Talk:Plutino

Comment[edit]

What about a 2:5 resonance?

Pluto is not a Plutino according to David Jewitt, the astronomer who coined the term. "Plutino" means "little Pluto", and since Pluto is a standard-sized Pluto, it couldn't be a "little Pluto." JoelWest 07:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, you don't have to have a big Gian and a little Gian to call Gian "Gianino." Pluto is little, and it is Pluto. "Plutino" could just be an affectionate diminuitive. --Chronodm 23:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable definition of plutino is "a minor planet in 3:2 resonance with Neptune". But perhaps a more useful definition is simply "an object in 3:2 resonance", which (1) bypasses the whole "is Pluto a minor planet?" controversy and (2) allows for economy, so that you can write simply "the plutinos" instead of "the plutinos and Pluto" every time you need to refer to such objects.

Narrow etymological considerations are not the sole consideration. Consider the fact that Hawaii has interstate highways... ponder that for a moment. If it really mattered, you could propose a name change to "plutowano" or something, by analogy with "cubewano", but most people would just shrug and go on using "plutino". -- Curps 07:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just updated the article List of trans-Neptunian objects, but got confused about that Pluto's satellite Charon was described as a Plutino in this article. I assumed this was in order and just added it as its type there, but I don't really see how it would be one according to the definition (orbit similar to Pluto's -- which it clearly isn't, as it doesn't even orbit Sun, but Pluto). Jugalator 22:11, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Plutino most likely is going to be redefined as a 200yr orbit planet by the IAU. This article should refect that discussion. see talk:planet talk:pluto talk:ceres Hopquick 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of Plutons, not Plutinos. DenisMoskowitz 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, my bad. Hopquick 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital period[edit]

Should the article contain some mention of the fact that Plutinos all have orbital periods around 247.5 years? The fact that they'd all have similar periods would be implied by the fact that they're in resonance, but might it be good to mention the approximate period just so the reader doesn't have to chase off to the Neptune article and multiply by 1.5, or into one of the individual plutino articles to find the period? Linguofreak 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Deuar 09:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plutino[edit]

Excuse me, but "plutino" means "little Pluto". How can Pluto itself be a little Pluto? 209.247.22.199 00:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "little pluto" translation into Italian is related to the etymology of the word. Its meaning has since moved on, and plutino no longer actually means "little pluto", but refers to a class of orbits. Deuar 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3:2 resonance or 2:3 resonance[edit]

From what I've gathered on Google Scholar, Pluto and the Plutinos have a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. It's Neptune that has a 2:3 resonance with them. Googlefight reveals 9350 hits for Pluto "3:2 resonance" vs. only 577 for Pluto "2:3 resonance". Certainly David Jewitt, who coined the term Plutino, refers to them possessing a 3:2 resonance. [1] Serendipodous 09:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; This seems to be an issue that is as old as the hills, and continually hard to resolve. I would take the above googlefight values with a big grain of salt. A manual search of Google scholar (ticking the "only physics, astronomy and planetary science" box) gives much more even results:

a search for pluto "2:3 resonance" gives 100 hits
pluto "3:2 resonance" gives 173 hits.

However, and here's the surprising part, it's difficult to make sure that it's actually pluto that is being talked about!

a search for neptune 2:3 resonance" gives 130 hits
neptune "3:2 resonance" gives 217 hits

Note how 3:2 appears to win by a similar margin whether we're talking about pluto or neptune! There is no clear indication of which is preferred, at least from a search for these terms. Deuar 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be mostly author’s preference with specialist articles on orbit dynamics typically using p:q where p<q and non-dynamics_specialist use 3:2. Non–scientific articles used mostly 3:2. Plutinos orbit twice when Neptune orbit 3 times, so 2:3 seem less misleading to many. To keep NPOV maybe a short statement should be added to the article. Eurocommuter 06:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, pick one and be consistent: having two consecutive passages (the redirect line and the first paragraph) conflicting is just silly. DewiMorgan 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after a one month delay, they're at least finally consistent. Deuar 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 NC7[edit]

2007 NC7 can be removed, it now has a second opposition observed giving it a semi-major axis of 33.7+-0.5 au. See http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/07NC7.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.248.54 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Plutos[edit]

Are there any generalizations of Plutinos that can be made, such as Orcus being the "anti-Pluto"? If it's only that one case, we can cover it at Orcus, with just a mention here; otherwise we should cover it in greatest detail here. — kwami (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many objects in table are not plutinos[edit]

I just removed two objects from the table (2004 PF115 and 2004 UX10), which according to Marc Buie[2][3] and W. R. Johnston[4] are not plutinos. Those are the only two objects I checked, so I suspect that many more of the objects in the table are not actually plutinos. The table should be thoroughly checked. I suspect that it needs to be remade from scratch. Renerpho (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table update[edit]

The table currently requires lots of additional citations. If we were to use Johnston[5] as a single source, the table could look like this:

Object	a (AU)	q (AU)	i (°)	H	Diameter (km)	Albedo	B-R	Discovery year	Refs
(134340) Pluto	39.9	29.8	17.1	-0.9	2375	0.72	1.34	1930	JPL
(90482) Orcus	39.2	30.3	20.6	2.4	910	0.23	1.05	2004	JPL
(28978) Ixion	39.8	30.1	19.6	3.8	617	0.141	1.64	2001	JPL
(208996) 2003 AZ84	39.3	32.1	13.6	3.9	723	0.097	1.04	2003	JPL
(84922) 2003 VS2	39.2	36.4	14.8	4.2	548	0.123	1.4	2003	JPL
(455502) 2003 UZ413	39.2	30.3	12.1	4.4	670	0.07		2003	JPL
2017 OF69	39.7	31.5	13.7	4.5	558 (assumed)			2017	JPL
2014 JP80	39.7	37	19.3	5	443 (assumed)			2014	JPL
2014 JR80	39.7	36.1	15.3	5.1	423 (assumed)			2014	JPL
(38628) Huya	39.8	28.6	15.5	5.3	406	0.083	1.54	2000	JPL
(444745) 2007 JF43	39.6	32.2	15.1	5.3	386 (assumed)			2007	JPL
(469987) 2006 HJ123	39.8	27.6	12.4	5.3	216	0.281		2006	JPL
2002 XV93	39.1	34.3	13.3	5.4	549	0.04	1.09	2002	JPL
(469372) 2001 QF298	39.5	35.2	22.3	5.4	408	0.071	1.01	2001	JPL
(307463) 2002 VU130	39	30.8	1.4	5.5	253	0.179		2002	JPL
(532092) 2013 HU156	39.8	34.9	20.8	5.5	352 (assumed)			2011	JPL
(469421) 2001 XD255	39.2	34.9	18.2	5.5	352 (assumed)			2001	JPL
(84719) 2002 VR128	39.4	28.9	14	5.6	448	0.052	1.54	2002	JPL
(523768) 2014 WQ510	39.4	33	22.9	5.6	336 (assumed)			2011	JPL
2010 EL139	39.5	36.9	23	5.6	336 (assumed)			2010	JPL
(55638) 2002 VE95	39.1	27.9	16.3	5.7	250	0.149	1.79	2002	JPL
(533209) 2014 DR143	39.3	27.8	10.3	5.7	321 (assumed)			2011	JPL
(523760) 2014 WQ509	39.1	33.4	9.8	5.7	321 (assumed)			2013	JPL
2011 UT410	39.4	32.5	13.5	5.8	306 (assumed)			2011	JPL
2013 CD223	39.3	30.3	5.3	5.8	306 (assumed)			2013	JPL
(523655) 2011 VJ24	39.4	32	9.5	5.9	293 (assumed)			2010	JPL
2007 JF45	39.6	36.3	11	5.9	293 (assumed)			2007	JPL
2013 PX74	39.8	33.9	7.8	5.9	293 (assumed)			2013	JPL
2014 MH70	39.6	33	3.3	5.9	293 (assumed)			2014	JPL
2013 SP102	39.4	33.3	11.6	6	280 (assumed)			2013	JPL

Johnston doesn't list masses, it gives the B-R rather than the V-R colour index (because the B-R value is supposedly more useful for taxonomy), and it has no information about the discoverer. It also gives a single value for the diameter, with no information regarding uncertainties (assuming an albedo of 0.09 where no direct measurement is given). All of these could be added from different sources, if necessary. The big advantage of the Johnston list is that it includes a dynamical classification. Renerpho (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]