Talk:Kerberos (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Kerberos (moon) is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Naming of moon[edit]

I am trying to edit to add details about this new moon but it seems the name is getting switch around as everytime I try to add information it is redirected to S/2011 P 1 then P4. I have 3 sorurses for this so far 1 refers to it as S/2011 and 3 as P4. If we are going to be changing it back and forth I say we go with P4 as it is the name used in the images and its the one used on more articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewDill (talkcontribs) 16:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be moved back to P4 (moon) (since there is a disambiguation page at P4. I just to move it but it didn't work. P4 is the name used in all the sources I have seen, including the ones in the article. And by the way, this is just a temporary name, as stated in almost all the sources; once the moon has a real name the article will undoubtedly be there and P4 and S/2011 P1 will be redirects. Neutron (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

S/2011 P 1P4 (moon)Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Per almost all sources in this article, the current (though temporary) name of this moon, since its existence was verified (today), has been "P4". It should therefore be moved from what was apparently its pre-verification name (S/2011 P 1) to P4, per WP:COMMONNAME. Since there already is a disambiguation page at P4, the correct title (which is where it was before it was moved here) is P4 (moon). I tried to move it there but apparently someone edited the redirect, which means the P4 (moon) redirect would first have to be deleted by an admin. Neutron (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We use the S/year format for all of our articles. If this is to be moved, they all should be. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with RandomCritic below) I just looked at the first five "S/..." articles that came up in a search, and in five out of five cases these are objects that have no other name. In fact, of those five, four were seen once and never verified. There is no explanation of why the fifth one, which actually does seem to exist (S/2009 S 1), was not given a real name. What is clear is that our articles on moons that have been given names have titles matching those names; for example we have Hydra (moon), not S/2005 P 1, and Nix (moon), not S/2005 P 2. (The "S/..." links are redirects to the "permanent" name.) For whatever reason, according to the reliable sources, this new moon has been given the temporary name P4, so that's what we should call it. Neutron (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It appears that neither P4 nor S/2011 P 1 is official. The actual designation, hideously enough, is S/2011 (134340) 1[1].RandomCritic (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Official"? You mean from that group that doesn't think Pluto is a planet?  :) (Which appears to be why they use "134340," I guess only "real" planets get names and "dwarf planets" get numbers.) Neutron (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No, all minor planets get numbers (when confirmed, get codes before they are confirmed). Only Major Planets (planets by definition issued) have no numbers. However, many minor planets have Names, since Pluto has a name, as does Eris, and Ceres, and Ida, and Ida's satellite, Dactyl. etc. (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest waiting 24 hours or so before making a judgment. We'll be able to judge them what terms ares actually being used to find the article from the stats. Provisional names, even "official" ones, tend to alter depending on the context. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
In all likelihood the moon will be named in a few weeks, as soon as its orbit is sufficiently well-determined. In the meantime, I'm not going to get particularly upset about which provisional designation is used. If I thought that the provisional designation would be in place for more than a couple of months, I'd be more concerned. But it really doesn't matter that much. RandomCritic (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I very much doubt that. How long did it take the IAU to formally recognise Nix and Hydra? I'd be surprised if it is named inside a year. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
It took a bit under eight months for Nix and Hydra to be named (not "recognized"). But this should be faster. RandomCritic (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "P4" isn't a name. It just means "Pluto-four". Charon is P1. Nix is P2. Our moon is E1. Deimos is M2. These aren't names, they're shortcuts, and the official designations are based on S/year. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article to S/2011 (134340) 1, as this is the only correct designation and it is used in the IAU telegram announcing the discovery. For the other designations: "S/2011 P 1" would have been correct, if Pluto wasn't redisigned a Dwarf Planet, but as Pluto has now a minor planet number, it has to be "S/2011 (134340) 1". "P4" is only an inofficial name used by the discoverers (comparable to "Xena" to the later Eris) and should not be used. "Pluto IV" is also incorrect, as this kind of designation is only assigned, when the moon gets its final name and the roman number is used in thoe order of naming, not in the order of discovery. --GDK (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So despite an ongoing discussion about this very title, you decided to unilaterally move it according to your own judgement about what is "correct"? Powers T 13:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A bit inaccessible, don't you think? Well, if we're unilaterally moving things, the New Horizons team maintains that Pluto is a planet, so S/2011 P 1 would be appropriate. And that's just easier for our readers, without creating any ambiguity at all. — kwami (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
That is silly! "S/2011 P 1" is simply wrong. IAU is the only authority in naming such celestail bodies and the relase of IAU is pretty clear: "S/2011 (134340) 1". "S/2011 P 1" would be only correct, IF the IAU would still recognize Pluto as a planet (as it did during the discovery of Nix and Hydra). What the New Horizon teams calls this object, is completely irrelevant, as they have no authority in naming it. And the designation is not chosen for the comfort of the reader, it has simply to be correct. Please read the IAU telegram. There is no discussion needed as this case is pretty clear: "S/2011 (134340) 1". But do as you like, if correctness does not matter... :-( --GDK (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that "correctness" matters? Where in our article titling policy does "use the official name" appear? Please read WP:OFFICIAL, and please refrain from making moves while they are still under discussion. Powers T 17:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
While this whole discussion is stupid, and will eventually be moot, it's rather bizarre (though perhaps typical of Wikipedia) that the article is now settled on the one name which is not in use. And while I agree on the merits about the Pluto-planet debate, this is not the place to adjudicate it. The astronomical community, for good or bad, has handed over the job of settling names and designations to the IAU, and the IAU calls the moon S/2011 (134340) 1. The designation is appallingly awkward, and (for reasons I won't get into here) historically absurd -- but it's what we've got. As to the supposed preponderance of mentions of "P4", I don't think we're at a point to judge preponderances. P4 was in the unofficial news release, so it's what other reporters and bloggers repeated. The designation in the IAU telegram is, however, certain to replace "P4" in any scientific article or report on the subject; that's why it's "official". RandomCritic (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly Helene got its number (Saturn XII) before it was named. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I just conducted a serch "Pluto's New Moon" and looked through 14 articles on it I found the current designation in 3 of those articles and 19 of them contained that it is being called P$ untill a formal name can be assigned. Currently it is going by the alias of "P4" with the majority of the asrtonomical community agreeing to this. It would seem only fitting that we accept that name until a formal name is adoped. This doesn't not mean the article shouldn't mention its designation of S/2011 P 1.MathewDill (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support moving back to P4, per MathewDill's comment and WP:Commonname: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this request, because using the title "P4" or "P4 (moon)" would be too ambiguous ("P4" is already used as a disambiguation page anyway, and even with the parenthetical dab in the title "P4" is way too ambiguous and still suffers from being "made up"). Wait until it's officially named, or propose a move to the provisional name (which I might support, although I'd prefer to simply wait and see what happens with this first).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree that we should be using a constructed form of disambiguation when equally- or more-correct and unambiguous names exist. The option of using an alternative correct name is listed as point 1 in WP:NCDAB. For similar reasons I would argue that the Wikipedia constructions such as Ceres (dwarf planet) and Eris (dwarf planet), etc. are inferior to 1 Ceres and 136199 Eris, etc. which are both correct and unambiguous. Icalanise (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • To expand on my point above, my favoured choice would be S/2011 (134340) 1 as this is the IAU name and thus in some sense the most correct (whether we like the IAU's designation convention is another matter...). I don't particularly like going with the New Horizons naming convention (S/2011 P1) as they have a vested interest in having Pluto being regarded as a planet, thus cannot be regarded as an unbiased source in this debate, and P4 requires a clumsy disambiguation which is unnecessary if we go with the alternative options. "Pluto IV" while logical does not appear to be in use. However as pointed out by User:LtPowers we are constrained by Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia which does not incorporate the factor of correctness in its decision making process (which opens questions of whether there is any point spending substantial effort trying to improve the site in this regard), and the apparent aversion of a large number of people to numeric designations. I see no good options for this really. Icalanise (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Going by the WP "rule" that titles: should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, I think I could make a case out that the best title for this article would be Fourth moon of Pluto. RandomCritic (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Or even third moon. In order of distance obviously... Icalanise (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the fact that there are three options, not two, for the title of this article, I think it would be helpful for users not to simply write "Support" or "Oppose", but to specify whether they support P4 (moon), S/2011 P 1, S/2011 (134340) 1, or something else. Moreover, the title of this article has changed -- twice -- since the name change was proposed, so it is not at all clear exactly what each user was supporting or opposing at a given time. RandomCritic (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    Two points: first, I don't really support any move at the moment. All of the hyperbolic assertions that the current title is "wrong" are a bit... I don't know. Anyway, my second (and main) point is that it really doesn't matter. Give it a month or two and this will all be settled anyway. There's no real rush here. Since New Horizons is why there's any significant interest in this subject, it's extremely unlikely that this article title will be forgotten about over the long haul, so I'm perfectly content to sit back and wait for a good name to be agreed to "out there" (by the IAU, the New Horizons/NASA team, and the news media) before saying anything definitive for our article. I'm not always as laissez fare about this sort of thing, but in cases such as this it makes sense to me that we should wait and see what happens here. Redirects get people to the content fairly easily, in the meantime.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. S/2011 P 1 is used on the New Horizons site, and the format should be familiar from other moons. S/2011 (134340) 1, as RandomCritic put it, is hideous: it's fine for a data-log entry, but not for an article title. And P4 doesn't even look like a name. — kwami (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I will conceed my support of the name change. Though I must say I favor P4 as the best option for wikipidia as it is by far the most commonly used term for it I am begining to think this battle for what name is correct to begining to interfer with the issue at hand. We have a newly found moon and this discusion over its name is now larger then ther article itself. The current Name is used and sighted in many sources even if it is number by P4 it is still a recognized name for it. P4 has many other articles and there is now need to mix this new found moon in with that. The prospect of a new name is just over the horizon anyway and we could be wasting our time fighting over what temp name we want or we can put our time to use producing an acticle of substance for our solar systems newest family member so that when it recives a name it will be in tip top shape.MathewDill (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I proposed the change to "P4 (moon)", after reading all of the discussions (including those is the sections below) I do not really object to the article staying where it is ("S/2011 P 1") until the moon is given a permanent name. The sources seem divided among the three options, although the IAU press release seems to be just about the only source for "S/2011 (string of numbers)." Per WP:COMMONNAME, the "official" name is not necessarily the one we use if there is another name that is much more common. The policy doesn't really address a situation where there are two common names. But in a situation where the name is definitely temporary, this decision is not the end of the world (so to speak.) Neutron (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


I've just re-snipped some details given about the orbit of the moon. An observed distance of 39,000 miles does not necessarily translate into a mean orbital radius of that amount. Similarly comments that this was a circular, equatorial orbit had a source attached to them - a source that used neither term. If a new source can be found that actually does make that assertion then fine. Otherwise, this is a newly discovered body and as such details are limited. The article needs to reflect that, rather than making up details that can't be cited. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

possible name[edit] Apparently, Cerberus (after the mythological three-headed dog) is being considered as a name for the new moon--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But isn't Cerberus already an asteroid? How about Orthrus? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
See Name conflicts with minor planets. Such intersections of minor planet and satellite names are not at all unusual; in fact, relatively recently (2001) an asteroid satellite was named "Romulus", a name which was already in use for another asteroid.
Funny, I had suggested 2-headed Orthrus for P2 and 3-headed Cerberus for P3. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
See Hades for a list of possible names, although I imagine that some are probably going to be used to designate Plutonian topography when New Horizons arrives there in 2015.

````User Calibanu

S/2011 P 1 is apparently a name invented by Wikipedia[edit]

Apparently no publication besides Wikipedia calls this Moon "S/2011 P 1 ". Can anyone please provide any proof, that it is called "S/2011 P 1". (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See [2] - Astronomers are still trying to better peg orbital details on the object, designated “S/2011 P1” or “P4” until it receives a permanent name. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:58, 25 July 2011 (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. (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of article name[edit]

This article's title is nonsense. It is like having an article about a person on their social security number. Georgia guy (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I have very mixed feelings about this; I actually agree that it's most consistent with Wikipedia policy to use the title S/2011 (134340) 1; however, I don't agree with the presuppositions that generate that title (which is, however, really irrelevant), and I don't like these unilateral back-and-forth moves no matter who does them. Can't we get an administrator to weigh in?
The case for S/2011 (134340) 1 is simple: it's the IAU's nomenclature. In all other cases of which I'm aware, Wikipedia follows IAU nomenclature. You could make a case for the IAU not being as important as it makes itself out to be, but that decision, if accepted, might have far-reaching effects on a number of Wikipedia articles.
New Horizons uses the nomenclature S/2011 P 1 for a very clear reason: the team leader disputes the IAU's reclassification of Pluto out of planet status. I believe that is a respectable position to hold; in fact, I think it is the right position, although the New Horizons team may hold it for reasons as much professional as scientific (it is certainly much more impressive to be investigating Planet Pluto than Asteroid #134340).
However, it is not Wikipedia's position. I objected when Wikipedia's Pluto article was moved to Pluto (dwarf planet); but I was overruled. Although it has since become just Pluto again, the rationale by which I was overruled has not changed; the majority of Wikipedians agreed to follow the IAU decision and terminology in this matter. And since a "dwarf planet" is not a small kind of planet, but rather a large kind of 'minor planet' (i.e., asteroid) as long as Wikipedia maintains that the IAU was correct in classifying Pluto as a dwarf planet, it cannot without inconsistency use the "P 1" designation -- which would imply that Wikipedia considers Pluto a planet, not a minor planet.
By calling Pluto a 'dwarf planet', or "(134340) Pluto", Wikipedia is taking one side in the Pluto wars. But by calling its latest moon S/2011 P 1, it is taking the opposite side. Like the bat in the fable of the Battle of the Birds and Beasts, Wikipedia apparently wants to be on both sides at the same time. Now, maybe it's okay to be on two sides of an issue at the same time; I can't really argue against it; but given that some Wikipedians purport to be sticklers for consistency, I thought it was worth pointing out.RandomCritic (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
We need to let the move request close. Whatever is decided will be temporary anyway.
I'm one of the 'bats'. I support demoting Pluto from 'planet' (and did long before the IAU decision), but I see nothing wrong with calling the moon S/2011 P 1, which is consistent with the temporary names of the other moons and frankly just a lot easier to remember. Sure, it's exceptional, but Pluto is an exceptional case: We have an established precedent and there aren't any other ex-planets out there with moons. Either way, let's see how the discussion goes.
As for planets being sexier, yeah, it sounds better, but Mercury is a planet and is pretty boring. I'm more interested in Ceres, which hasn't been considered a planet for over a century. [But no magnetometer on Dawn :s( !] — kwami (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, is there actually an official guideline that the notation "S/year (first letter of parent body) number" is used only for (some) planets? It seems to be a case-by-case decision to me which objects get this "honour", since it wouldn't even work with all 8 planets (Mercury and Mars both start with an "M")... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is, at least according to Wikipedia's own article on the subject. It explains the provisional designations for newly discovered natural satellites of planets. It states (although with a little bit of hedging) that if Mercury were ever discovered to have a satellite (which is unlikely), the letter "H" would be used to distinguish it from "M" for Mars. (I didn't know this before today, thanks for prompting me to look it up.) Neutron (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
And thanks to you for linking to that article! I had already searched for (and expected to find) this info in "Naming of moons", but the provisional notation is not described at all in there...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone please move the article to the correct lemma "S/2011 (134340) 1". The Wikipedia Article Astronomical naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets explains, why it is the correct designation. Thanks, --Spiritus Rector (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I locked it at its current name. We have an open discussion on the move. It will be moved if that is the decision. — kwami (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this goes completely beyond my understanding. Several people have proven, that there is only one correct official designation. Why are so many people sticking with an obviously incorrect designation? The IAU issues the ONLY interim designations - everything else is fantasy. The "S/2011 P 1" designation is probably supported by the Pluto-is-a-planet-faction, but the IAU as the authority for astronomical designations is clear on this issue: Pluto is a dwarf planet, therfore the designation has to be "S/2011 (134340) 1". Thanks, --Spiritus Rector (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to that opinion, and if you convince enough people to form a consensus on it, then the page will be moved there. — kwami (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
As has been pointed out above, the question of what the correct name is (personally I agree with you that it should be S/2011 (134340) 1) is completely irrelevant in Wikipedia's decision-making process. Whether this is a reasonable stance for an encyclopaedia to take is a good question, but not one that should be decided on the talk page of an obscure satellite of a dwarf planet. Icalanise (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I move-protected the article while the discussion was open because of repeated undiscussed moves. Now that it is closed, do we think there is reason to keep it protected? — kwami (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd advocate unprotecting for now, obviously if we start seeing repeated back-and-forth moving then protection can be reconsidered. Icalanise (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

[3] It's not S/2011 P 1--ArgGeo (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But this is Wikipedia, where something being a fact is neither necessary nor sufficient for inclusion, and people argue not over whether a statement is true but over the number of Google hits a phrase gets. Don't expect things to make sense in Topsy-Turvy-Land! RandomCritic (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This article should be moved to the proper name at S/2011 (134340) 1 per -- Kheider (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it time for them to have given this moon a name already? Neutron (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Naming moons is not exactly high on the IAU priority list. -- Kheider (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Pluton is not planet - his moon is not S/2011 P1 like moon planet. the official name of the Moon is S/2011 (134340) 1. S/2011 P 1 is the name of its own work, no vote will not change - John Belushi (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been through the Kuiper belt on a moon with no name[edit]

Can any of our astronomer-types around here explain why this moon has remained without an official name for almost a year now? I thought the word at the time was that it would take a few months. A Google search indicates there was a lot of speculation right after it was discovered, but apparently no official answer, yet. Neutron (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The situation's not unusual at all. For example, there are moons of Jupiter discovered in 2003 that still don't have names. --Patteroast (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
When P4 was found, it was strongly suspected that there was a P5 in the data. The names that would be given to a pair of moons would be different than the name given to a single moon. JavautilRandom (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:S/2012 P 1 - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The secton entitled "Naming"[edit]

There is a short section here speculating about the moon's future naming. However, S/2012 P1 does not have such a section. Either we should add one to its page or remove the one here. 134340Goat (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

S/2011 (134340) 1Vulcan (moon) – It appears that this is to be the body's name. reveals this. Georgia guy (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. No, it isn't. It is merely the name that got most popular votes. It doesn't mean it will also be named that. --JorisvS (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it likely that this name will be cancelled?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It is unknown what is will actually be named. It could get another name. --JorisvS (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose there's no proof that "S/2011 (134340) 1" and not "S/2012 (134340) 1" is Vulcan. And further, it hasn't been submitted to the IAU. Vulcan only came up in the selection recommendation poll. It's not binding on Showalter, nor has it been revealed as his official recommendation. -- (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment if you read the article, you'd see this isn't the name of the body. (there's a naming section that's been updated to cover the poll) -- (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. The article should be moved only if and when the name is officially changed. Modest Genius talk 15:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    You mean, there's a possible no to the question "Will this name be confirmed??" Georgia guy (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    Of course. The IAU has not approved the name, the poll is not binding, the name has not yet been submitted, there aren't even any media reports saying that he's going to propose it. Even if the poll is accepted, it isn't clear which name will go to which moon. Besides, that's all irrelevant, because what matters is what the name is now, not what we think it will be in 6 months time. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose SETI Talk Closing the #PlutoRocks Campaign -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose; not known if moon will be named Vulcan. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


In this article the physical dimensions or Kerberos are all over the map.

Alan Stern Et. al. The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons Sciencemag Online gives it as 2.6 to 14 km from this source ↵ M. R. Showalter, D. P. Hamilton, Resonant interactions and chaotic rotation of Pluto’s small moons. Nature 522, 45–49 (2015). CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar

The first paragraph of the article gives it as "about" 17 km. (diameter) and is consistent with the previous result as 17 km is i the mid-range of DIA 5.2 to 24 km.

In this paragraph size is given as " When first discovered, Kerberos was given an estimated diameter of 13–34 km (8–21 mi) which I guess it is Ok because it references the time of Discovery and it was an extimated based of an asumed abedo. Source: Stern, S. A.; Bagenal, F.; Ennico, K. (2015-10-16). "The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons". Science 350 (6258): aad1815. doi:10.1126/science.aad1815. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26472913.

At the end of this paragraph, however, I have added the latest information available which now seems to contradict the information By Mr.Showlker, D.P. Hamilton published earlier this year in Nature 522, pages 45-49 which I personally cant rread because you need to have a paying subscription to Nature! This information although published online on March 2015 is based on obserbation mades by the HST on dates elapsing from May 2005 to June 2012 This latest info says that the boby (Kerberos) ...appears to have a double-lobed shape, approximately 7.4 miles (12 kilometers) across in its long dimension and 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometers) in its shortest dimension.

So I would like some opinions which of the two seems more reliable as to the aceptable dimensions of Kereberos. the Nature's M. R. Showalker or the info provided on the John Hopkins University Pluto webpage?Rudy235 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering all values are approximates/estimates, I don't think it matters much. Huritisho 02:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


The MASS of Kerberus has a source Table I of the Pluto Table 1 Properties of the Pluto-Charon system. GM is quoted there as 0.0011 ± 0.0006 GM (km3 s–2) Now if you have GM you have mass. It is no longer valid to put a ? after mass. the accepted value for G being the Gravitational Constant is 6.674 x10-11 N-m^2-kg^-2 gives by division the result 16.5 x 10^15 Kg So that mass is NO LONGER ? as to Radius They are several sources ( See above) For instance Resonant interactions and chaotic rotation of Pluto/'s small moons MR Showalter, DP Hamilton - Nature, 2015 - Four small moons—Styx, Nix, Kerberos and Hydra—follow near-circular, near-equatorial orbits around the central 'binary planet'comprising Pluto and its large moon, Charon. New observational details of the system have emerged following the discoveries of Kerberos ... Gives a Radius of 2.6 to 14 km (8.3± 5.7) Newer observations give a different approximation "Kerberos Revealed". NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute. October 22, 2015. Retrieved October 22, 2015. gives this: Kerberos appears to have a double-lobed shape, approximately 7.4 mi (11.9 km) across in its long dimension and 2.8 mi (4.5 km) in its shortest dimension.[15] It would be appreciated if EDITORS do not do inneficient and clumsy REVERTS and justifiy it with profanity and innuendo. (bulls**t/ false) We are suppossed to be scientists here not High Scool kids!Rudy235 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, the above paragraph (possibly written by Rudy235) is referring to the following table: [4] that is, itself, linked from the article by Stern et al. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes Isambard Kingdom| You are right, I did write that and I did forget to sign. Contrary to others I do admit it, when I make a mistake.Rudy235 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If anything, discuss here in the talk page.[edit]

Why does user Batteryincluded can revert 3 times and yet he considers it abuse for me to correct his unfounded revertions? Why is he allowed to use profanity (bullS**t) and cast aspesions (False) and get away with it. I did what I was sopossed to do I put things in the talk page and aked for opinions and hopefully from a discussion the light might come. But Thst is not how things are going. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudy235 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

‎Measurements - fake numbers[edit]

The numbers quoted by user Rudy235 are not supported by his reference. That paper quotes Kerberos only once and it says this about it: "measurements of Styx and Kerberos have not yet been downlinked.. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

user Batteryincluded: You need to be more clear. Which "that paper"? I cited several. Also which are "those numbers"? The mass? The radius that says it is between 2.6 and 14 km, the dimensions where it says it is 11.9 x 4.8 km? You need to be more specific and not just make blanket statements.

GO TO THIS LINK and look at the linre of Kerberos It gives this dimensions for Kerberos 2.6 to 14† (Radius-km) †From (32) 32 is ↵ M. R. Showalter, D. P. Hamilton, Resonant interactions and chaotic rotation of Pluto’s small moons. Nature 522, 45–49 (2015). CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar ALL THIS I PUT here earlier for everyone to give an opinion yesterday Before you did your reverts and yet you did not discuss. Mass has an origin too It is the GM quantity on the Table 1 0.0011±0.006 (km^3-s^-2Rudy235 (talk)

~False statements again. You keep warring and reverting to this reference: "The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons", which clearly states that the measurements data have not been downlinked from the spacecraft. And the table you indicate are the currently known values: 2.6 to 14 Radius (km); 57,750 semi major axis (km) but you keep changing those values. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok we are beginning to get somewhere 2.6 to 14 is mathematically the same as 8.3± 5.7 km So I am ONLY changing the presentation to the more acceptable x±y format but both mean exactly the same. Therefore by your own admission this is a sound value So go ahead and put it in the Kerberos page in the info. By the way the 6 x 2 Km is not in the source that this user is using. THIS is what that source says regarding Kerberos: The new data, downlinked from the New Horizons spacecraft on Oct. 20, show that Kerberos appears to have a double-lobed shape, with the larger lobe approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) across and the smaller lobe approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) across.Rudy235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic note here, I recently re-added an information by Rudy that is indeed verifiable. He actually just copy and pasted the text from the source, but I guess that's ok, considering it is only a sentence. Huritisho 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not contesting the 2-lobe shape, but the [numerical] dimensions. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I know that. Huritisho 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Rudy's other edits really may be incorrect, but the numerical dimensions related to the 2-lobe shape indeed are verifiable. Huritisho 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rudy235: Another, perhaps more serious problem was repeatedly replacing the latest figures with old figures. That was certainly disruptive. As for our attitudes, if you make crappy edits, you can hardly expect others to be happy about it -- and you have established a reputation for making crappy edits. If I see your name in the article history, my first suspicion is that you screwed something up again.

BTW, "2.6 to 14 km" may be arithmatically the same as "8.3 ± 5.7 km", but it's not semantically the same. The first does not imply a most probable value, the second does, and is unduly precise. — kwami (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: That may be so. I never said they were "semantically" the same. I was simply puting it in the same format as the rest of the values in the chart. I have no issue with someone putting it as 2.6 to 14 km. I do not believe, however, that converting to the most frecuently used format means someone is faking the data. As to what you ealier said that i have stablished a "reputation" that is a self fullfilling prophesy, is it not? I mean they delete you 10 times (in a baseless manner) and Voila! you now have a reputation and anyone can delete you on that basis. I stand by my edits and when I make a mistake (UNLIKE OTHERS HERE) I admit it. As I did with the Albedo ~ 50% in which I went above and beyong and not only sellf reverted but also included the reference that was left of by the OP. Thanks for discussingRudy235 (talk)
I never said changing the format was faking data.
As for admitting your mistakes, maybe you should ask yourself why multiple people are reverting you multiple times, and suggesting you might be a sock for an editor who's been banned for bad behaviour. I did not come to the conclusion that you generally make crappy edits because people reverted you. I came to that conclusion because I witnessed those edits and your edit-warring to keep them. Such as replacing data announced that very day with data from an older source that has footnotes warning the reader that no recent data is available. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said I stand by what you call "my mistakes". They are sourced, unlike the Albedo number of ~ 50% that was not sourced at the time Was that a mistake on the part of the OP? Anyway I can see you are biased against me. This sockpuppetry so called investigation HAS BEEN PROVED FALSE. The net sum of all this unwarranted editing is hammmering down the user. Seems there is a clique of old users with no other mission in life that preventing "newer users" from doing any edits. I can feel your bias as much as you are now planning to acusse me once again of being a sock. This time I will not take it lightly and will consider it a personal attack. For what it's worth, perhaps you can ban me, but I will not be beaten.Rudy235 (talk)

Deleted information[edit]

Why does user Batteryincluded can revert 3 times and yet he considers it abuse for me to correct his unfounded revertions? Why is he allowed to use profanity (bullS**t) and cast aspesions (False) and get away with it. I did what I was sopossed to do I put things in the talk page and aked for opinions and hopefully from a discussion the light might come. But Thst is not how things are going. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudy235 (talk

The number I put are not "fake" Fake is the attitude of he who calls the numbers "fake" To begin I have said BEFORE all this started stated that the numbers for Kerberos where "all over the map". However some nombers like the Mass are above reproach. Whe have GM for Kerberos. We have G (the Gravitational constant) division of GM/G gives M (M being Kerberos mass and it comes to 16.5 ± 9.0 x 10^15 kg. There is nothing unclear or "fake" about that. The Direct reference is that Table here

Semimajor axis (km) Period (days) Eccentricity Inclination (degrees) Radius (km) GM (km3 s–2) Density (kg m−3)

Pluto 6.3872 1187 ± 4* 869.6 ± 1.8 1860 ± 13

Charon 19,596 6.3872 0.00005 0.0 606 ± 3* 105.88 ± 1.0 1702 ± 21

Styx 42,413 20.1617 0.00001 0.0 1.8 to 9.8† 0.0000 ± 0.0001

Nix 48,690 24.8548 0.00000 0.0 54 × 41 × 36‡ 0.0030 ± 0.0027

Kerberos 57,750 32.1679 0.00000 0.4 2.6 to 14† 0.0011 ± 0.0006 <===== Here dimesions are 2.6 to 14 and GM is 0.0011 ± 0.0006

Hydra 64,721 38.2021 0.00554 0.3 43 × 33‡ 0.0032 ± 0.0028

  • From limb fits to LORRI images; radius error is pixel scale of best resolved image for each. Pluto’s radius is consistent with radio occultation results as well; see (36) for technique. †From (32). ‡Axial dimensions derived from LORRI and MVIC images (see text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudy235 (talkcontribs) 15:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I lowercased the title of your message. Stop shouting an just chill. It's not the end of the world or anything. Huritisho 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. Arent we supposed to be the same person?Rudy235 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I never wrote your edits are "bullshit", but since you mention it, they are. And for second time, please stop creating multiple sections for the same discussion. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You deleted my edit when I said that they werent "fake" numbers So I can't undo your deletion or edit what you say so I can only put a new section. That was the reason for the new Section" If you are civil and do NOT EDIT what I write, then I won't open a new section. As to your Bulls**t comment .... That is so rude. I can't believe the level of your argumentation You should be ashamed of yourself.Rudy235 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, chill out. Rudy235, if you make an edit to the article adding a specific measurement or whatnot, you must ensure that the citation you provide actually backs up what you wrote. You kept citing "The Pluto System" article even though it specifically stated that data on Kerberos was unavailable. This is unacceptable, and you should not be surprised when someone reverts you. Huntster (t @ c) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok Hunster Thank you for your contribution. I will take your comment positively because you are the first that has shown good attitude. What I am using in not the Article itself i.e [1]but the Table 1 of that article [2] The data on Kerberos is in that table. look at the fifth line which says Kerberos Radius 2.6 to 14 and has a † That † correlates with Reference 32 in the article itself Please look at the table and then look at the references in the article an see this under reference 32 ↵ M. R. Showalter, D. P. Hamilton, Resonant interactions and chaotic rotation of Pluto’s small moons. Nature 522, 45–49 (2015). CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar
I want to point that before this unwarranted deletions I had already posted about this, at least 24 hours prior, in this same talk page under the heading "The Physical dimensions of Kerberus" This is what i said then: So I would like some opinions which of the two seems more reliable as to the aceptable dimensions of Kereberos. the Nature's M. R. Showalker or the info provided on the John Hopkins University Pluto webpage?Rudy235 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)"
So to the matter you just raised, I can understand people reverting when warranted, I cannot when they do so in a bseless manner, using profanity and accusing me of bringing "fake" date. It is NOT a question of "Chilling out". It is a question or professionalism and minumum standards.Rudy235 (talk)
Considering all values are approximates/estimates, I don't think it matters much. Huritisho 02:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)