Talk:Styx (moon)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BestLampNA.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Should the albedo upper bound be 0.4 instead of 0.04? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.52.210 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources state 0.04. There is an inverse relationship between albedo and diameter - i.e. a lower albedo results in a greater diameter. Therefore the lowest albedo gives the upper bound on diameter. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

Although the sentence is factually correct, I agree with the commenter that it is confusing. The terms "minimum" and "maximum" seem to be referring to the albedo rather than to the radius. Is there someway to reword the sentence to make it clearer? JavautilRandom (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Made-up designation?

Unless I've missed it, NONE of the external links in this article uses the designation "S/2012 P 1". Why is this article titled with a fake designation that no-one uses? It should be either "S/2012 (134340) 1" or "P5 (moon)". 46.126.76.193 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the standard formulaic designation as defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as defined for moons of planets, with "P" reserved for Pluto, so it is not a fake designation. However, since Pluto has been demoted to a dwarf planet, "P" may no longer be appropriate. This designation is anachronistic. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, it seems odd that it is known as P 1 (with space) and P5 (without). Is this styling correct? Ericoides (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

P 1 stands for first discovered satellite of planet Pluto that year (ie: S/2012). P5 just means the 5th moon of planet Pluto. If they announce another Pluto satellite this year it will be known as "S/2012 (134340) 2". -- Kheider (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• S/2012 P 1 → S/2012 (134340) 1
• S/2011 P 1 → S/2011 (134340) 1

– Per the discussions at Talk:S/2012 P 1 and Talk:S/2011 P 1, "P" is inappropriate since Pluto is no longer a major planet (but is a dwarf planet), so these articles should not use the anachronistic formulaic name from the time when it was a major planet. Many of the sources use "134340" instead, as this is the Minor Planet Number for Pluto. 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Seems pretty clear cut, I was unable to find sources for S/2012 P 1 a couple of days ago, it seems S/2012 (134340) 1 or more loosely P5 are the accepted provisional designations. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC).
• Weak Support. In this context, P and (134340) mean exactly the same thing. Personally, I don't think it makes much difference... as long as the articles don't end up at P4 and P5, as those seem to only be temporary nicknames. If more official sources use (134340) than P, go with (134340). Just make sure to maintain redirects from the P versions. --Patteroast (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The page would finally have to be renamed again when the official names are declared. Anir1uph (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. Pluto is not a major planet. Pluto is not a planet in formal use or on Wikipedia. In 1978 and 2005 Pluto was a planet. Thus the 2011 and 2012 moons should be moved to the (134340) designation. Any website overseen by Alan Stern such as pluto.jhuapl.edu should be seen as a conflict of interest/Due and undue weight issue since Alan Stern is the Principal investigator of the New Horizons project and has an agenda promoting Pluto as a planet. -- Kheider (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Pluto is in a threshold and if it was so designated at the time, I see no reason to move it. This is a waste of time and the outcome is inconsequential since it will be named soon enough and will not require the usage of any preliminary designation will it?LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As I pointed out in the previous discussion on this page, the "S/2012 P 1" designation appears not to be used. Therefore in this case the move rationale is clear: having the article at an unused designation does not make sense. Presumably the name will change at some point in the future from the provisional designation, but we don't know how long that is going to take and in any case the fact it will change in the future does not justify providing inaccurate information at the current time. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• MOVE --ArgGeo (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Pluto is not a planet. --JorisvS (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pluto was considered a planet when this convention was established, and some (including the director of the NH mission) continue to insist that it is one. There's the matter of simple consistency with the temp moon names S/1978 P 1, S/2005 P 1, and S/2005 P 2 (now Charon, Hydra, and Nix). "P5" is ubiquitous, and part of the same convention of P = Pluto. That is, planetary nomenclature has been grandfathered in in the case of Pluto. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment @Kwami I couldn't have said it better myself and @Jorvis YES IT IS.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. A planet is gravitationally the dominant body in its orbital zone, but Pluto isn't. But you already know that. --JorisvS (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly not a planet per the dominant IAU definition. My point was only that grandfathered-in nomenclature is not a contradiction of the IAU, any more than "dinosaur" means that we still think they're lizards. Because of its history as a planet, I suspect Pluto will have a special place among minor planets for quite some time. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for POV pushing. We defer to the IAU. If you don't like that, tough. Asserting the name follows a pattern that was itself broken in the sole preceding example following the relevant change is fighting old battles in a completely inappropriate forum. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC).

You're missing the point. Also, that edit was intended for P4; I misread the dates. — kwami (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the New Horizons website refer to "S/2011 P 1" (emphasis mine) last year anyway when P4 was discovered? They haven't referred to "S/2012 P 1" or "S/2012 (134340) 1" yet, but they probably will refer to it as "S/2012 P 1" when not using "P5". Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, they did not, at least if they ever have Google hasn't spotted it: a Google for "S/2011 P 1" site:nasa.gov gives no results. A similar search for "S/2011 (134340) 1" site:nasa.gov gives 375 results. Far from never having used the term, a similar search for "S/2012 (134340) 1" site:nasa.gov yields about 340 results versus none again for the "P" form. It is therefore clear what NASA's position is, as is that of CBAT and every other source. To date no one has quoted a single reliable source in favour of the current page titles. Vague and unreferenced appeals to memory do not alter that, particularly when contradicted by actual evidence. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

Search for their pluto.jhuapl.edu site. They used "S/2011 P 1" once there. Double sharp (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Searching for "S/2011 P1" does return some results from the NASA page. This is in complete contrast to "S/2012 P1" - apparently no-one is using this and it has been invented by the "Pluto is a planet" crowd here on Wikipedia. If you want to claim that the moon should be called "S/2012 P 1", or even that it is informally known as such (as mentioned in the lead paragraph of this article), provide a reference. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You're attributing motivations to people which you can't possibly know. I do not accept Pluto as a planet, yet am happy to accept S/2012 P 1 as an informal temp name for the moon. S/2011 P 1 was apparently used after the precedent set by S/1978 P 1 etc. WP may be the only place that has further extended the pattern, I don't know. But the pattern does exist, and there is s.t. to be said for consistency. (We don't extend the planetary pattern to minor planets only because it is impossible to do so with only 26 letters in the alphabet. But it already has been extended to Pluto, so IMO the planetary argument is in itself irrelevant.) — kwami (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is the only place using it, and the only reason for using it is to keep the pattern of articles that are now not even named that way (ie. Nix, Hydra), then "S/2012 P 1" fails WP:UCN, and WP:NOTBURO -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

'S/2012 (134340) 1' also fails UCN, and NOTBURO is irrelevant. But I'm not saying you should agree with me, merely stating what my preference is and why I hold it. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTBURO is relevant, since your reasoning is entirely bureaucratic. And unlike "P", "134340" actually is a candidate for UCN, since it is used outside of Wikipedia, whereas titles only used on Wikipedia are not candidates for consideration under UCN. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The official IAU designation is S/2012 (134340) 1, period. And IAU is the only authority for asigning designators for celestial bodies. Insisting on a invented and completely inofficial designator like S/2012 P 1 is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. --GDK (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose There is nothing wrong with S/2012 P1 and I have no doubt New Horizions will use the term when they update their pages with info on the moon. The Pluto haters who infest Wikipedia need to get over themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.183.175 (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

98.238.183.175, please do not go against the overwhelming consensus on this talk page as you did with this series of edits. Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus? What consensus? And what gives you the right to tell me not to go against "the consensus"? I sure as hell don't see it. And I need not remind you that this very discussion happend last year with S/2011 P 1 ( I know it hurts you to see that...) and the consensus was no move. Now, you've tried to go ahead and change all the P1's into 134340's without any discussion, especially while the page remains at P1. I will continue to revert your edits as you alone have no right to force one term over another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.183.175 (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

98.238.183.175, *if* you continue to vandalize the page I will ask that you be BLOCKED for violating the The three-revert rule. -- Kheider (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I will also point out that last years failed move was S/2011 P 1 → P4 (moon), it was not to the proper IAU name S/2011 (134340) 1. -- Kheider (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the matter, don't like somebody disagreeing with you? You should be blocked for changing all the P1's to 134340 without ANY discussion. Again, what gives you the right to decide which one is better than other? Oh yeah, and I still Oppose the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.183.175 (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that Kwami has added a biased reference (IMHO), I will also point out that any website controlled by Alan Stern is probably a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest reference since Alan Stern obviously has an agenda promoting Pluto as a planet. The discussion that lead me to make the changes can be found here (Made-up designation?). -- Kheider (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Three Four points:

It doesn't matter what the vote is. WP is not a democracy. Names are chosen according to our naming conventions. That often accords with the majority, but sometimes not. (These discussions are a forum to convince others, or at least the deciding admin, by the power of your argument, not a popularity contest.)

Until/if a new name is decided on, it's normally the old name that we use. The name in the lead echos the name of the article, and there's nothing about this case that would make it an exception (unlike, say, "List of X" articles, where often we don't bother to echo the name of the article in the lead).

Changing one name to another is not "vandalism". Reporting someone for vandalism over a content or naming dispute is likely to be seen as frivolous. (Reporting them for edit warring is another matter.)

[on new comment] It would only be a COI if Stern were the editor. What you're staying would be like saying that we can't use Christian sources for an article on Christianity. The issue you're concerned about is covered at WP:weight.

— kwami (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When you are working on a project such as New Horizons, it can be bad for your career/paycheck to not go with what the Principal investigator (in this case Alan Stern) wants. Thus it is probable that pluto.jhuapl.edu is intentionally biased. -- Kheider (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly. But that's not WP:COI, which refers to us as editors. Also, if the question is whether the name is used, then that's an example that it's used. It's not for us to judge WP:truth like that (especially for names or definitions, which aren't questions of fact), though WP:weight should sort out an entrenched minority from an established consensus. — kwami (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The references use the name "S/2012 (134340) 1" for a reason. Kwamikagami, this whole naming controversy is hurting your POV-pushing credibility over at the dwarf planet article. -- Kheider (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a bizarre statement, Kheider. How does your dispute here (with someone unconnected to me) have anything to do with that? I'm merely pointing out some elements of WP conventions you don't appear to be familiar with, because your shouting match with a not-terribly-rational IP is not making you look good. I don't understand your need to make things personal. — kwami (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you know that there are no reliable references for the PLANETARY name "S/2012 P 1", and you also know that Pluto was removed as a planet in 2006. Yet you continue to support the PLANETARY format for naming moons of a minor planet when YOU OPPOSE the move. -- Kheider (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that people shouldn't have opinions you disagree with? The whole point of this is that we present our reasoning for evaluation. Why does that upset you so? None of us live in a world where everyone agrees with us. And the comments that set you off weren't even my opinions on this matter, but merely clarifying WP:democracy, WP:vandalism, etc, pointing out that threatening to report someone for vandalism when they were not engaged in vandalism is not likely to be a productive line of action. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am saying Pluto is not a planet in formal use or on Wikipedia. In 1978 and 2005 Pluto was a planet. Thus the 2011 and 2012 moons should be moved to the (134340) designation. -- Kheider (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument, Kheider. It's a good argument. And I agree about Pluto not being a planet. I simply find the simpler, grandfathered-in nomenclature convenient for a system that's in the news, and in three years will be even more in the news. To me, this is like arguing that we shouldn't use the word "asteroid" because in fly-by pix Gaspra doesn't look like a star, nor "minor planet" because it isn't a [minor] [planet]. These are all just convenient labels, and in this case won't even cause confusion, because anyone well versed enough in astronomical nomenclature to understand the distinction already understands the issues surrounding Pluto's status.

Technically, it's not "P5" either, yet official sources continue to call it that, because it's convenient. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – None of the titles particularly satisfy the naturalness requirement of WP:CRITERIA. People would be more likely to search for "Pluto's fourth moon". But the new titles would satisfy the precision and conciseness requirements, so I'll support. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think all the comments here stating one or the other designation is more technically correct are entirely missing the point. Article titles on Wikipedia are chosen on a number of criteria as mentioned above. None of them state that the most technically correct title is the right one, it is based ultimately on what visitors are most likely to search for. See the V-2, "technically" the A-4.

I have a hard time believing that vistors will be searching for "S/2012 (134340) 1", it isn't concise or natural. The way forward is in front of our eyes, indeed NASA has done the work for us in their discovery article, P4 and P5. No jumble of numbers in sight. It doesn't matter about the reasoning behind these names and their rights and wrongs as the article will explain the technical designation anyway. I know this may not go down well with some here but this is clearly what Wikipedia policy, and your average human being who isn't an astronomy geek, would prefer. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral. The suggested moves are to the "official" names, but those are not commonly used by lay readers; for the 2011 moon, the old name seems to have been used more commonly (including by the discoverers). Via ChiZeroOne's comment directly above mine, I'd suggest moving to P4 / P5 since these seem to be commonly used and easily understood by the average reader; they're also shortest. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would not object to using P4 (moon) and P5 (moon) for the article titles, though my preference is for S/2011 (134340) 1 and S/2012 (134340) 1. I definitely object to any mention of the designation "S/2012 P 1" in the article unless it can be backed up with a reliable source, and unfortunately an extrapolation from a pattern that is officially no longer used does not cut it. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "S/2012 P 1" name is inappropriate without a reliable source; I would have weakly supported that move, while weakly opposing S/2011 P 1's move, if the two "requested moves" had been brought up separately. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto what 46.126.76.193 wrote. -- Kheider (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

One could also "spell out" P4 and P5 to "Pluto IV" and "Pluto V"; these are the official designations for both planetary and minor-planet moons after confirmation, AFAIK. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Until these satellites are formally designated as such, the names "Pluto IV" and "Pluto V" are speculative and should not be used. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If the moons are named at the same time, the Roman numeral designation could very well be by distance, or in some other ordering. It's possible that 'P5' could end up as Pluto IV. --Patteroast (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points; I retract those "spelling out" suggestions. A better spelling-out would then be just using the descriptive titles Pluto's fourth/fifth moon, which are easily supported (paraphrased) by sources. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand you could probably make a good case that these can naturally be described as Pluto's fourth and second moons, in order of distance... 46.126.76.193 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

But those descriptions are due to change when more moons are discovered, unlike the order of discovery. And I haven't seen any source using those descriptive titles for the moons, probably for just that reason. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, and this should be done ASAP. It is bizarre that it has been named S/2012 P 1, and I don't know how that happened. That title produces essentially NO search results. Everyone refers to this as either "S/2012 (134340) 1" or "P5". This looks like a rehash of a battle lost six years ago. Rename and be done with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is on two suggested moves, for this moon and P4. While you're right that no-one seems to use S/2012 P 1, S/2011 P 1 is the more common name AFAICS. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was indeed responding in relation to the 2012 (P5) discovery. However, if I google S/2011 P 1, and compare that to the quality of the results I get with the same search for S/2011 (134340) 1, then it appears a no-brainer. The former gets various wikipedia entries and sources that may have been influenced by them, while the latter gets nasa, harvard, the bbc and a reasonably solid looking personal archive of data by a Wm Johnston. My view is a strong support for a rename for P5, but i would still support one for P4. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are also high-quality sources for the current name (e.g. [1]), but you seem to be right that S/2011 (134340) 1 is more widely used now by reliable sources. I think it was different last year, which was the ("outdated") basis for my claim. Therefore I change my position to support (but would equally support a move to one of the two alternative names I suggested above).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Moot. Dr. Showalter has assured me that the moon will have a real name within three months, at most. It may not be worth arguing about what to title this page if it's going to be re-titled fairly soon. JavautilRandom (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can't agree. Right now is when there is likely to be the most public interest in the discovery, and it currently has a name that no-one is using. My view is that it should be renamed urgently. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also do NOT agree. As more moons of EX-planet Pluto are announced Wikipedia needs a consensus on how to properly name them. I am tired of the bureaucratic semantics every time a new moon of Pluto is announced. The current name of this article is unreferenced and made up. -- Kheider (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Okay. In that case, I change my vote to Strongly Support. The name of the moon is temporarily S/2012 (134340) 1. Its nickname is P5. I suspect that New Horizons had probably written their announcement before the release of the IAU circular, and didn't realize they had accidentally used obsolete nomenclature. All astronomers recognize the IAU as the sole arbiter of names. JavautilRandom (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with mentioning and using the nickname P5 in the article. But as an Encyclopedia Wikipedia should use the most appropriate provisional designation as the main article page/title. After the moon is named, the provisional designation will just be a footnote to the article that Joe Q. Public will not bother reading. -- Kheider (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• comment: leaving aside the blind alley of whether Pluto is a planet or not, the only question for me is, "where are the sources"? If we rely only on Alan Stern for our sources, we are never going to reach a conclusion, because he is engaged in a mildly deceptive PR campaign to treat Pluto as a planet, whatever the IAU may say, and without explanation or justification. What are the majority of sources using? Obviously Wikipedia must treat Pluto as a minor planet, because that is the established rule. However, we can't just invent a name for a moon that no one else has used. Serendi^podous 06:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think that P4/P5 variants should be used because they are too imprecise. Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'd be happy to support P4 (moon) and P5 (moon) as WP:COMMONNAME per ChiZeroOne, Roentgenium111, 46.126.76.193, and (?) Kheider. Not clear what Ruslik0 means by "imprecise": those labels are only used for these two moons. — kwami (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Though P4/P5 is more tolerable than the current "wrong and thus unacceptable" titles, I still think the titles should be the proper provisional designations using (134340). -- Kheider (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question from a newbie What is the process by which this will be resolved? It seems that there are strong partisans on every sides. Will this page keep on flip-flopping back and forth between S/2012 P 1 and S/2012 (134340) 1 until one side gets tired, or is there an actual resolution mechanism? I'm not trying to be snide. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavautilRandom (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a seven day discussion, after which an admin reviews it and either comes to a determination either way or allows more time for consensus to emerge (unlikely in this case, given both the level of interest and that the arguments are already going round in circles). Seven days is up in 27 hours time, give it some time for an admin to get around to looking at it and it should be done in the next 48 hours. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Well, eventually these two moons will receive names (instead of designations or nicknames), so at that point, that should end things if nothing else does. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to quit making up "formal nomenclature" that goes against the IAU every time a moon of Pluto is discovered. On a personal website/blog someone can call it whatever they want. -- Kheider (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kheider, everyone heard you the first several times you said it. — kwami (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, you have tendency to disregard the IAU and make up your own rules when it comes to naming moons or the number of dwarf planets. -- Kheider (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I keep expecting intelligent people like you to be rational. Oh well. I did not name this article, nor the other one, and the IAU believes there are hundreds of dwarf planets. But sure: I named both of these articles through mind control of the nominal editors, there are only five DPs (there were only three, but two more popped into existence when the IAU invoked them), and the Peloponnesian War was fought by skeletons—we know, because we've dug them up. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of the naming

Would it be worth noting the date of when the IAU will name the two moons? Or is there not a definite date? 71.251.171.62 (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no fixed date. Something to bare in mind for the "hold on" arguments in favour of a fictional status quo above. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Do we have at least a rough estimate? I know several names have been suggested and it will be based off of underworld deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.171.62 (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It can take years. S/2011 (134340) 1 was discovered almost a year ago and as far as I am aware a name hasn't even been proposed for it yet. S/2003 J 4 still doesn't have a name eight years after its discovery. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

I have talked with Dr. Showalter about this, and he assures me that the two moons will have names in three months or sooner. The naming of P4 was intentionally delayed because they suspected that P5 existed, and wanted to name both at the same time. (I don't know anythng about a timetable for the Jovian moon.) JavautilRandom (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The current name of this article is unreferenced and made up. It needs to be changed now, not when the IAU gets around to it. -- Kheider (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who Dr Showalter is, and he isn't really relevant to our processes. We need to get this sorted now, per Kheider. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr Showalter is the discoverer of the currently unnamed moons, so I assume he has the rights to name them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.171.62 (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is an irrelevance. For a start like most of the discussion above in favour of keeping it at its present location this is completely unsourced and therefore counts for nothing. Even if the assertion is true it does not count for anything - naming rights reside with the IAU. Discoverers have the right to suggest a name but approval and ratification rests with the IAU[2]. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

I have no idea how to "source" private email. This is the "talk" page, so I presumed it was okay for me to introduce relevant but unpublished information. And yes, the IAU has the final say. But the nomenclature committee has typically followed the discoverer's suggestion as long as it fits within the general naming scheme. JavautilRandom (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You can introduce whatever you want, but equally I can demand sources for anything I want. Given that people have been making claims about what NASA have written on their website that I was able to disprove unsourced claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Since this affects the article that will ultimately need sorucing in any event. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? We're in a section entitled "Date of the Naming", and I answered the question by going to the discoverer. This isn't the section where we argue about what it should be called in the meantime. If you want to argument above about whether the alleged imminent naming of the moon should affect what we do now, then please do that in the appropriate section. Someone asked a question. I asked Dr. Showalter. He answered. You are free to believe I made the whole thing up; it doesn't change anything. End of story. JavautilRandom (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Crispmuncher, your "disproving" above was actually disproved itself by User:Double sharp in his reply to you, see e.g. [3]. Double sharp didn't claim it was hosted on nasa.gov ... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. I believe he was holding off naming until he had covered all the Hubble data. This suggests that either there is no P6 at Hubble detection levels, or that it's been discovered and not yet announced. — kwami (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been 3 months since our report of Showalter's e-mail. The moons are still unnamed. I believe the next IAU convention is in May, so perhaps then? I know Showalter wants to name them Orpheus and Eurydice. Worth noting, or should we just wait until May? 134340Goat (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Without a reliable source we can not mention suggested names. Besides, generally most people are publicly quiet about the names they recommend to the IAU as to make sure they do not step on any bureaucratic toes. -- Kheider (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote from Showalter himself: http://news.yahoo.com/moon-pluto-hubble-telescope-spots-5th-plutonian-satellite-220000705.html 134340Goat (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Maybe a good name for them would be Orpheus and Eurydice" seems like a logical synthesis of reading between the lines, but does NOT directly state that those are the names that were recommended to the IAU. It may seem like I am splitting hairs, but I am just trying to think of Wikipedia's No original research/Synthesis policies. -- Kheider (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I get the feeling they'll hold off naming until New Horizons gets there so they can just name all of them at once. 134340Goat (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:S/2012 (134340) 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this one is a little outside of my comfort zone! But very readable and easy to understand. Just a couple of very minor points.

• "20.2 ± 0.1": The article uses this quite a lot, and while I appreciate the need for accuracy, i wonder if the lead should just use an approximation as the general reader may not be familiar with ±. But not a big deal, and feel free to completely disagree.

• Agree, done.

• "to material kicked up by meteoroid impacts": Kicked up appears a little unencyclopedic.

• Changed.

• "It is thought to have formed from the debris lofted by a collision (see below)": I'm never too convinced about "see below". I think it works without this, and would be further made unnecessary if the origin section was moved above the physical properties section. However, this may not fit in with project/MoS guidelines.

• Reordered. Visited solar system project page and a few other moon pages, and there did not appear to be a project template for the order.

• "very nearly circular and coplanar, "neatly nested ... a bit like Russian dolls"." Looking at the source, I think this needs in-text attribution to make clear that an astronomer said this, rather than just being a quote from the article.

• Good point. Also prompted me to revise it to make clear that the person saying that was the moon's discoverer.

• I assume that we don't currently know the mass of the satellite?

• Not in the sources I have read. The highly variable estimates for radius support the inference that mass is not known.

• The image is fine, and spot-checks reveal no issues. Dablinks and external links are fine.

There may be a few issues for the general reader in this one, but that is unavoidable and not an issue for GA I don't think. I have a rather rusty basic background in physics/astronomy and followed it comfortably enough. I'll place this on hold for the moment and pass once these points are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Sarastro. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Everything looks good, passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarastro1 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor Little Styx

No wiki-ite seems to want to take the time to update the info here with the latest from the New Horizons mission like the Charon article has been updated - guess Styx is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Pluto/Charon system, it gets no respect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you do it! This is Wikipedia after all. --JorisvS (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, refuse to do any more edits since they get immediately reverted usually with some idiotic comment by some wikite who obviously doesn't no squat about the subject being discussed - worked for 8 years on shuttle SRMs as lead combustion instability engineer for company only to have comments reverted on subject by a french medical student, but I do love to come every now and then and chuckle at the text and information that generally reads like some junior high term paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.14 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What edits are you talking about? --JorisvS (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)