Talk:Iapetus (moon)

message: I see throughout the article, "lapetus" is written with a lowecase "l".  Is this intentional?  I would have thought that, being a proper noun, it should always be written Lapetus? --GrahamDo (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not lapetus, it's Iapetus. It helps if you have a font that distinguishes el from i! kwami (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the exact reason why I wish the spelling "Japetus" had won out... Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation?

message: I notice that this article bears a clear relationship to this website: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/iapetus.htm
Not sure if permission was given, or what the situation is.  If not, then the page needs to be rewritten.  If so, the permission or explanation should be given here on the talk page.
--Chinasaur 06:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just given the text a thorough reworking, but since I used only the questionable text itself as a source I'm still a little wary of the similarity. I'll go hunt for some new material to add in and hopefully diverge this article even farther. Bryan 07:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: There. What do you think? Bryan 08:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy

message: The equatorial ridge may be the remnant of a ring around Iapetus. See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025386.shtml --JyriL talk 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another theory for the origin of the equatorial ridge

message: Just a minor thing but, the last part of the section on the name origin (i.e. mythology) says this... "wherein he suggested the names of the Titans, sisters and brothers of Cronos (the Roman Saturn), be used.". Now correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm pretty sure Cronos and the Titans were Greek (not Roman as is being implied), and Saturn is Roman (so "the Roman Saturn" makes no sense). I think what it was supposed to say was "the Greek Saturn". So I'm going to go ahead and change it, if I’m wrong on this, revert it. --Hibernian 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about Mythology 

message: I doubt that it's ever spelled "Japetus". That's a ridiculous spelling as it looks like it should be pronounced with a "j" sound. Astroguy2 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japetus? 

message: It has been suggested to reinclude this Hoagland speculation that was removed a while back. I'm against, I see no reason to keep including all the wacky stuff this guy makes up. It is completely un-notable with regard to the astronomical object, and this little obscure "theory" should be happy that a whole article about it is allowed to live in the encycolpedia at all. Deuar 11:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support deleting the speculation article without merging. If the speculation reappears here, it should be removed on sight. Wacky theories, like the Face of Mars, deserve inclusion because of their publicity (accompanied with proper debunking), but this one is way to obscure. Hoagland has about a zillion such "theories", none of which deserves inclusion. — JyriL talk 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support removing any speculatory content like that from the Iapetus page. The theory is not even worth discussing IMHO. Ugo 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The absolute worst alternative would be to leave a POV fork speculative "Artificial Iapetus" standalone article as there is now. If the speculation is in Wikipedia at all, it should be in this article, where someone who Googles "Iapetus" and comes to Wikipedia will see well sourced and rational scientific information along with the speculation about it being a geodesic dome, a monument, or a deathstar, as in the Hoagland website. The Speculation that Iapetus is artificial article should be deleted, Please do not just turn up your scientific noses and ignore the speculative article. Edison 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This should not be merged back. I don't see that the theory currently has much traction anywhere. 132.205.44.5 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merge with [[Speculation that Iapetus is artificial]] 

message: The article says the ridge was "discovered" on 31 December 2004. Possibly there was some sort of announcement about it on that date, but it was visible on  photos a released publicly a  few days earlier.   
This LiveJournal post from 27 December 2004, for example, commented on the early images. Perhaps the wording about a "discovery" date needs to be adjusted. -- Infrogmation 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I'd just replace the date with "late December 2004" as the discovery date as that was the timeframe. It wouldn't be ambiguous. The flyby was a rather leisurely one and as you say the ridge already became apparent in distant approach coverage several days before closest approach. Ugo 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridge discovery date

message: The latest image :Image:Iapetus mountains Larger.jpg seems to be broken for some reason (the link works fine but the thumbnail is not displayed). The bug was resistant to my amateur attempots at fixes, anyone have better ideas? Deuar 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a problem across Wikipedia with certain types of image (I'm not sure which types, though). They seem to be loading very slowly, rather than missing. Hopefully it will be solved soon. Rubble pile 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  equatorial ridge image 

message: I added a section covering this some time ago but had it removed for some reason, I would like to ask what you think. It relates to the new pictures taken from Cassini. here and here They are could be many things so wild speculations have appeared as in the NASA: APOD states: 
Iapetus itself has a density close to that of water ice, but the detailed reflective properties of the dark material suggest an organic composition.
 It does sound really far-fetched in my opinion but the spots must have come from somewhere. Perhaps they are dust stains from Rhea thrown up by meteor impacts? Nicklas Hult (SE) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would an organic composition be far-fetched? Organic does not imply living organisms, merely carbon-based substances. There's organic stuff all across the solar system. Titan is practically swimming in organic goo! Ugo 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh! I didnt know "organic" meant that in English. Then do you agree that this section should be added? Mine was deleted here stating it as "Untrue". What do you think? Nicklas Hult (SE) 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit: Organic i.e. "Organiskt" in Swedish means that it really comes from something living.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzeitak (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said "biological" and that is by far not the same as "organic". Organic chemistry for example deals with carbon based compounds. Anyway, I'd rather leave any speculation of APOD guys out of the page just now. It's been only a week since the flyby. BTW, the flyby closest approach was on 10th, not 12th Sep. --Ugo 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah there we have it. Maybe ill try to add a subsection with more correction. Though I thought I had it all figured out, sometimes language breaches make things confusing and correct definitions are imperative for dictionaries. I havn't edited Wikipedia much really. Nicklas Hult (SE) 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the swedish speaking folks around: :sv:organisk kemi will help you to understand the meaning of the term in your own language, which seems actually to be  the same as in english, german, dutch and probably a lot of other languages... :-)--CWitte 08:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded that section based on the Sept. 10 flyby. Sorry, it was rather a rush job, but I wanted to get some of the new info up right away, since people will be looking for it. I read but now cannot locate the new press releases on the composition of the dark material; that bit needs to be updated. The bright/dark spots you were asking about should be included there, I think, as they fit in with why it seems there are no shades of grey. Also, some of the old hypotheses for the source may need to be revisited; I went over them only lightly. kwami 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add section for Coated craters / Inky spots? 

message: According to this page and its attached pdf maps, the bright region is now divided into two parts, Saragossa Terra and Roncevaux Terra. These terrae "are distinct from each other in that the former has a slightly reddish color and the latter does not." From the maps it looks like Roncevaux is the bright area north of the equator and Saragossa is the bright area south of it. Thus the big 500-km "Death Star disc" crater Engelier, at the bottom of our photo captioned "Roncevaux Terra," is actually in Saragossa Terra.
I'll see if I can fix this later today, this is just sort of a heads-up ... --Cam (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no longer a single feature name for the bright region 

message: I know the split article was merged into Richard C. Hoagland but there the subject only gets a measly sentence. "Speculation" of this kind is not "alien" to Wiki as we have articles like Cydonia which mention the claims about the Face on Mars and the pyramids in the Cydonia region on Mars. --Revolución talk 00:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article doesn't mention the speculated artificial nature of Iapetus at all

message: is it possible that the black stuff is natural, and that some event caoused it to be removed from the light side, and destruyed the ridge in the light side? --Ratstail91 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: explanation

message: could someone add this info http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/10/07/space.saturn.ring/index.html?iref=mpstoryview  sorry i dont have time right now GBizzle (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does it seem you have the time to notice this info has already been added in. Charvest (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: new info

message: I've recently uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything! :-) --Mangst (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the recording for this article.  Basically nothing changed in the article, but I fixed pronunciation errors and added a "Statistics" section for reading the infobox.  Please let me know if I've made any mistakes.  Thanks.  --Mangst (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia recording 

message: In Latin there's no such sound as "eye" for vowels, neither in classic nor restored pronunciations. The pronunciation in the article is incorrect. 
Iapetus or Japetus, both I and J are interchangeable, are pronounced exactly like they are written I-a-pe-tus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.48.3 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gives the English pronunciation, not the Latin one. Dictionaries with the pronunciation /aɪˈæpɨtəs/ include the American Heritage Dictionary (published in the U.S.) and the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (published in the U.K.).--Cam (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: They aren't limited to the US. We're an English encyclopedia, and so use English pronunciations. They are even coded for English. When we give Latin pronunciations, we mark them as Latin. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect pronunciation 

message: Upcoming article in Icarus on new computer modeling supporting the ridge-from-rings hyphothesis. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridge from rings

message: Iapetus gets dusted; Saturn moon's yin-yang surface explained by Nadia Drake August 13th, 2011; Vol.180 #4 (p. 18) Science News.  (Phoebe (moon))  99.181.138.215 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  resource http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332324/title/Iapetus_gets_dusted 

message: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00003389/ 94.29.10.104 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridge genesis 

message: What about this  (not so) round Solar object? ONaNcle (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There, Vesta is viewed from a changing angle. If viewed from a constant angle, Vesta actually looks pretty round, except for its southern pole, which is a massive impact basin (Rheasilvia). --JorisvS (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Vesta is clearly less round than Iapetus, that's a no-brainer. --JorisvS (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But how Brown can pretend his beloved Haumea being a DP while Vesta not one? ONaNcle (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "round" here includes not just spheres, but any (scalene) ellipsoid. Haumea can be well approximated, as far as it is known of course, by a scalene ellipsoid. I don't know if the axes are right for HE for a body with Haumea's rotation period. In any case, Haumea has not been seen up close, whereas Vesta has been seen up close ever since the HST images, e.g. this later one. --JorisvS (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Think what would happen if they were to melt:  Vesta would change shape.  Haumea wouldn't (or so Brown believes).  — kwami (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at present we probably can't really tell for sure whether Haumea would change its shape or not (though, yes, Brown seems to believe it wouldn't). Iapetus, however, would change its shape if it were to melt. --JorisvS (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just Brown who "believes" Haumea to be a dwarf planet - that's the official IAU position. I don't know any RS claiming otherwise... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an assumption made for bureaucratic purposes (which body gets to name it), not a scientific assessment.  They even said that if Haumea turns out not to be a DP, it would be reclassified but get to keep its name.  Everyone assumed at the time that Haumea must be in HE; the only argument was that a lot of smaller bodies were too.  Now the assumption no longer looks so secure.  — kwami (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IAU did declare Haumea to be a dwarf planet back then, that was independent of the "bureaucratic" H<1 naming criterion (though they didn't give a scientific reason for the declaration either, AFAIR). Why do you think Haumea's DP status to no longer be secure? It's true that it's not larger than former-HE Iapetus, but unlike with Iapetus, we do know that Haumea does rotate fast enough for its estimated shape to still be in equilibrium. And unlike a moon, it shouldn't have changed its rotation period substantially over time (after its presumed past massive collision, which should have melted it). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We meet this problem on Simple too. ONaNcle (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[4 Vesta]] more or less round than 
Iapetus
 Haumea? 

message: We need the ref that Iapetus is not in HE.  — kwami (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's Lakdawalla mentioning it. There's also an article in Icarus. Tbayboy (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  — kwami (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HE2 

message: The dimensions given for the ridge give a height of 14 km and width of 20 km.  These numbers are inconsistent with the profile photo showing the ridge outlined against the black of space.  The side-slopes of the ridge on that photo reveal a relative proportion of width to height on the slopes more on the order of 2:1 at that location.  The shot is slightly oblique to the ridge trend, which causes an apparent flattening of the slope in the photo relative to actuality, but this would be a slope angle between 27° and 35°.  I don't know what the properties of ice would be at that temperature, but that would be a reasonable friction angle for granular particles.  The strength of gravity would not matter as the stable slope of a purely frictional granular material is determined by a frictional coefficient times a ratio of vector components of its weight resolved both parallel and perpendicular to the slope, so the gravitational coefficient is in both numerator and denominator and cancels out.  
Allowing for the flat area on top, the total width looks to be about 5 or 6 times the height.  A height of 14 km would have a base width of 70 to 84 km at the location of the profile on the photo.  Please check the original articles for the correct values.  In an article in http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/30/saturns-moon-wears-the-weirdest-mountain-range-in-the-solar-system a width of up to 200 km is given, which would presumably apply where the triple-width ridge mentioned in your article occurs. Tony Cooley (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible typo in dimensions of equatorial ridge 

message: Extraterrestrial skies#The rings from Saturn's moons seems to be saying that Saturn's rings would also be visible from Mimas and Tethys. (As well as Janus and Epimetheus, but they're not really large moons.) Double sharp (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Iapetus the only large moon from which the rings of Saturn would be clearly visible? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Iapetus (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222025902/http://home.gwi.net/~pluto/mpecs/ss08.htm to http://home.gwi.net/~pluto/mpecs/ss08.htm#elements
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iapetus (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228114042/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/CHARM_20071030_Iapetus.pdf to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/CHARM_20071030_Iapetus.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808065916/http://planetary.org/explore/topics/saturn/iapetus.html to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/saturn/iapetus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iapetus (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203154619/http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~1~1~994~101040:Flight-over-Iapetus to http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~1~1~994~101040:Flight-over-Iapetus
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I am adding the surface gravity and percent of Earth's moon gravity in the format as used on Titan (moon).
*Surface gravity: Given the gravity calculation of 0.223 m/s2 and Gravity of Earth set to 9.80665 m/s2: acceleration would be 0.223 / 9.80665 or 0.022797 rounded to ()
*Percent Moon's gravity: Given the Moon's gravity of 1.62 m/s2 (0.1654 g), moon multiplier would be 0.223 / 1.62 or = 0.13765 rounded to (0.138 Moons)
*Check: Iapetus's surface gravity calculation (above): 0.022797 g / 0.1654 g = 0.01378295
Appears in order, so changing:
* | surface_grav =  m/s2 
to 
* | surface_grav =  m/s2 () (0.138 Moons) 
*Compiled: surface_grav =  m/s2 () (0.138 Moons)
2606:6000:CB81:1700:201B:37B8:E9F7:6142 (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding surface gravity and fraction of Moon's gravity 

message: In what sense is Iapetus "the 24th of Saturn’s 83 known moons"?  Clearly not by mass or diameter.  Date of discovery?  Mean  orbital radius?  Alphabetically?  For a statement in such a prominent position, should it not be more clear and relevant?
--~~~~ Seismofish (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Satellites are ordered in distance from the planet. Just like planets are ordered from the Sun. :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty-fourth?