Talk:Naming of moons

Moon Names?

Some newer names are unpronunceable in some languages (The Saturn ones), it is possible that with the pressure of some countries these names would change? besides being unpronunceable, they are very ugly and strange. There isnt debate in some countries with this issue? or a kind of seperation between astronomers over the naming of the satellites? -Pedro 20:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I expect many Inuit people find European names to be ugly, strange and unpronounceable, but does that mean we should change our names to make them happy? I am not aware of any debates; it was clear that the IAU was running out of Greek names, and also that there was a Eurocentric bias to the nomenclature. I personally think these names are interesting and they have encouraged me to learn more about Inuit mythology in particular. The Singing Badger 21:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But Greek Mythology is by faar the richer and more interesting and widespread. And it is also translatable to several languages. While I cant even memorize or read some names they are full of consonants which is very odd to Latin languages, consedering that a large number of people worldwide speak a Latin language and much more people ever heard the word Inuit. While Greek they heard it for sure. It would be far more interesting including Egyptian gods instead of that unknown dieties. -Pedro 23:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pedro, I think you are underestimating your own intelligence. While the names may look odd to you at first glance, you will find that they are perfectly easy to pronounce if you try (there is even a pronunciation guide provided in this article). They are not 'full of consonants' at all, they alternate consonants and vowels just like Latin languages do (except Thrymr, I'll give you that one!). I think you're having an instinctive response that you'll find to be unfair when you actually try to read the names.
I also think it's unfair to say Greek mythology is richer and more interesting. Inuit folk tales and legends are amazing and beautiful. You're right that the Greek tales are more widespread, but this is exactly the problem: all the Greek names have been already used up on the thousands of asteroids, moons, etc. That's why they're turning to the myths of other cultures.
Finally, the fact that many people across the world have never heard of the Inuit is a bad thing. There's too much ignorance in the world. In its own small way, I think the naming of these little moons is a gesture against ignorance. The Singing Badger 18:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Moon excluded from this article?

I know this is a stupid question, but why isn't Earth's moon discussed here? The wikipedia community has a larger than average percentage of people trying to call our moon (the Moon), Luna. I'm guessing these are just sci-fi fans, but perhaps this deserves a brief discussion anyway? Lunokhod 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (moon)

We need a reference to Flammarion's naming suggestion. It is not in the same book as his Triton, since said book was published 12 years before Amalthea's discovery... Urhixidur 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the NASA ADS, there is nothing about any of the alternate names (Hestia, Hera, Poseidon, Hades, Demeter, Pan and Adrastea) in the 1905-1975 span. Amalthea appears suddenly in 1967 but, as IAUC 2846 states, it had been suggested "many decades" earlier, so that's not it. My encyclopedias of 1972 (Bordas Encyclopédie) and 1962 (Nouvelle encyclopédie du monde) mention Amalthea (succinctly, alas) but not the others. Urhixidur 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched the matter of the previous names of moons VI-XII and found relevant citations from Icarus from the period of the name change. The section has been rewritten and recited per those articles; a reference of dubious quality, giving partially contradictory information, has been deleted.RandomCritic 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, RandomCritic. The article, as written, seems to imply the name Amalthea appeared in 1893; is that the case? Urhixidur 02:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I was unable to get a copy of the 1893 article in question, but the Icarus article (which cites it) certainly appears to imply so. RandomCritic 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellings, languages, etc.

I'm wondering how satellite nomenclature works for languages other than English. Does anyone have any information they could add to the article?

I used to assume the rule was that since satellites were named after mythological or fictional entities, however you refer to that entity in your language is what you should call the satellite. Thus Saturn IX was named after the Titan Φοίβη, and Italians refer to that mythological character as Febe, so they should call the satellite Febe. But the French call her Phœbé, so that's the correct satellite name for them.

But I now get the impression that the situation is more complex. Thus to make the e/a rule work, the IAU gave a satellite the name Iocaste. This may mean that using Giocasta in Italian is not an option. Also one of Pluto's satellites is named after the goddess Nyx, but we are instructed to use a specific spelling "Nix." What I'm saying is it's not just a matter of using your language's name for the mythological figure, you have to use a certain spelling specified by the IAU.

Has this language situation ever been cleared up by the IAU? Have they ever said that only the forms in the English-language circulars are official, or something like that? Or has it been specified that language communities can use whatever the normal local spelling is? --Cam 05:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the IAU does nothing to keep straight the nomenclature in other languages than English. I'm not even sure what the IAU's official languages are. I've spent a lot of time looking up the names in other languages, and the results have been consigned to the French wiktionary: just look up the moon name in English, jump to the French name, and you'll have a long list of translations. Try wikt:fr:Erriapus, for example. (If you don't recognise the French names of the languages, just edit the page to reveal their ISO codes) Urhixidur (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian Wikipedia they are translated anyway: it:Giocasta (astronomia), it:Notte (astronomia). Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshots of moon names

As of 1 January 1609, there were no known moons other than our own and the ancient claims that moons had been discovered around Jupiter and Saturn.

There are no such ancient claims. Some people have tried to read sighting of moons into past astronomical observations, or reports that might have been astronomical observations, or myths, or what have you. Whether or not anything was seen that might have been a moon is not really at issue (the scenario is barely plausible, though still unlikely, for Jupiter, impossible for Saturn) -- the fact is that before Galileo the concept of a body orbiting a planet other than Earth was completely unknown -- it even took Galileo a while to appreciate what he was seeing. RandomCritic 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 January 1615, there were four known moons (excluding our own), which had unofficial names that fell into relative disuse.

As of 1 January 1685, there were nine known moons, none of which had names (with disused names for the four Jovian moons).

As of 1 January 1788, there were eleven known moons, same situation as 1685. As of 1790, there were thirteen. As of 1847, there were fourteen.

It's not so simple; see Moons of Uranus#Spurious moons. In 1790 it was believed that there were fifteen, not thirteen moons, as John Herschel had reported the discovery of two additional moons. By 1795 it was seventeen. It wasn't until Lassell's reexamination of the Saturnian system that these four moons were determined to be spurious; but at the same time Lassell turned up two hitherto unknown moons, for a net reduction of two. RandomCritic 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 January 1848, there were fifteen known moons, of which seven (all orbiting Saturn) had names, and eight did not have generally accepted names. The eighth Saturnian moon was named that year.

As of 1 January 1852, there were seventeen known moons, of which eight had names. That year, the four Uranian moons were named.

As of the end of 1878, there were nineteen known moons, of which fourteen had names (those of Mars, Saturn and Uranus), and five did not (those of Jupiter and Neptune). In 1880, Neptune's moon received a name that was not in general use for more than two thirds of a century, leaving it in the "unnamed" category.

As of 1 January 1894, there were 20 known moons, of which fourteen had generally-accepted names, and two had suggested names (Amalthea and Triton) and four had disused names (Galilean).

As of 1 January 1900, there were 21 known moons, of which fifteen had generally-accepted names, and two had suggested names (Amalthea and Triton) and four had disused names (Galilean).

As of 1 January 1905, there were 22 known moons, as of 1906, 23, as of 1909, 24, and as of 1915, 25 known moons, of which still only 15 had generally-accepted names, and ten (including all Jovian moons plus Triton) had no generally-accepted names. As of 1939, there were 27 known moons, of which 15 had names.

As of 1 January 1950, there were 29 known moons, of which 18 had names (the 9 of Saturn, the 5 of Uranus, the two of Neptune), and eleven did not (those of Jupiter), though the Galilean moons' names were about to regain favour. A twelfth moon of Jupiter was found in 1951.

"Favour" is a term of uncertain value. In certain quarters, e.g. in popular science articles, and encyclopedia articles -- the Mayrian names of the Galilean satellites had long been in use. In more formal astronomical articles they were less common, but were still used. As early as 1893 a "Nautical Almanac" had apparently revived the names. In 1905 there was further talk talk of revival. In 1906 and 1907 the names were being used without apology. It looks as though the discovery of Jupiter VI and VII in 1904-1905 was a strong impetus for the re-adoption of the names. RandomCritic 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 January 1967, a 31st moon had been discovered, and was named that year. Therefore, there were now 23 named moons and eight unnamed (all of them orbiting Jupiter, one of which had an unofficial name that was generally used).

As of 1 January 1975, a 32nd moon had been discovered, of which 23 were named. The nine Jovian moons were named, with Amalthea becoming an official name.

Since then, names have generally been adopted soon after discovery, though Charon was unofficial until 1986. GBC 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals for moons OF planets.

How do you refer to a moon of a planet using the roman numeral designation? Would Luna be "Sol III I"? Or is there some other convention? I imagine this might come up when referring to the satellite of a planet that has not been named, but the star has. Thus the planet only has a Roman numeral designation. So how would one refer to satellites of such a planet? --Buddy13 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanets are given designations of the star's name, followed by a lower case letter in order of discovery, starting with 'b'. I don't know what the naming of exomoons would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.204.13 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like for our own planets, e.g. Kepler-1625b I. Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3060 BCE?

According to the chart of Pre-IAU names under Timeline, the Moon was named in 3060 BCE. This was added in an edit on 3 March 2012 by Whoop whoop pull up, who seems to be a serious editor with plenty of good contributions, so I doubt it was some silly joke, bizarre hobby horse, etc. But it's hard to see how someone could type "3060 BCE" by mistake, and I can't think of any way it even remotely makes sense. I'm going to remove the date; hopefully Whoop whoop pull up will notice and explain what he was thinking and put the appropriate information in that he intended.

For reference: The English word "Moon" is probably around 1000-1500 years old (I don't know exactly when it developed from "mona"). The PIE stem is probably from around 3700 BCE +/- 1500 years, and 3060 does fall within that range, but I can't imagine how anyone could seriously guess to the decade—and besides, people have probably had a name for the Moon for almost as long as we've had language, so there wouldn't be anything special about, e.g., PIE settling on *menses, or an early divergence splitting into *menes (ancestral to "Moon") and *meses (not). (I suppose a Young Earth Creationist might be able to guess to the decade, but he'd probably guess to the day, somewhere in late 4004 BCE.) --70.36.140.68 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naming of moons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041009142028/http://www.iau.org:80/IAU/News/jupiter.html to http://www.iau.org/IAU/News/jupiter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocamp not named 2018.

The timeline suggests Hippocamp was named in 2018, which it wasn't. This needs to be corrected. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 07:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what we need is a separation between numbering and naming dates. Double sharp (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sort of. So I guess we have to make it clear that numbering and naming now happen at different times. Double sharp (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps Helene should be mentioned (it got its number with Telesto and Calypso, but wasn't named till later). Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Double sharp (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Ferdinand - Uranus moon.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First few IAU names

Actually Jupiter XIV through XVI were already named in 1982, except that XIV and XV were mistakenly swapped. Added to the article. Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]