Talk:Moons of Pluto

Dimensions

Dimensions were not added to the individual articles. They were also overly precise. Do we know their precision other than by sig fig?

Do the masses correspond to the new diameters? They also contradict the articles, and do not have their source listed. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the chart under the "List" heading, the semi-major axes of all the moons are given as larger than Pluto's! (At *best*, there is a clash of inconsistent notation systems here.)

Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 2601:407:4180:40E9:552B:60D0:F645:D3B8 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No inconsistencies there. Pluto is orbiting the center of mass of the Pluto-Charon system, which is 2035 km from the center of Pluto (outside of the solid body). All the other objects in the system orbit much further out. As stated in the footnote, all elements are with respect to the Pluto-Charon barycenter. Renerpho (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Orphaned references in Moons of Pluto

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Moons of Pluto's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gazetteer":

• From Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons: Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature: Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers
• From Cordelia (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 6 August 2006.
• From Ophelia (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2006.
• From Moons of Uranus: "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
• From Hippocamp (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology Science Center. Retrieved 22 June 2020.
• From Cupid (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-05.
• From Francisco (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
• From Portia (moon): "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
• From Moons of Neptune: "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. Retrieved 2022-06-23.
• From Moons of Saturn: "Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers". Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. USGS Astrogeology. July 21, 2006. Retrieved August 6, 2006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

New question about resonance figures

OK I happily wasn't here for the flamewar that happened up above 8 years ago, but I have different confusions...

1. Why isn't Kerberos included anywhere in the more detailed resonance calculations? Is it too small to influence its sisters or something? It can't be that it came along after the relationship was worked out, as it was found before Hydra, and it's mentioned in the "near 1:3:4:5:6" line.

2. Can't it be included somehow? It's in the simplified ratio after all, and if it's 5:6 with Hydra plus 4:5 with Nyx, then it's simple enough to double everything and have the figures be 36:44:55:66...

3. Neither of those play too nice with the actually stated decimal ratios between the Pluto-Charon barycentric orbit and that of the smaller moons. If we take Hydra as again being 66 in that case (using 33 results in a lot of "halves"), it comes out much more like 35:43:56:66... (or 11:35:43:56:66 if we include the actual binary). They're still not absolutely precise, but the residuals are smaller, and if we're already defining it with double digits (but not going to the trouble of running a program to solve it with three or more), shouldn't we have it as close as reasonably possible rather than just taking whatever sorta-kinda works for three of the moons and ignoring one of them entirely because it doesn't fit very well?

Maybe I'm missing something important here, I'm not an expert with orbital mechanics and whatever formulae are used to work this stuff out - just the numbers in front of me on the page don't mesh in a satisfactory way, and I'm wondering if maybe figures from two separate and disagreeing sources are being wildly mixed together. It's not like that doesn't happen with worrying frequency on other minor planet pages, after all... 2A00:23C8:9C94:DD01:B981:AA68:3FCF:675 (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)