Talk:Pluto

No planet
This isn't a planet anymore, strange as that may be! I reckon this could be the first dictionary to update it as a dwarf planet - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/5282440.stm. --Feet first 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It never was a planet, strange as that may be. Jimp 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It most certainly is a planet, in normal everyday speech. The technical distinction has now been made, but hundreds of thousands of uses attest a very different interpretation than a handful of very-important scientists.  Since we are describing the word, not the concept, it should be very clearly marked as the ninth planet in our solar system.  Thirty years from now, if the scientist's opinion has taken hold, a "dwarf planet" definition could be added as long as the "ninth planet" meaning is then marked archaic.  At this point in time, it is far from archaic.  --Connel MacKenzie 10:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, has been and will continue to be a planet1. It is not, never has been and will continue not to be a planet2.  Where planet1 means planet by the old definition & planet2 is that by the new.  No, old and new are probably not the best terms either.


 * What's changed is the definition of the word planet ... or more precisely the IAU's definition. How quickly and to what extent normal everyday speech conforms to this ... or whether it ever does is an important issue ... however ...  yes, we are describing the word but note that the word we are describing here is Pluto not planet.


 * It would be all well and good to clearly mark Pluto as the ninth planet1 in our solar system but let's be equally clear that it is not a planet2. Jimp 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why change our solar system
It should still be a planet. It was originally one. So why change there mind.


 * The only thing in the Solar System that has changed is the definition ... or some people's definition of the word planet ... oh, yeah, and a whole lot of fuss over it. The said definition was changed for the sake of consistancy. Jimp 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–August 2011
Rfv-sense: "(comics} Famous Disney's dog." No citations at present to support WT:FICTION, or WT:BRAND or that usage actual presumes Disney connection. "Famous dog" should be easy, based on cites that meet WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some definition line that merely pointed to Wikipedia might work. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No citations in the entry, as far as I can see. RFV-fails. - -sche (discuss) 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)