Talk:Natural satellite

message: "Two moons are known have small companions at their L4 and L5 Lagrangian points, which are about sixty degrees ahead of and behind the body in its orbit. "
What is this sentence trying to say? It doesn't make sense. 212.44.20.129 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what if it read "Two moons are known to have small companions at their L4 and L5 Lagrangian points, which are about sixty degrees ahead of and behind the body in its orbit. "    --5telios 12:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojan Satellites 

message: Perhaps I should just share my ideas and let them be debated. What I want to do is move the move the moon information to be a subcategory to a category labeled "Types of Natural Satellites" and also add information on comets, asteroids, meterors, planets, etc. I am looking for either support or objections. Thank you :) kf4yfd 04:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be the solar system article. We already have it. Rmhermen 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rmhermen there. We already have it. Sorry. Deuar 14:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well that's a fair point it seems, although commonly more cumbersome expressions like "body orbiting so-and-so" seem to be used when discussing the non-moon cases (apart from satellite galaxies). A name change might be desirable to keep in line with what the article actually discusses, but I can't think of a good one (Moons in the plural?). The thought of how many articles link to this one is enough to make me cringe at the very thought. An article for the broader grouping could be called orbiting body or something similar. Not sure. Deuar 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focused on Moons 

message: David Kernow moved the table over to a template and transcluded it, but I can't see any good reason to do so - it's not overly large, it's not located in a confusing spot for new editors like infoboxes are (and indeed it makes it harder to find in the source), and it's only used in this one individual article. Furthermore, it makes footnoting problematic. I'm going to subst it back. Bryan 18:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it might be (adapted for) use in individual moons' articles, e.g. made (semi-)hideable via s. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templating the table

message: I'd like to see this article cover the topic of the Hill sphere with respect to the stability of satellite orbits. Also some discussion of "regular" versions "irregular" satellites would be much appreciated. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just discovered your post (and read this article for the first time). I’ve covered some of it in the irregular satellite since. This article could benefit I believe by making clear regular/irregular distinctions, referring for more details to irregular sat article (started with a few remarks). Eurocommuter 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other topics 

message: Why are some objects listed in the others for comparison column while others in the same class are in the Minor planets column. Seems confusing. Rmhermen 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, this column seems to cause confusion every so often. I've attempted a new label. Perhaps it is better (?). Deuar 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the footnote makes it clear. But is the "many more TNOs" really correct for moons of minor planets? Are there that many known? Couldn't it say, if true, "many more moons of TNOs"? Rmhermen 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often estimated that 10% or even as much of 20% of TNO could have satellites. The theories are intriguing (once I’ve done with the irregulars I hope to write something about the binaries). A half-cooked but intuitive explanation for large population of the multiples is the large Hill sphere compared with the asteroids. In flat English, given the distance to the Sun the zone of gravitational influence of any sizable rock is quite large. However, there’re problems including the available initial density of the primordial disk for example. Eurocommuter 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor and others

message: A suggestion has been made that this article should be merged with natural satellite. As long as you guys have no problem with it I'm willing to do the merger in the next few days. -- Nbound 14:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[Definition of moon]] 

message: I suggest merging whatever can be saved of this strange little article about a population of objects whose ranks currently stand at zero.  Support?  Oppose? RandomCritic 11:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the lack of opposition, I went ahead with the merger. RandomCritic 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Moon moon

message: Technically, the term could also refer to a planet orbiting a star, or even to a star orbiting a galactic center, 
I cannot find any evidence that this is true, 'technically' or otherwise; I find no evidence of planets being called satellites, or of stars orbiting other stars being called satellites.  If "satellite" is never used in such a sense, why are we told that it is 'technically' possible? RandomCritic 07:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of "satellite"

message: Someone with experience at editing pages should add this. It is the only known natural moon besides 'the Moon'. It's identified as "6R10DB9" see 
--Daveonwiki 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth's New Temporary Moon

message: It has been proposed at Uranus' natural satellites to revise the titles of all the (Planet)'s natural satellites articles to Moons of (planet), a change which obviously reflects on this page as well.  I think it is better to have a single central place to discuss it, hence this section. RandomCritic 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, though I don't think this page needs to change if the others do, since out of context "moon" means Luna. kwami 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems much to care one way or the other. Shall I just be "bold" and change the articles to match the footers? kwami 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Saros136 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, all done. kwami 03:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural satellite vs. moon

message: The start of the article says "There are 240 known moons", but the section "The definition of a moon" later says that there is no generally accepted definition of "moon" -- in particular, there is no fixed lower cutoff point for the size of a moon. It needs to be explained what definition the figure of 240 is using. Matt 11:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incompatible statements 

message: There's something that really interests me, but what I seem to cannot find anywhere:
When the mass of a planet and a moon are both given, can there be only one stable orbit for the moon or are there several? It seems the Moon and Io are of about the same mass and have about the same orbit, but jupiter is several hundred times the mass of earth. And how does speed come into the quotation? 91.66.152.163 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are an infinite number of possible orbits. Any elliptical orbit with the proper speed and the center of mass at one of the foci is stable, unless there is interference, say from another moon or atmospheric drag. Tides and relativistic effects may add a slight spiral to the orbit, but otherwise it is still stable. Check orbit, and for the speed, orbital period. kwami (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable orbits of natural sattelites 

message: Though astronomers are regularly finding new small moons around distance planets, they are not finding any new moons around the inner planets. -- Kheider (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Moons

message: What exactly is meant by the image caption "Nineteen moons are large enough to be round..."? I was under the impression that all moons were "round" (or, more correctly, "spherical"). Fuzzform (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The small ones are not. They're like asteroids. kwami (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: The list of moons discovered for Saturn and Jupiter links are broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.192.105 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: The new article Meteor procession of February 9, 1913 uses "short-lived natural satellite" and this is being incorporated into the hook for Template talk:Did you know#Meteor Procession of February 9, 1913.  If natural satellite is the correct term for this, have there been many other objects which could be considered a natural satellite of earth, and should we create a list of them? John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Moon/Archive_10#Other_natural_satellites?. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you!. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  short-lived natural satellite 

message: I was under the impression that any celestial body that is orbiting a planet is classified as a natural satellite, and the name of Earth's natural satellite is "Moon." This is to say, there is a total of one (1) moon in existence, and it is ours. This article states contrary. If I am incorrect, as I may very well be, I think this article should at least mention the possible semantical difference. Dudemcman (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about being incorrect, the words natural satellite and moon are synonyms. As for the article, the lead does mention that "Earth has one large natural satellite, known as the Moon". — Reatlas (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably mention that "satellite planets" (secondary planets) were called "moons" after the Earth's moon.  — kwami (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics of "moon" vs "natural satellites" 

message: OK, So if I try to look up moons in general, it redirects me here.  I get here, and it tells me that 'natural satellite' also includes planets, giving the Earth as an example of a natural satellite because it orbits the Sun.  But if "moon" means "natural satellite" and the Earth is a natural satellite, than the Earth is a moon. Okay, I guess, fine.  But if you go to articles about the individual moons in the solar system, practically ALL Of their relative statistics ('this is the fifth largest moon in the solar system', etc.) are wrong, because you have to start comparing them to 'moons' like Earth and Saturn.  Even more confusing are articles like the Titan article which say that Titan is the 'only natural satellite with a dense atmosphere', only to have Wikipedia tell me that the Earth (and presumably Jupiter) are natural satellites when I look up the meaning of the term. 
You have a picture with the caption, "19 natural satellites are large enough to be round", and none of the planets- which you just got done stating are natural satellites, and are round the last time I checked- are included.  And don't get me started about dwarf planets. Aren't some of them round? Don't they orbit the Sun? Are they not natural satellites?
Then you go on to list the largest natural satellites in the solar system, and none of the planets are included. 
You have a Venn-like diagram clearly showing planets not included in "Satellites(natural)"
I've changed the opening line to read "a natural satellite (moon) is a celestial body that orbits a planet," removing the reference to planets being an example of a 'natural satellite'- your entire article contradicts this definition, as do many other articles, it's just bizarre to lead with it unless somebody is willing to engage in a massive rewrite of several articles across wikipedia. 
74.75.153.248 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked source says "A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star. For example, Earth is a satellite because it orbits the sun. Likewise, the moon is a satellite because it orbits Earth. Usually, the word "satellite" refers to a machine that is launched into space and moves around Earth or another body in space. Earth and the moon are examples of natural satellites." We do not get to change the definition. If this causes other problems in the article, those are the problems that need to be fixed. Rmhermen (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Planets Aren't Natural Satellites?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Natural satellite. 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/20070227165513/http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/compare_the_planets/moon_numbers.html to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/compare_the_planets/moon_numbers.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) 10:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Are there any known moons of comets? If not it may deserve a mention in the article of why they don't occur. Rmhermen (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: satellites of comets

message: The term 'minor planet' is no longer used; in its place are dwarf planets and SSSBs. Yet, this article is full of occurrences of the phrase. Why? I say they should be removed. 14.1.225.19 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove minor planet terminology 

message: The earth and the moon don't need these. The preceding article identifies them. The moon is the moon, while Phobos and Demos are moons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.237.221 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: initial capitals

message: Well let me start with the 4 problems
SIZE
1:too big (Moon , Charon) both very large to the point it looks more like a double planet system
2:too small (2020 CD3 and other Saturn related moonlets) with the new earth moon found its only 1 to 6 meters across...
ORBIT
3:it will one day get closer and closer and crash (Triton and Phobos) wont last forever and hit there planets
4:This is the new problem the main reason i made this new section, it will keep getting futher away till it de orbits earth and orbits the sun (2020 CD3) while there were 2 others in the past , they where already gone when we were sure to be not man made , however this one is still orbiting earth until sometime in april...
im pretty sure the moon and charon are talk about alot , and well phobos and tritan will take a while to crash, the thing is what about very small objects or objects that are about to deorbit? do we also add them into the Natural satellite list? in a way adding them or not adding them is and isnt correct the same time since there is no official definition for objects like this.
the 2 planets having the problems are Earth and Saturn right now. Joshoctober16 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Natural Satellites 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The intro now says "there is only THE moon" but further down the article correctly states that the phrase 'moon' has  regained acceptability in recent years, even in Scientific papers. And often times, the phrase natural satellite is now only used when it's necessary to avoid ambiguity with the Moon in that article or text. Or people just write "Earth's Moon" to clear that up. 
So anyway I think that sentence in the intro should be changed. Greetings, RagingR2 RagingR2 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed. We should not sway to colloquialisms pushed by the media. Let's not trample over words and their meanings and mill them to create a semantical mess. What will be next? Calling planets "Earths"? Star, planet, satellite. That's the correct terminology. Colloquialisms exist and should be noted as such, nothing more. Lajoswinkler (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with the OP. Many scientific sources including NASA use the term "moon", just look at the sources in the lede of Moons of Saturn (sic!). Wikipedia must follow the sources, it's not our job to decide which word is the "correct terminology" or a "colloquialism".Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro is outdated; "moon" is now in common use again 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Recently I came across Metzger 2021 which explored the history of the term planet, mentioning that astronomers such as Cassini, Herschel, and Proctor consider moons to be planets well into the 1920s. Combined with the lack of citation for the passage about the post-Galileo discoverers using terms to distinguish moons from primary planets, I believe it is a good idea to properly update the history of the term. AstroChara (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the moons as planets