Talk:Jupiter LII

Name Change

Okay, the article name was changed a couple of months back from "S/2010 J 2" to "Jupiter LII" with the explanation that this was the official name given on March 7. However, this moon has been called Jupiter LII since its discovery back in 2010 because it was the fifty-second moon to be discovered. This name is not official, but rather is just another systematic placeholder that's just as (if not more) confusing than the systematic designation that is already had. The USGS Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature reports when names are given to all planetary satellites, and did not report this 'official' name (although it did report the renaming of Jupiter LIII to Dia three days after this given date). I won't change the name myself because I don't have access to the given source, but I would like somebody who does (or somebody who knows more than me) to look into this, because I find it very strange that Jupiter LII and Jupiter LIII would both be named within a three-day period, only one of the names reported, and the other name being the officiation of an already in use systematic placeholder.

Additionally, it's made it difficult to find S/2010 J 2 from the Jovian Moons navbox when I need it. Jacob S-589 (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Roman numeral designations are NOT automatically given out at discovery, they are almost always given only at naming, this case being one of the rare exceptions. There was no telling that it would be Jupiter LII when it was discovered as it wasn't the 52nd one discovered; there are ones that were discovered earlier that still have no permanent designation. It seems that the discoverers of this moon may have declined to give it a name, but I am admittedly speculating there. --Patteroast (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the discoverers have gotten tired of naming moons that are only a few kilometres in radius, judging from the recent permanent numbering of Jupiter LIV through LIX, none of which got names. The other possibility is that we exhausted Zeus' conquests, which knowing him would be truly amazing. Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, now we also have Jupiter LX through LXXII, as well as Neptune XIV, none of which have gotten names. Since the discoverers of Jupiter LXII and Neptune XIV certainly intended to give names to those two, I would hesitantly speculate that there are now new policies discouraging the naming of new small moons, as it will quickly become unsustainable to do so (if it hasn't already). Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong; the name Valetudo for Jupiter LXII (which the discoverers proposed) was announced on 3 October. Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article should be removed. There are - according to the WP list found in the List of natural satellites article, 14 natural satellites KNOWN to be approximately the same size as LII. Which ones were "discovered from Earth"?? and why does that matter? I don't know and don't care. The article is enormously misleading and, based on the weasel words used, the editors did it intentionally. I also note that there are two on that list significantly smaller than LII: S/2009 S 1 and Aegaeon, both orbiting Saturn. What makes this article even worse is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of "moons" of the minor planets (see the WP articles of lists for List of minor planets) many of which are much smaller than LII. There is nothing special about LII - as far as I know - and it does not deserve its own article.~2026-29044-21 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It was discovered from an Earth-based telescope. It makes no claim that it is still the smallest known moon, only that it was the smallest discovered from Earth at time of discovery. The article was previously kept at an AfD discussion. Do not accuse Wikipedia editors of malice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)