Talk:Pluto

Reference
I removed the following information from the article:

As a Federation world, Pluto has a small research outpost, but is too small to be of use as a shipyard or colony.

It is also used by the Federation as a deep space RADAR post to watch for possible threats to Starfleet Headquarters on Earth.

please add the references of your information to this article, Clypheous. --BlueMars 19:35, Dec 28, 2004 (CET)
 * I believe Pluto outpost comes from non-canon reference works or roleplaying games. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

It is a shame that knowledge of Pluto's three moons, Nix and Hydra as well as Charon, is probably not something that will enterable here for the forseeable future. Then again, has there ever actually been a reference to Charon to begin with? --ChrisK 07:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Planet?
How should the current IAU debate on the definition of a "Planet" be addressed here?
 * The debate continues, and as such no full decisions have been made yet. I would advise we wait until the debate is over before we change anything related to it. - Enzo Aquarius 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't hurt to discuss this now, though, before the shit hits the fan tomorrow and people will be editing this back and forth. I think there are two questions that we have to take into account, with #1 being the more important one for us:
 * Has there been any reference to Pluto as a "planet", or as "the ninth planet", specifically? If that is the case, we should continue to call Pluto a planet here, and eventually add a background comment if that differs from real-world classification as decided by the IAU.
 * If Pluto has not been called a planet... Has there been a reference to the Sol system consisting of nine planets? If that is the case, we should note on this article that this probably is the ninth planet referenced, although this doesn't match real-world classification any longer.
 * In any other case, we should just adopt the IAU definition and change our articles accordingly. My guess: By tomorrow, we'll end up with an article that starts by stating that "Pluto is a small planet in the Sol system, ...". -- Cid Highwind 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A double dumbass on the people who merrilly decided to screw with the Star Trek universe by demoting Pluto.--CaptainCaca 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the controversy being caused by the IAU's decision that Pluto is not a planet, this page has been protected from editing by those without sysop priveleges. Protection will be lifted once this whole mess has been dealt with. --From Andoria with Anger
 * I have unprotected this since no one is actively discussing this. --Alan del Beccio 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * SEE BELOW

Moved from Forum:Pluto - planet, dwarf planet, nothing at all?
So, there's discussion about this whole "Pluto demotion" going on on several talk pages, including (if there are others, add them to the list): Additional discussion is going on via IRC, as it seems. This is a horrible mess and won't help in the least if we're trying to come to some sort of consensus. I suggest to discontinue all these discussions but one (this one?), and then move the outcome of this discussion to whatever talk page seems fitting. Let me start with a comment I originally left on Talk:Pluto before this all started:
 * Template_talk:SolSystem
 * Talk:Planet
 * Talk:Sol system
 * Talk:Pluto
 * File talk:Earth solar system poster, Cardassians.jpg
 * Memory_Alpha:Votes_for_deletion (regarding deletion of the redirect Dwarf planet)

Can't hurt to discuss this now, though, before the shit hits the fan tomorrow and people will be editing this back and forth. I think there are two questions that we have to take into account, with #1 being the more important one for us: In any other case, we should just adopt the IAU definition and change our articles accordingly. My guess: By tomorrow, we'll end up with an article that starts by stating that "Pluto is a small planet in the Sol system, ...". -- Cid Highwind 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Has there been any reference to Pluto as a "planet", or as "the ninth planet", specifically? If that is the case, we should continue to call Pluto a planet here, and eventually add a background comment if that differs from real-world classification as decided by the IAU.
 * 2) If Pluto has not been called a planet... Has there been a reference to the Sol system consisting of nine planets? If that is the case, we should note on this article that this probably is the ninth planet referenced, although this doesn't match real-world classification any longer.

Apart from the fact that the link to "small planet" should obviously have been one to "dwarf planet", this still is my view on the situation.

Regarding #1, there hasn't been any confirmation of Pluto being called a "planet" specifically, yet, and it seems as if such doesn't exist. There's the poster art used in the production of DS9, but I believe using that as a source to keep Pluto as a planet would stretch our policy of using production art beyond hope. Even if we accept that what was on the wall in the classroom was exactly this poster, we still can't be sure about its "in-universe" relevance. Perhaps it was just a reproduction of an historical poster to show what people on earth knew about their solar system 400 years ago?

Regarding the question of whether to use real-life scientific data and conventions in our article, please make sure that whatever position you defend, it's consistent throughout the site. If you think that we shouldn't call Pluto a "dwarf planet" because "scientific conventions in the Trek universe might be different", then why call it a "planet" instead, why add info about exactly "9 existing planets" to Sol system, etc., if that, too, "might be different"? -- Cid Highwind 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no way to justify adding the new definition to the site as though it was canon. The writers and producers of every single episode of Trek, written over the last 40 years, have operated knowing for a fact that Pluto was a planet, and that if they mentioned Pluto in dialogue, it would be recognised by the viewers as the ninth and outermost planet of the solar system. It would have been stupid for the writers to ever specifically state that it was a planet in dialogue because it was the most common of knowledge. There is no way that the writers could have had the definition of planet, passed yesterday, in their minds, at any time in the last 40 years. In Trek, Pluto is a planet, the ninth planet of the solar system. And if you doubt that is what the producers believed, then look in the Star Trek: Encyclopedia under Pluto. "Pluto. The ninth planet of the Sol system." There is no way to fit this new information into Trek, as though it always existed, without writing fan fiction. --Bp 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, in every instance where Pluto has been used, it hasn't been important at all what exactly it is, just that it is some object on the fringes of the Sol system. If it hasn't been called a planet on-screen, it might be as much "fan fiction" to assume that in the fictional universe, Earth scientists have gone back to calling it a planet at some time, or never stopped doing that. Also, your proposal seems to be slightly inconsistent, because it would mean that for every real-life object that has been referenced, we would need to define exactly when it was used last and then use knowledge of that time to base our article upon. What happens if the next movie happens to reference the Sol system? Do we continue to call Pluto a planet on its page, but claim that Pluto isn't a planet on the Sol system page, because we're using differing knowledge for the two articles? Somehow, that strikes me as a bad idea... -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Trek universe is not this universe. That is quite demonstrable. Because something happens in reality, does not mean we have to fit it into Trek in some way (the writers might try to, but WE do not). We do not have to assume anything like "Earth scientists have gone back to calling it a planet at some time" because the new definition never happened. The canon universe only exists from 1966 to 2005, when Pluto was definitely a Planet. When the next canon installment of Trek comes out, it may change. For now, however, we are writing fiction to add a definition that could not possibly have been in the minds of any canon trek production staff. --Bp 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In most of our Astronomical articles it has been standard ops procedure to add a small bit of noncanon (obv. non contradicted) "framing info" -- for example, the Alpha Beta Zeta system might be mentioned on Trek, but we will add that in 1999 it was discovered to be a trinary and is 47 LY from Earth -- and not go into any further detail. i dont see why Pluto should be any different (or require this much discussion). -- Captain M.K.B. 15:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The poster Jorg found, with external links to it at File talk:Earth solar system poster, Cardassians.jpg, shows Pluto as a planet. Therefore, since this was seen on screen, it is canon the Pluto is a planet. I don't buy Bp's argument, because writers intent is meaningless unless it is expressed to us. It is just us speculating as to what we feel the writers were thinking. I can just as easily say that the writers did not call Pluto a planet because they did not like it being one. It does not matter, though, since we have this poster that says it is a planet. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You could not "just as easily say" that. Not at all. There is logic behind the idea that they believed it was a planet. It is in the encyclopedia, as well as everyone believing it was a planet. Did you even read the discussion? --Bp 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only did I read it, but I had it with you on IRC last night. I still don't buy it, and no matter how many times you repeat it to me, I am not going to buy it. It does not matter, though, as Jorg has found canon evidence that it is a planet. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You dont buy that the producers who wrote "Pluto. The ninth planet of the Sol system" believed like everyone else that pluto was a planet? I also refere you to Cid's comment about the poster that you did not seem to notice. You haven't addressed anyone's points in any way except to ignore them. --Bp 23:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being mean, and attacking, and in my mind bordering on personal attacks on me. I have about 10 things I am trying to do at the same time at the moment, so I would ask you to BE NICE! As for your argument, I have said to you elsewhere why I don't buy it, but I will say it again here. A) Whether the writers intended or not, or thought people were smart or not, does not matter, they never said it was a planet. B) Writers' intent belongs as a background note. We would do the same in any other case, as I understand how MA works. C) I did not ignore you, I even presented an alternative to your argument. D) In response to Cid, yes, I suppose it is possible that this is a 400 year old poster. The problem is we have no evidence of that. It is speculation. In addition, the fact is that we have NOTHING in Star Trek that says Pluto is not a planet, and this poster that says it is. I saygo with the poster, since it is the only thing in Star Trek that seems to say one way or the other. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  23:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's late, so I'm just answering some of the points made above. More tomorrow, probably. ;) Re:Poster: Yes, it is speculation to say that "this is a 400 year old poster" - it still is a possibility, though. It being "up-to-date information of the Sol system" is another possibility - and also speculation. This basically means that we shouldn't use information from that poster either way, and not that we should prefer one speculation to the other. Re:Mike The difference to other astronomical articles would be the fact that the real-world information itself changed recently, and we don't really have in-universe information either way. This hasn't been mentioned in this thread before, so in short: An assembly of astronomers officially decided what exactly a planet is or isn't - and according to the new definition, Pluto is no longer a planet. So, do we use the old real-world information, the new real-world information, or no real-world information at all (in which case we couldn't even say that Pluto is a planet). -- Cid Highwind 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Banish it to the world of planetoids? --Alan del Beccio 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be going back to one of the states we already had. Officially, Pluto is now a "dwarf planet", so either including that definition as an article and linking to it, OR making dwarf planet a redirect to either Planetoid or Planet (with an explanation on that page), OR even linking "dwarf planet" like it is at the moment (again, with an explanation on "planet") would be good compromises, I believe. However, some think that Pluto needs to stay a "planet" (even: the ninth planet) on MA, because it was called a "planet" at the time it was used on Trek... -- Cid Highwind 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The poster of the Solar System from has arrived in the meantime. A description of what it depicts can be found here: Forum:The Solar System Poster from "Cardassians". --Jörg 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just keep it as it was and stick to the original terminology ("planet") as that is what the definition was when all of Trek was written and produced. --Alan del Beccio 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A Nitpick?
Isn't this one of those nitpick situations though? I don't see any episode premis that would be affected if Pluto were a dwarf planet in the in-universe future too. There are propably a thousand things the writers believed in during the writing of the episodes, but since trek didn't end in 2006 but keeps on ticking, and has a pretty good track record with keeping up to date with any and all real-world scientific changes, I dont see this as anything more than a nitpick. --Pseudohuman 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "this", when you say "Isn't this a nitpick"? Is there a nitpick in the article today that needs removing? Or, are you talking about the entire discussion above, which has been inactive for 19 months? I don't know if you read any of it, but the prevailing attitude toward people who would jam the real-world classification into in-universe articles appears to be unanimous. Even a Background note on the contrast (if one exists) between Pluto's real-world vs. in-universe statuses would be just what you say - a nitpick, so, if that's what you were suggesting all along, then, welcome to the consensus. TribbleFurSuit 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree, real-world distinction vs. in-universe distinction in here is the nitpick, so the Sol I-IX references not used on-screen, and major planetary body reference not used on-screen shouldn't be in the texts as it's nitpicking a difference to the in-universe vs. real-world. It should just be "Pluto is a planetary body in the Solar System" and not jam in anything else. --Pseudohuman 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The graphic from is for all intensive purposes a Sol IX references, as it is a graphic of the planets of the solar system. I believe the same has been shown for a graphic in the classroom on DS9 in . --OuroborosCobra talk 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The DS9 graphic also appeared in, for what it's worth. Anyway it doesn't sound like Pseudohuman even wants to change anything, so no defense/justification is necessary. TribbleFurSuit 02:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa.. Actually now that you mention it, the "Future's End" appearance of the map actually establishes the map from "Cardassians" to be a historical map from the 1990's, "The Cage" graphic didn't even feature Pluto, "The Changeling" graphic, featuring a lighter colored line and a dot for Pluto, wasn't even stated to be a graphic of all major planets in the solar system. So it's complete and utter nitpicking to use these to promote a case for "Trek still thinking Pluto is a major planet and calls it Sol IX". Change it to planetoid. --Pseudohuman 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that if it was stated in canon that Pluto is a planetoid then it should be called a planetoid. Otherwise we must base it's classification on what was stated in canon. (Stealth edit: Or using any visual representation...though I would state that since it was a planet during the shows run it's a planet in the show as well) --Morder 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the graphic from the changeling in the episode itself...it clearly depicts pluto as a planet based on the legend on the bottom depicts all the other planets otherwise it would have mentioned the planetoid Xena as well. If you want to get really nitpicky... --Morder 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is just lines and dots, it's speculation to say they are the major planets of the Sol System as they are known and classified in the 23rd century. That is not stated. It might just as well be a map of the Sol System as it was classified in the year Nomad was launched, so Nomad would understand the image in the way it was programmed. it's nitpicking to make a few obscure lines and dots into an inconsistency with real-world. --Pseudohuman 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point. This is what is represented in universe. If it's inconsistent with our universe then that's just the way it is. Anyway...you can't call it a planetoid unless it's stated in universe. There's a policy somewhere around here about that. Better to ask Shran or Alan about this. --Morder 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The poster in the classroom depicted planets, and the graphic from The Cage also did. Not a single non planetary body depicted. No Ceres, or any other. This is anal, especially to revive this 19 months later. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you obviously missed the big pointer from "Future's End" 19 months ago = the classroom graphic is established to be a 1990s replica in the in-universe, so all it establishes is that Pluto was considered a planet in the 1990's. Nothing warrants nitpicking it to be a planet beyond that. You don't need someone saying Pluto is a planetoid, when you know what a planetoid is in the in-universe, you know the term is used, and you know that Pluto is a planetoid in the real world, and you know that Pluto fits the bill in the in-universe too. Using a little line and a dot interpreted to support an inconsistency is totally against Memory Alpha policy. --Pseudohuman 05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what if it was from the 1990s. It is the only in universe thing we have. You are not just nitpicking, you are making up claims that don't exist. We have a claim of being a planet, and zero claims of not being. Star Trek isn't the real world, so stop treating it like it is. We know that in universe, it has been called a planet, and not once has it been called not a planet. Like I said, drop this anal reviving of a 19 month old conversation. Nitpick something else. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the whole matter if the beginning line is agreed to be changed to: "Pluto was considered a major planetary body in the Sol system in the 20th century. " Then there would be no nitpick-assumptions implied that an inconsistency exists as there are now. --Pseudohuman 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already stated in the background so you might as well drop it now. --Morder 05:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. No because of the graphic in "The Cage". No because there is no evidence that it stopped being considered a planet. No because it means adding extraneous information to match with a fantasy of Star Trek actually being the real world. No because it means making up in universe information that does not exist. No. Background note is fine, that makes sense, but not in the in-universe. No. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. But, I think the current wording leaves people (like me) wondering what exactly is the basis of MA still considering Pluto a planet, as the years go by and people start to forget Pluto ever being a planet anyways, our reasoning isn't clearly expressed in the article in any clear way. Can there be a little line added in the background to address the in-universe issue like "We categorize Pluto as a major planet, due to it still being depicted among the other eight major planets in the map of the solar system shown to Nomad in the year 2267." and a pic of that map included so its absolutely cited and clear to everyone immediately reading the article even another ten years from now. --Pseudohuman 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Late to the party here, but, Pseudohuman, may I point out that A) you're the one who started this all off saying "I dont see this as anything more than a nitpick", with which everyone is in violent unanimity. You must by now know that MA is an encyclopedia for canon and for production information, and is explicitly not for nitpicks, so why are you now changing your mind and pressing this so hard after we already had a completely stable version of the article after 19 months? And, B) In order to plainly justify to passers-by our not changing Trek's Pluto to a Kuiperbelt object or whatever is fashionable at some future moment, why not add citations to the article's in-universe claim of Pluto's status. It will look like this:
 * Pluto (or Sol IX) is a planet in the Sol system.
 * Eh? SwishyGarak 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to have a little bgnote when there is a slight detail discrepancy like this one, regarding an object that exists in the real-world and in the trek-universe. For example: wwI casualities, wwII casualities, Leningrad, USSR, etc. The bgnote can also be: "We categorize Pluto as a major planet, due to no canonical mention of a similar reclassification." before we cite the encyclopedia reference and an expansion of the nomad-bit "Pluto was seen on a map depicting the major planets of Sol system watched by Nomad in 2267." Thats not nitpicking, and well within the editing guidelines, policies and precedences of MA, you might think its unnecessary, but I feel it clarifies the whole thing to a reader immediately in a non-confusing way. --Pseudohuman 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There already is a background note regarding Pluto's status. Let's just leave it at that...I doubt anybody who 'passes by' would be even remotely interested in this planet anyway as it's never been visited to (as far as I can remember). So just leave the article the way it was after the first discussion was had about this very topic. --Morder 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is, the way it is worded now makes it seem like that outdated encyclopedia entry is the only reason we classify Pluto as the ninth planet. Articles shouldn't ever be worded in that way. --Pseudohuman 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My final response to this as the consensus view of the members of this site is that it should stay the way it is. Trying to shove real-world information into a site about a fantasy is not what we're about. Until that fantasy world itself matches our real world we shouldn't touch it. --Morder

Do you agree that the current wording makes it seem like we are using the Encyclopedia as a canon source? --Pseudohuman 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there are true canon references available, not just a semi-canon source only eligible for Background, I think the Background item should be deleted, since we can reference in-universe from canon in the main article text. Let's not mention the Encyclopedia at all. If you want to include something in Background, how about something modelled after the USSR one:


 * Whether Pluto in the Trek universe was re-classified as a planet prior to the original 5-year mission or never classified as anything other than a planet at all is unknown. In the real-world, no one foresaw the re-classifiaction of Pluto as (variously) a "dwarf planet", a "Kuiper belt object", a "planetoid", etc. after the referenced episodes above were produced.


 * "the referenced episodes above" would be as QueenyGarak indicated. The background note shouldn't say "We..." or "Memory-Alpha.org categorizes...". Encyclopedias shouldn't be worded in that way. TribbleFurSuit 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, how 'bout:
 * Pluto then enjoyed planetary status until a controversial 2006 session of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) reclassified the body as a dwarf planet. The reclassification has never been mentioned in Star Trek.
 * Pluto was referred to as the ninth planet in a poster of the Sol System in the office where Rain Robinson worked, at the Griffith Observatory in.

No need to cite a non-canon source instead of a canon one, and as for the other note, there is obviously precedences for a line like that in a bgnote. For example see: United States of America#Districts. Plus we would never get anyone changing the classification like there seems to be periodically now when there is no statement like that on the page. I wont make the same mistake I made with the retcon thing, so I'll wait for comment as long as it takes :D I can appreciate assuming that everybody knows trek-objects have nothing to do with real-world objects, of course they don't, they are part of a fiction, but the fact is, every such article in MA references real-world information in the in-universe part for missing details. Look at almost any article about a town, country or a historical person or a historical event, there is a mix of real-world data and in-universe data. When they dont mesh, a statement. That makes this article stand out looking like we used outdated real-world data without any reason what so ever, because we don't state or cite the reason in the article. So we get people browsing the articles, looking at this article and saying "hold on they forgot to update this." 'cause thats the way it looks like now in the midst of all the other such articles. --Pseudohuman 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, your first bullet looks fine. The second bullet isn't necessary if we include citations in the in-universe part, like we normally do when citing things. TribbleFurSuit 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. But, just slapping a behind the opening sentence like SwishyGarak suggests, without an explanation of where in the episode it is established seems a little vague to me. But if the line is put under it in italics or something. It works too. --Pseudohuman 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. TribbleFurSuit 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

==Removed note= An anon recently removed a bg note; thought I'd post it for reference. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:04, July 15, 2012 (UTC)