Talk:Moons of Pluto

Dimensions

Dimensions were not added to the individual articles. They were also overly precise. Do we know their precision other than by sig fig?

Do the masses correspond to the new diameters? They also contradict the articles, and do not have their source listed. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the chart under the "List" heading, the semi-major axes of all the moons are given as larger than Pluto's! (At *best*, there is a clash of inconsistent notation systems here.)

Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 2601:407:4180:40E9:552B:60D0:F645:D3B8 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No inconsistencies there. Pluto is orbiting the center of mass of the Pluto-Charon system, which is 2035 km from the center of Pluto (outside of the solid body). All the other objects in the system orbit much further out. As stated in the footnote, all elements are with respect to the Pluto-Charon barycenter. Renerpho (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Algebraic Conflicts

Taken from the edit history (so we can refer to it here more easily):

(cur | prev) 15:30, 14 March 2018‎ Polyamorph (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,454 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 830389057 by Saturn comes back around (talk) Inconsistent with source - please take this to the talk page) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 14:48, 14 March 2018‎ Saturn comes back around (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,452 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Resonances: gosh, never been in an actual edit war before! but hey, so long as NOBODY justifies the absurdity of stating one ratio in one sentence, then stating a DIFFERENT ratio in the other four sentences (and nice picture of actual orbits visually), i'm happy to go at it. either leave this edit, or add an explanation how the utterly incompatible 18:22:33 results in 6:9:11 orbits. i believe doing otherwise is called vandalism, unless i'm much mistaken. and if you must use paywall sources, have the courtesy to at least quote something relevant. even a single sentence of explanation will do. reverting is otherwise vandalism.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 18:49, 13 March 2018‎ Renerpho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,454 bytes) (+434)‎ . . (Added additional reference for resonance (to avoid paywall). The individual resonances are 22:33 = 2:3, 18:22 = 9:11 (as stated in the next sentence; the ratio of 9:6 is equal to 33:22)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 14:55, 13 March 2018‎ Saturn comes back around (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,020 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (No good telling people to check inaccessible source, esp. if it is clearly at odds with everything else written down, including our own full scale picture model of the entire cycle, where it adds up to 6:9:11, exactly as stated EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT this one ridiculous tidbit of conflicting info. So before reverting, perhaps you can also add a sentence explaining the discrepancy.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 07:02, 13 March 2018‎ Renerpho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,022 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 830169908 by Saturn comes back around (talk) The resonance is indeed 18:22:33 which is in smallest possible form. Refer to the source given.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 04:51, 13 March 2018‎ Saturn comes back around (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,020 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Resonances: derp requires even MOAR herp, as 18:27:33 is not in smallest possible form.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 04:48, 13 March 2018‎ Saturn comes back around (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,022 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Resonances: So, apparently needed more herp in the derp, cos 3*9 ain't 22. :o)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

--Renerpho (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How is it possible that on a website so chock-full of astonishing scientific information, we are having such an astonishing difficulty understanding the most basic of mathematical notations? Renerpho's last reversion of my edit helpfully shows how in the ratio of 18:22:33, 18:22 is equivalent to 9:11, while 22:33 to 6:9, and that's true, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE 18:22:33 EQUIVALENT TO 6:9:11, which is the DIAGRAMMED and thrice-repeated (triple) ratio shown elsewhere in the relevant paragraph. You don't just snip out parts of a triple ratio and make arbitrary partial ratios of it, then re-assemble those results into another triple ratio. That's _really_ not how it works. Honest it isn't. The ratio provided is quite simply either wrong, or the REST of the paragraph, INCLUDING the nice little diagram of the orbits, is. You cannot have it both ways. 18:22:33 does NOT mean you can take the 22:33 bit, and make that 6:9, without ALSO taking the 18 part and turning it 4.90909..., capisce? And since THAT is not a whole number value, you simply CANNOT re-express the ratio as stated. And you can't really get around this. So, either make a nice new diagram that shows the relevant body finishing at 4.90909... revolutions after the accompanying bodies' 6 and 9 revolutions, or please just stop this most embarrassing revert war. Either you fellas are wrong, or you are not expressing yourself clearly. And regardless, you need to also explain this astonishing discrepancy in the remainder of the text, because as is, it is mathematical nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn comes back around (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I am happy to discuss this but NOT in the form of an edit war. I think I now see what the problem is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hydra,_Nix,_Styx_orbital_resonance_cycle.png yields a ratio of 5.50 : 8.25 : 10.1, which is indeed equal to 18:27:33. But this is not a contradiction: The relevant ratio here is not 5.50:8.25=18:27. What is relevant is 8.25:10.1 = 18:22, and 5.50:8.25=22:33.--Renerpho (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph could actually profit from an extra one or two sentences, to avoid confusion. I will work on a draft and post it here. We can work on it then, and when we all agree we add it to the article. Agreed?--Renerpho (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saturn comes back around: Here is a draft. Is that better? The notes ^a, ^b and ^c lead to the corresponding entry in the "Notes" section.--Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

aw heck... I can't possibly maintain grumpiness after you've put in this much effort. And it sucks even more to have to respond with the following, because I very much appreciate how much good faith you've shown in doing this... but: when providing a triple ratio, you cannot look at only parts of it, simplify them, then reconstruct the original ratio from these piecemeal bits. In the case here, if you isolate the 22:33 part, divide by 11 and multiply by 3 to arrive at 6:9 (and this would all be perfectly correct were this just that simple ratio), you *must* also do the same to the remaining member of the original tripartite ratio, the "18:…" header. Doing so will leave you with the result of 4.90909…, which not only *must* be the result added back in to the modified "6:9" part, but it *must also* be added in the *same* corresponding location in the triple ratio (which here, would yield " 4.90909… : 6 : 9 " ). That is the essence of the problem. In the triple ratio, there are indeed *three* relationships stated, not two. And so, there is no way to reduce 18:22:33 to a simpler (whole number) form. Which leaves us (as you've mentioned) with 6:9:11 being equivalent to 18:27:33, not 18:22:33. **Here is the crux**: although both "cuts" or subsections of the original that you isolate and transform are correct, I suspect you are being led off-track by the unfortunate coincidence that there is a "22" in both your 5.5:8.25 = 22:33 and 8.25.:10.1 = 18:22 equivalences. But look again. In the first one, it is the 5.5 that results in the 22, whereas in the second, it is the 10.1 that does so. Yet that final "22" can only correspond to one or the other in the final form. Put in another way, if you use the 5.5:8.25 ratio as the foundation, and arrive at 22:33, the correct, final ratio must have performed the *same* transformation (here, to multiply by four) to the final member that was initially left out (here, that would be the 10.1, which would result in a final form of "22:33:40.4"). And if you instead choose to use 8.25:10.1 = 18.22 as your foundation, you must then apply THAT same transformation (here, to multiply by ~2.18) to the third member left out of that initial duo, the 5.5. Doing so will yield 12, which must then be added back in at the *same* corresponding place in the final transformed ratio as it held in the original — in this case, yielding "12:18:22". To then prove this is correct, you can check to confirm that the ratios between each of the same positions in the two resulting numbers are all equivalent (i.e., 12:22 is equivalent to 18:33 is equivalent to 22:40.4). It is pure bad luck that there is a result of a 22 in both the subsections of the original ratio when transformed, but those two 22s unfortunately do *not* correspond to the same starting number. :o( Unfortunately, I am much better at explaining myself face to face rather than on paper, as it were, so please let me know if I've failed to explain my point adequately (or, if you believe I am wrong). Again, thank you very much for your good faith response …and apologies for my earlier tone. :o) Saturn comes back around (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, one more (hopefully helpful) tidbit: if you look at your second note, in the first instance, you transform the 18 to a 9, but in the second, to a 6. It must consistently stay as one or the other IF you wish to provide a transformed final triple ratio where you include both the other two bodies. HTH. Saturn comes back around (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saturn comes back around: I agree that this is very confusing, but it is actually right as 6:9:11. You see, orbital resonances are standardly given as an inverse ratio; they don't count the orbital period, but how many orbits are completed within a certain period of time. So the orbital periods of Styx, Nix, and Hydra are in an 18:22:33 ratio; but that means that Hydra completes 22 orbits in the time Nix completes 33, or (simplifying) that Hydra completes 6 orbits in the time Nix completes 9. Furthermore it means that Hydra completes 18 orbits in the time Styx completes 33, or (simplifying) that Hydra completes 6 orbits in the time Styx completes 11. Since Hydra has completed 6 orbits in both of these ratios, we can combine them and say that the resonance is indeed 6:9:11, since the same period of time is needed for Hydra to complete 6 orbits, Nix to complete 9, and Styx to complete 11. Note that 6, 9, and 11 correspond to the original 33, 22, and 18 respectively, not the other way round, because of the reciprocation. Double sharp (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp:Maybe we should do it like Laplace resonance and explicitly mention that both 18:22:33 and 11:9:6 are valid expressions for this 3-body resonance. With no contradiction because they refer to different things (orbital periods vs. number of orbits). The new draft below heavily cites from there (we can note this in the edit summary). @Saturn comes back around: There is no contradiction! I hope this is clear now. --Renerpho (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Yes, I think the current draft is very good. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Good, I will add it to the article in that form. @Saturn comes back around: If you still don't like it, please don't revert the edit. Continue the discussion here if necessary. --Renerpho (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Please do! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: @Saturn comes back around: To hopefully finish this off: You asked for an

explanation how the utterly incompatible 18:22:33 results in 6:9:11 orbits.

Answer: Note that $18\cdot 11=22\cdot 9=33\cdot 6$. I am grateful that you pointed out how this wasn't properly explained in the article. But please, next time you spot a "pre-algebraic conflict" where your own calculations are at odds with a published source, expect that the problem is you, not the source. Take it to the talk page and discuss it there instead of making an edit to the article. --Renerpho (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Renerpho: I agree with the sentiment, but surely you meant to address this to @Saturn comes back around:? Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Ehm, yes! Sorry. I guess it's fitting to end with a sign of confusion. --Renerpho (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Renerpho: @Double sharp: Believe me, I am far more at home with this sort of mannered discussion than any sort of yelling or edit-warring back and forth. However, getting reverted can sometimes be improperly interpreted, which it seems it was, at the very least in Renerpho's case. I am *far* happier to resolve things this way, and so heartily endorse the sentiment above. I would *absolutely* have checked the source had it been accessible, but will take your suggestion to heart nonetheless. Now, I would very much rather leave this be, but will state — solely for the record as a final clarification, should anyone need it (skip to bold if not) — that I am still of the mind that the ratios are not equivalent, as each of the three relationships are not equivalent between each member. 18:27:33 *is* equivalent to 6:9:11, and 18:27:33 can never be re-expressed as 18:22:33, because although the relationship between member B and C (as in A:B:C, for convenience's sake) is preserved perfectly, the relationship between A:B has been changed, and no longer represents 6:9, as it should. Perhaps, I will make more sense putting it thus: let's insert the names in. Styx to Nix to Hydra is 11:9:6, so, let's write that as Hydra(6):Nix(9):Styx(11). My point can be reduced to this: I see no way to insert the names into 18:22:33 that will not violate at least one of the original 3 relationships expressed in Hydra(6):Nix(9):Styx(11). Now, *having said all that* (and you may well think "pointlessly", after the following…), IF the two ratios are NOT expressing the same thing, but instead 6:9:11 is representing number of orbits completed, while 18:22:33 is expressing the number of arbitrary time units each orbit takes (as I am guessing is meant by your having shown the equivalence between multiplying each of the three corresponding members), then we are (almost) completely ALL GOOD and can forget the whole silly thing, which would be just peaches. However, I will only then add the following two suggestions: 1) we should label both the ratios clearly with what they are meant to represent, and, 2) we ought to preserve throughout the original order of the bodies represented by the ratios' members, and so express the two ratios either as "6:9:11(orbits) & 33:22:18('days'?)" or "11:9:6(orbits) & 18:22:33('qwertys', or whatnot)" (you seem to have chosen the latter; excellent, let's stick with it), and thereby maintain the relationships implied (Styx:Nix:Hydra, in the case of 18:22:33 and 11:9:6) the same throughout. Then, sticklerish types like myself will better be able to prevent themselves from making a big to-do over apparently... nothing. :o) Assuming the preceding is to everyone's satisfaction and agreement, then my sincere apologies and a large double helping of 'Thank You' to you both, gentlemen. Cheers! :oD Saturn comes back around (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

[Moved to article]

Pronunciation

There is currently a debate in the article's edit history whether the pronuciation of Styx and Nix is correctly transcribed as /stɪks/ and /nɪks/, or as /ˈstɪks/ and /ˈnɪks/, i.e. whether the stress should be made explicit for one-syllable words or not.

Until revision 832160910 by Kwamikagami, the stress was implicit, in accordance with other articles like this. I reverted Kwamikagami's edit 832160910, but got reverted again. The explanation "see any WP article" is unsatisfactory, since Kwamikagami has only just edited my example to agree with his assertion.

I believe the stress is unnecessary, and should be left out. But I'm interested in any WP article that agreed with Kwamikagami's assertion (without any effort on his part!), in documentation that states how it is done correctly, and in a third opinion. I am tagging a few Wikipedians from WikiProject Linguistics who I hope might be able to help: Nohat, Francis Tyers, Newroderick895, Ihcoyc.

I notice that in all Wiktionary articles I checked for monosyllabic words, the stress is not added. While Wiktionary isn't the English Wikipedia, I believe this is strong indication that the stress is unnecessary, or even incorrect. --Renerpho (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for mentioning me.

Unfortunately in English, one syllable word are always stressed as in /ˈjɛs/ (yes)

Thank you and have a nice day!!

Newroderick895 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Newroderick895! I don't argue whether there is a stress; I just say it isn't usually made explicit. See here, for example. If the stress is necessary then I wonder why all Wiktionary articles get it wrong? --Renerpho (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you concur that the stress can be left out? --Renerpho (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No one really knows... but what i can conclude is that the first syllable is louder and longer than the other syllables, example would be CHI-na. Yes, if the word is a verb. Newroderick895 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The rule is that content monosyllables (verbs, but also nouns, adjectives and adverbs) are stressed, while grammatical monosyllables (articles, prepositions etc.) are unstressed. So the words we are talking about are stressed. My understanding is that the stress isn't written in IPAC because it is implied by rules of the English language. Is that correct? --Renerpho (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

yes, i think. Newroderick895 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Our convention, for at least a decade now, is that we mark stress where words are stressed. Period. Some dictionaries have the convention that a monosyllable without overt stress is a stressed monosyllable, whereas a monosyllable with overt stress is a stressed disyllable. We don't follow that convention here: if a word is disyllabic, we transcribe it as two syllables. And if it's stressed, we transcribe it as stressed. To put a stressed word within phonemic slashes without a stress mark is incorrect, and we try to avoid misinforming our readers. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kwamikagami. I have no problem with it if it's an established convention. As you probably noticed though (when you edited Styx), that convention isn't widely known... Is it mentioned anywhere (ideally as a "WP:xxx")? I'd like to have a place where I can point to when making an edit. And you may want that too, to avoid discussions like this one. --Renerpho (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably should. I haven't had this discussion for several years, but you're right, it should be clarified in the MOS because of the differing conventions of some dictionaries. — kwami (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I added this to the footnotes in the English IPA key. But someone had removed the stress mark from the monosyllabic example there, so there might be a debate about changing it back. Since we no longer follow the convention of using different letters for full and reduced vowels, we no longer have that semi-redundancy to play with for stress. I also clarified that we don't use stress marks for vowel quality, like some dictionaries do. That was still illustrated by the battleship example, so shouldn't be a problem. — kwami (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If someone changed it back in Template:Usage_of_IPA_templates#English_words, are you sure the convention is still followed (probably - but maybe it should be mentioned in Help:IPA/English). --Renerpho (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned. The conversation should probably continue there, since the determination has a far reach across Wikipedia. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nix best view.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Moons of Pluto

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Moons of Pluto's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gazetteer":

• From Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons: Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature: Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers
• From Cordelia (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 6 August 2006.
• From Ophelia (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2006.
• From Moons of Uranus: "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
• From Hippocamp (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology Science Center. Retrieved 22 June 2020.
• From Cupid (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-05.
• From Francisco (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
• From Portia (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
• From Moons of Neptune: "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. Retrieved 2022-06-23.
• From Moons of Saturn: "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved August 6, 2006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)