: 937: 936: 928:Added archive 906: 903: 882: 881: 874: 827: 826: 818:Added archive 816: 808:Added archive 806: 798:Added archive 796: 790: 782:Added archive 760: 757: 736: 735: 728: 681: 680: 672:Added archive 670: 662:Added archive 660: 652:Added archive 650: 642:Added archive 620: 617: 596: 595: 588: 521: 520: 514: 506:Added archive 504: 496:Added archive 494: 486:Added archive 464: 461: 439: 438: 404: 401: 345: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 292: 291: 290: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 175: 128: 127: 114: 113: 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2831: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2771: 2767: 2764: 2761: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2743:98.245.216.62 2739: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2595: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2552: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2530: 2529: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2435: 2431: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2400: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2385: 2381: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2334: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2313: 2306: 2301:|chapter-url= 2290: 2275: 2267: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2208: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2101: 2099: 2086: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2069: 2066: 2064: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2039: 2036: 2034: 2027: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1927: 1925: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1890: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1855: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1800: 1797: 1795: 1794:Asteroid belt 1792: 1790: 1783: 1778: 1776: 1771: 1769: 1764: 1762:speed (km/s) 1760:Mean orbital 1759: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1743: 1741:Solar System 1739:Region of the 1738: 1734: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1676: 1673: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1657: 1655: 1648: 1644: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1565: 1562: 1560: 1556: 1554: 1547: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1509: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1401: 1398: 1395:Well done! — 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1338: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1224:The article " 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181:United States 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1125: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1111: 1104: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1083: 1081: 1074: 1072: 1066: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041:, is used in 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1012: 1011: 1006: 1001: 1000: 989: 985: 982: 978: 977: 976: 969: 963: 959: 955: 951: 945: 940: 935: 931: 927: 926: 925: 923: 919: 915: 910: 902: 901: 896: 891: 890: 879: 875: 872: 868: 867: 866: 859: 853: 849: 845: 841: 835: 830: 825: 821: 817: 815: 811: 807: 805: 801: 797: 795: 791: 789: 785: 781: 780: 779: 777: 773: 769: 764: 756: 755: 750: 745: 744: 733: 729: 726: 722: 721: 720: 713: 707: 703: 699: 695: 689: 684: 679: 675: 671: 669: 665: 661: 659: 655: 651: 649: 645: 641: 640: 639: 637: 633: 629: 624: 616: 615: 610: 605: 604: 593: 589: 586: 582: 581: 580: 573: 567: 563: 559: 555: 549: 544: 540: 534: 530: 526: 519: 515: 513: 509: 505: 503: 499: 495: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 481: 477: 473: 468: 460: 458: 454: 450: 446: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 423: 422: 418: 414: 410: 400: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 354:minor planets 351: 350:dwarf planets 323: 320: 318: 312: 311: 310: 306: 302: 298: 293: 289: 286: 284: 278: 277: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263: 262: 259: 257: 251: 247: 246: 245: 242: 241: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 214: 210: 206: 201: 200: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 176: 174: 170: 166: 161: 160: 159: 156: 155: 150: 146: 145: 144: 140: 136: 132: 131: 130: 129: 126: 123: 122: 116: 115: 112: 109: 108: 103: 102: 101: 100: 96: 92: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2792: 2770: 2762: 2759: 2756:Removed text 2740: 2736: 2681: 2659: 2591: 2571: 2544: 2508: 2478: 2474: 2443: 2438: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2383: 2377: 2349: 2332: 2330: 2324: 2318: 2303:suggested) ( 2297:|chapterurl= 2284:|chapterurl= 2265: 2257: 2239: 2234: 2229: 2224: 2219: 2214: 2209: 2206: 2169:Double sharp 2094: 2092: 1953:0.007–0.010 1782:discriminant 1775:eccentricity 1766:Inclination 1729: 1712: 1692: 1677: 1671: 1669: 1650: 1646: 1579: 1549: 1479: 1443: 1428: 1409: 1377: 1375: 1333: 1299:rogue planet 1296: 1234: 1229: 1185:New Horizons 1157: 1151: 1137:organization 1136: 1132: 1126: 1118: 1115: 1109: 1108:"Five recogn 1107: 1100: 1092: 1091:(IAU) recogn 1086: 1079: 1077: 1070: 1068: 1053:, etc. (See 1050: 1046: 1042: 1018: 996: 993: 968:source check 947: 941: 938: 914:Dwarf planet 911: 908: 886: 883: 858:source check 837: 831: 828: 768:Dwarf planet 765: 762: 740: 737: 712:source check 691: 685: 682: 628:Dwarf planet 625: 622: 600: 597: 572:source check 551: 545: 532: 528: 524: 522: 472:Dwarf planet 469: 466: 449:63.134.173.4 443:— Preceding 440: 406: 347: 238: 152: 119: 105: 88: 75: 43: 37: 2717:XavierGreen 2687:XavierGreen 2268:. Elsevier. 1964:Kuiper belt 1929:Kuiper belt 1894:Kuiper belt 1859:Kuiper belt 1824:Kuiper belt 1768:to ecliptic 1378:holus bolus 1311:Hill radius 1145:transparent 1133:realization 1059:lexical set 539:Sourcecheck 91:Reciprocist 36:This is an 2615:Physdragon 2087:< 0.07 1780:Planetary 1406:Mass chart 1315:Oort cloud 1293:Definition 1238:; see the 1148:orthografy 1005:Report bug 895:Report bug 749:Report bug 609:Report bug 413:JDAWiseman 409:2015_RR245 358:given name 352:and other 316:TREKphiler 282:TREKphiler 255:TREKphiler 2299:ignored ( 2274:cite book 2203:10 Hygiea 2075:≈ 11,400 1240:Talk page 1237:hood: --> 1232:hood: --> 1065:deleted) 1063:citations 988:this tool 981:this tool 878:this tool 871:this tool 732:this tool 725:this tool 592:this tool 585:this tool 356:by their 240:Huritisho 154:Huritisho 121:Huritisho 107:Huritisho 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 2776:Archived 2068:Detached 1968:cubewano 1959:Makemake 1933:cubewano 1773:Orbital 1757:(years) 1746:radius ( 1744:Orbital 1319:Tom Ruen 1317:limits. 1121:language 1051:finalize 1043:organize 1029:template 1021:template 1015:Language 994:Cheers.— 884:Cheers.— 738:Cheers.— 598:Cheers.— 445:unsigned 2455:papers. 2136:Kheider 2097:Serendi 2081:11.93° 2051:44.19° 2022:30.70° 1995:2007 OR 1982:28.96° 1912:28.22° 1877:17.14° 1863:plutino 1842:20.57° 1828:plutino 1807:10.59° 1653:Serendi 1588:Tbayboy 1552:Serendi 1513:Tbayboy 1498:Kheider 1358:Tbayboy 1336:Serendi 1275:Tbayboy 1208:Tbayboy 1177:Arizona 1071:ization 1047:realize 918:my edit 772:my edit 632:my edit 525:checked 476:my edit 428:JorisvS 384:”, or “ 374:Salacia 366:4 Vesta 301:Tbayboy 267:Kheider 205:Tbayboy 190:Kheider 165:JorisvS 135:Kheider 39:archive 2084:0.853 2078:≈ 1.3 2072:506.8 2054:0.442 2045:558.0 2042:67.78 2025:0.500 2016:553.1 2013:67.38 1985:0.159 1976:307.5 1973:45.56 1950:0.039 1947:8.00° 1941:288.8 1938:43.69 1924:Quaoar 1918:0.020 1915:0.195 1906:284.1 1903:43.22 1889:Haumea 1883:0.077 1880:0.249 1871:247.9 1868:39.48 1848:0.003 1845:0.227 1836:247.3 1833:39.40 1810:0.079 1804:17.90 1801:4.604 1798:2.768 1621:named. 1183:; and 1099:critic 533:failed 2811:kwami 2796:kwami 2702:kwami 2663:DrKay 2640:kwami 2636:here. 2599:kwami 2575:kwami 2557:kwami 2512:kwami 2494:kwami 2460:kwami 2414:kwami 2394:DOI: 2391:know. 2353:kwami 2338:kwami 2183:kwami 2155:kwami 2118:kwami 2063:Sedna 2057:0.10 2048:3.62 2019:3.63 1988:0.02 1979:4.41 1944:4.51 1909:4.53 1874:4.74 1854:Pluto 1839:4.75 1819:Orcus 1813:0.33 1789:Ceres 1736:Name 1716:kwami 1696:kwami 1681:kwami 1627:kwami 1532:kwami 1483:kwami 1462:kwami 1447:kwami 1432:kwami 1412:Samer 1382:Snori 1244:Pluto 1171:, at 1161:Pluto 1097:Brown 1035:..." 403:RR245 386:Pluto 370:Sedna 188:. -- 85:Mimas 16:< 2815:talk 2800:talk 2747:talk 2721:talk 2715:out. 2706:talk 2691:talk 2667:talk 2644:talk 2619:talk 2603:talk 2579:talk 2561:talk 2545:more 2516:talk 2498:talk 2464:talk 2418:talk 2357:talk 2342:talk 2312:link 2305:help 2289:help 2245:talk 2187:talk 2173:talk 2159:talk 2140:talk 2122:talk 2033:Eris 2008:10:3 1898:12:7 1720:talk 1700:talk 1685:talk 1675:WP. 1631:talk 1592:talk 1536:talk 1517:talk 1502:talk 1487:talk 1466:talk 1451:talk 1436:talk 1416:talk 1386:talk 1362:talk 1323:talk 1307:here 1305:and 1303:here 1279:talk 1257:talk 1230:bour 1212:talk 1197:talk 1189:NASA 1110:ized 1101:izes 1093:izes 1082:..." 1080:ized 529:true 453:talk 432:talk 417:talk 394:talk 380:”, “ 305:talk 271:talk 209:talk 194:talk 169:talk 139:talk 95:talk 2445:--> 2333:any 2104:ous 1660:ous 1559:ous 1397:JFG 1343:ous 1251:.-- 1235:bor 1175:in 1061:: ( 962:RfC 932:to 852:RfC 822:to 812:to 802:to 786:to 706:RfC 676:to 666:to 656:to 646:to 566:RfC 543:). 531:or 510:to 500:to 490:to 407:Is 2817:) 2802:) 2749:) 2723:) 2708:) 2693:) 2669:) 2646:) 2638:— 2621:) 2605:) 2581:) 2563:) 2518:) 2500:) 2466:) 2420:) 2359:) 2344:) 2293:; 2278:: 2276:}} 2272:{{ 2247:) 2189:) 2175:) 2161:) 2142:) 2124:) 2010:) 1997:10 1970:) 1935:) 1900:) 1865:) 1830:) 1750:) 1748:AU 1722:) 1702:) 1687:) 1672:do 1633:) 1594:) 1538:) 1519:) 1504:) 1489:) 1468:) 1453:) 1438:) 1418:) 1388:) 1364:) 1325:) 1281:) 1259:) 1214:) 1199:) 1179:, 1139:; 1135:, 1049:, 1045:, 975:. 970:}} 966:{{ 865:. 860:}} 856:{{ 719:. 714:}} 710:{{ 579:. 574:}} 570:{{ 541:}} 537:{{ 455:) 434:) 419:) 396:) 372:, 307:) 273:) 211:) 196:) 171:) 163:-- 141:) 97:) 2813:( 2798:( 2786:. 2745:( 2719:( 2704:( 2689:( 2665:( 2642:( 2617:( 2601:( 2577:( 2559:( 2514:( 2496:( 2462:( 2416:( 2355:( 2340:( 2314:) 2307:) 2291:) 2287:( 2243:( 2185:( 2171:( 2157:( 2138:( 2120:( 2006:( 1966:( 1931:( 1896:( 1861:( 1826:( 1718:( 1698:( 1683:( 1629:( 1590:( 1534:( 1515:( 1500:( 1485:( 1464:( 1449:( 1434:( 1414:( 1384:( 1360:( 1321:( 1277:( 1255:( 1210:( 1195:( 1007:) 1003:( 990:. 983:. 897:) 893:( 880:. 873:. 751:) 747:( 734:. 727:. 611:) 607:( 594:. 587:. 451:( 430:( 415:( 392:( 303:( 269:( 207:( 192:( 167:( 137:( 93:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index