# Talk:Styx (moon)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)