Talk:Moons of Neptune

Sorting Problems in the Table

I corrected a few issues where some characters were causing numerical data to sort according to a string sort. some entries included ~'s to signify approximations but I figured that readers would recognize that the information isn't 100% accurate and that approximations were used. This fixed many sorting problems.

However, I couldn't come up with a good way to address the inclusion of "()" in the diameter column. These cause the column to sort improperly if the current sort is on non-numeric data (no issue if first you sort on mass).

There's two options as I see it. Drop the data (which I'm leaning towards, but don't like) or add a new column for diameter measurements of irregular moons (which is going to expand the table too much).

I wanted to get some other input before I go with dropping the data. Thanks Mike409 (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging list

I'm going to rearrange the list by distance from Neptune rather than Roman Numeral; this makes the list more useful because it gives a picture of where the moons are in relation to each other. The Singing Badger 04:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

highlighting

I'm highlighting the moons of the gas giants according to the following criteria: Lunar sized (Galileans, Titan, Triton) bold name in a medium voilet background (style="background:#ccccff";); smaller spheroidal moons (Saturn & Uranus) bold name in a lavender background (style="background:#eeeeff"); irregular moons not bold and on a white background.

I expect that some of you will object to these categories, and perhaps something else would be better. My idea was that the lunar-size category is one of general human interest, and the spheroidal/irregular distinction is relatively objective and is found frequently in the scientific literature. Especially in the case of Saturn, I think it's important to do something to make the tables more visually accessible and to make the 'main' moons easier to find. They're getting too big to easily navigate. kwami 05:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Psamathe (NX, 2003 N1)

According to [1], 2003 N1 has been named Psamathe. Strangely, though, there isn't an NIX listed on that page.. straight from NVIII to NX. Any thoughts? Should the pages be changed? --Patteroast 13:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See comment at Talk:Uranus' natural satellites The Singing Badger 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is named. It just hasn't been announced yet. [unsigned]

Long overdue update: the page now lists a Neptune IX, along with many others. Be careful of notating it as "NIX", btw, as that may be confused with the second moon of Pluto, i.e. Nix. "N.IX" might be a useful compromise? (Similarly, Saturn Ninth could be confused with "six") 51.7.16.171 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You could call it N IX; the space was used in the past, e.g. for J X and J XI. Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: they could also be called N9, J10, J11 for example. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Table versus Detail Pages

Great work and layout. I did notice some differences, however. The table indicates some values that do not match the linked detail pages. For example: Psamathe diameter (table is 28, detail page is 24); S/2002 N2 and N3 (table shows 28 for both, detail shows 48 for both); S/2002 N1 (table is 60, detail is 48); Larissa (208x178 versus 216x204x168). There are others differences as well, but the following may be the mean diameter on the table and the actual on the detail pages: Galatea (158 versus 204x184x144); Despina (148 versus 180x148x128); Thallassa (80 versus 108x100x52); and Naiad (58 versus 96x50x52). Tesseract501 2 June, 2006

References

I’d like to reference the data in the table (and update them when needed). I can see three possibilities

• Append a ref to each data item - it’s precise but clumsy, I feel
• Add an additional column Ref, with one or more refs (JPL style) - my preference goes to this option
• Add the sources below the table; this option will lose track of which data are from where or will become lengthy

Eurocommuter 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer using the additional column as well. 'Course, most of this data are just copied from the individual moons' articles which should hopefully be referenced themselves. Deuar 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure

As Neptune system is rich in interesting orbits I suggest organising the content around orbits, origin theories (both started but more should be added on Triton and Nereid scenarios). In addition, the system description could be further organised into inner moons, Triton, Nereid, and irregulars, similar to the job done with Saturn’s system. Eurocommuter 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-major axis

why Semi-major axis of some moons in this page is different from the Semi-major axis in the page of the moon? example Semi-major axis for Psamathe in this page is 46 695 000 km and in Psamathe (moon) the Semi-major axis is 48.096 Gm. which is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.243.144 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It will depend on the source. The orbit of objects do vary over time due to perturbations. The Psamathe (moon) article quotes Jacobson 2008. (Source 56) Different epochs will also give slightly different results. The 46.695Gm comes from Scott Sheppard's page. The solar system is not a simple fixed entity. -- Kheider (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent data on the 9th moon (Halimede)?

From the data in the ORBITAL TABLE , the ratio of (a cubed)/(P squared) is off by a whopping 17% for Halimede. (a = Semi-major axis, P = period)

Why? Maybe the table is wrong or could this be changing orbit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.72.96 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Halimede (using Epoch 2003) (Jacobson, R.A. (2008) NEP078) appears to have a semi-major axis of 16,611,000km with a peroid of 1879.08 days. Using the Natural Satellites Ephemeris Service, I get an epoch 2005 Aug. 18 value of 16,589,670km and 1879.34 days. I suspect someone simply updated a single column in the wiki table at one point. Also keep in mind that irregular moons are frequently perturbed. (See stability). -- Kheider (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The right value must be about 16,600,000 km. I don't have access to the tables so someone else can change it.

Actually the numbers currently being used for the outer sats are from Sheppards page which refs the NASA page. So the numbers are just older, but not wrong. -- Kheider (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Source problem

Notes 8, last line: The mass of Triton is from Jacobson, 2009

But I can't found this source, Only one with Jacobson is References 28, Jacobson, R.A. (2008). "NEP078 – JPL satellite ephemeris". Retrieved 2010-10-18 but is 2008.

So, Where is this source?--Jarodalien (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong images?

The Halimede image might actually be Laomedeia: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~mholman/S2002N3_anim.gif

And here's one that is said to be Halimede: http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/gladman/nep2002N1.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.215.33 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moons of Neptune. 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/20120303191038/http://www.orinetz.com/planet/tourprog/saturnmoons.html to http://www.orinetz.com/planet/tourprog/saturnmoons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moons of Neptune. 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/20070609074953/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Neptune&Display=Moons to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Neptune&Display=Moons

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

S/2004 N 1 numbered Neptune XIV

This has been announced in MPC 111804 (25 September 2018), along with twelve new numberings for Jupiter satellites (LXI through LXXII). Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me that I ought to add some text about the discovery and (lack of) naming of Neptune XIV to the first section. With the exception of Jupiter LIII Dia, not a single planetary satellite numbered from 2015 onwards received a name. This makes me wonder if there are new rules discouraging the naming of small moons, because the discoverers of Jupiter LXII and Neptune XIV had names in mind for them, but none were officially given. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, both of those have names now (Valetudo and Hippocamp), though the other Jupiter moons (all from LI to LXXII save LIII Dia and LXII Valetudo) still lack them. I suppose now Roman numeral assignment will precede naming for a short while, rather than the two happening simultaneously as it did before. I understand some of those small Jupiter moons are going to get named, but probably not all. Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Largest irregularly shaped object in solar system" claim for Proteus

In, at the least, the inlined video showing off Proteus' polyhedral shape, the claim is made that it's the largest known irregularly shaped object in the solar system. I had thought, however, that the award went, if only technically, to the "walnut shaped" (or more popularly "death star"-like) and deeply cratered Iapetus, the second largest moon of Saturn, which at 1469km has a sphere-equivalent diameter more than four times that of Proteus? Which also suggests there must be several other objects of intermediate size that exhibit an irregular (ie neither spherical nor biaxial/triaxially ellipsoid) shape. Is the claim merely out of date (and needing updating) or misguided (and needing correction), or is there something important I'm missing here? 51.7.16.171 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Iapetus is the one with the equatorial ridge; the one with the big crater is Mimas. More to the point, Mimas and Iapetus are both approximately round, even if neither is actually in hydrostatic equilibrium. Proteus is not even close. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)