This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related toAstronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
"An example of a binary asteroid is 90 Antiope, where two equal-sized components orbit each other's centre of gravity." Surely this should be "their common centre of gravity"?Acanon 12:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It should be and it now is. In future you should just make changes like that unless you're really unsure about it (in which case I don't think you'd have said "surely").Be bold in editing.—Rory☺ 12:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Is there an official ruling from the IAU we can look up on the moonlet nomenclature? As best I can tell, the usage is arabic numerals for temporary designations (e.g.S/2002 (121) 1) but roman numerals for permanent designations (e.g.(87) Sylvia I Romulus).Urhixidur 23:28, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
As we are on the subject of moons (in general), does anyone know of any Extrasolar moons? Any information will be helpful on this subjext as I have not yet heard of any "real case" of an extrasolar moon.
You can sign by typing 4 tildes (~) after your post. To answer your question, no extrasolar moons are known, although no doubt some of the planets known do have moons.CFLeon21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the sentence about discovery; Dactyl was the 1st asteroid moon CONFIRMED. Something needs to be said about the Herculina occultation (and others) in the '80s.CFLeon07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the history and included the Herculina report; offhand I don't recall the particular asteroids those other early claims involved. (When I'm online, I do not have access to my print sources.) My phrasing is rather clumsy, though- if anyone can rephrase this better, please have a go at it.CFLeon21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is "notable" about most of the moons listed -- it seems to duplicate the Main Belt list down to 1509 Esclangona, with a few random additions thereafter. I suggest emending it as follows, to include just named moons and those with their own articles:
Sounds reasonable,list of asteroid moons is more complete, anyway. While we're on the topic I have two comments
The list seems to include Trans-Neptunian moons. Is this what we want? There seems to be disagreement over whether "asteroid" refers only to bodies out to about Jupiter, or to all "small solar system bodies".
A systematic criterion would be to include all moons above a certain size cutoff, plus any others who have their own article (hence presumably being more "notable" than others of similar size). For example, 10km diameter for bodies within the orbit of Jupiter and Trojans, and 100 km for TNOs.
Perhaps the name of the article could be changed to something other than "asteroid". I don't know what the correct terminology would be; in the past I've used "minor planet", but this usage seems to be deprecated, at least in Wikipedia. But some term ought to include main belt asteroids, KBOs, Centaurs, Trojans, etc. (but not comets or meteors).RandomCritic13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On checking, I see that Wikipedia's "List of Asteroids" includes all bodies numbered by the MPC (including 1, 134340, and 136199). So perhaps "asteroids" is all right.RandomCritic13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that verifying the name by way of the title of another Wikipedia article is the best way to go. Furthermore, isn't it stretching things a bit to label Pluto and Eris as asteroids? I'm thinking that - unless we can get some official confirmation of this - we should avoid making what appeears to be an arbitrary designation. --Ckatzchatspy08:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (definitelynot one of the "Plutonuts")[reply]
Okay, I filled up the table according to your criteria, except that I used a 150km cutoff for TNOs -- otherwise the table would have been overburdened by TNO moons.RandomCritic14:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see your point about overburdening. Your original smaller table above was more pleasing visually. Maybe we should purge it further, making the cutoff 200 km? Or maybe we should put a dividing line before the first TNO to give it a bit of structure?Deuar15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me, I just discovered this article. I find the topic interesting and to be extended. I’m not comfortable with the term asteroid implied to the TNO (can you imagine if one of the "Pluto as planet" fan will do if he finds Pluto here?).Minor Planet Center assigns numbers not only to the asteroids, of course. Again, I feel putting together all smallbinary objects together is right. Just the title is not.Eurocommuter22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seemsSolar System Binaries is the fashionable term for 2006. TNB stands for trans-Neptunian Binaries. Binary does not need to have the baricenter outside the primary i.e. the term applies for small satellite orbiting much bigger object as well. Further, among TNO terms close/distant binary are also used. Among asteroids ‘distant’ are probably seriously doomed (not known?).Eurocommuter23:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to start an article aboutbinary objects in the Solar system when I discovered this one. I’ve drafted a few sections in assumption that we can find consensus to change the title (my preference) to include non-asteroids, as the the table already does (see the comments above). Alternatively, we could have separate articles on binary asteroids and binary TNO and the new content can be moved there.Eurocommuter09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title definitely doesn't work. It would be nice to keep all the minor bodies with moons together, though. And don't forget Orcus's moon.kwami01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, from a terminology basis at least, "minor planet" was a cognate with "asteroid". That's why we have "main belt" asteroids - any minor planet that's outside that belt, but isn't large enough to count as a dwarf planet, is still an asteroid. It's just *also* a minor planet at the same time, in the same way that all the asteroids in the main belt except for Ceres are also minor planets. And even the dividing line between those and comets is extremely fuzzy these days.
For example, Chaos has been described as a trans-Neptunian asteroid in some places, and that's as valid a name as calling it a TNO minor planet. It's an irregularly shaped lump of rock some dozens of kilometres across, orbiting the sun directly rather than some other larger planet. Sounds like an asteroid to me.146.199.0.203 (talk)18:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More than a year later after the comments above, I’d like to suggest (again) splitting the asteroids and TNOs binaries (TNB). My main reasons:
there is a growing literature for the TNBs, an excellent source for a separate article
the significance of the binaries for TNOs is crucial for the physical properties (less so for the established asteroids’ science)
TNB have a distinct set of researchers and scientific articles (and to some extend, I believe, somehow different sets Wikipedia editors and readers).
the models of origin, physical characteristics, orbits etc are quite different for TNB and binary asteroids
the title of this article is at odds with the termbinary (triple, multiple) used exclusively in the TNO literature.
we do have (rightly, of course) separate articles on TNOs, main-belt asteroids and Centaurs. We could afford one for TNBs.
As Wikipedia already hasbinary asteroid in addition to this article, I did not want to add to the confusion by creatingbinary trans-Neptunian object without some support. On the other hand, adding substantial TNB-related content to this article would imbalance it completely IMO.Eurocommuter (talk)13:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Minor planet moon" does not seem to be a set term that would warrant overriding normal English punctuation and the MOS. There are zero hits at GScholar, for example, and most (maybe all?) of the few hits on GBooks are WP mirrors. Any reason not to punctuate it properly as "minor-planet moon"? —kwami (talk)23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asteroid moon is a rather different animal than trans-Neptunian moon. People aren't normally thinking of Charon. Split the article? —kwami (talk)22:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original topic of interest for this article was asteroid moons. You can see that throughout the top half of the page: we have photos of the moons of Ida and Pulcova, and in the history section we don't even mention Charon, despite it being the first MP moon discovered. This reads as an article on asteroid moons, with "BTW, TNOs are also MPs" tacked on here and there so we could rename the article. —kwami (talk)18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, the article needs work. But what is the added value of having separate articles on asteroid moons and trans-Neptunian moons? --JorisvS (talk)22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we even need an article on TNO moons? So many TNOs have moons that I doubt it would be interesting; any generic info could be merged intonatural satellite. Asteroid moons, however, were a notable discovery and got a fair amount of press. —kwami (talk)23:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links onMinor-planet moon. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
I have just modified 3 external links onMinor-planet moon. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
With better imaging resolution of the system, it's become clear (since like 2009!) that Lempo is actually a binary system (maybe more properly Lempo-Hiisi, as it's former "larger moon" Hiisi is actually only about 20km smaller than Lempo (92% of its size), and Lempo took a serious hit to its own estimated size when that analysis came in), with just the one moon, Paha, orbiting *both* of the central bodies. That in itself is probably noteworthy for maintaining an individual link as it being "a binary system with one moon", but it's not a single-primary system with two moons as listed...146.199.0.203 (talk)18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that alteration, this table is... well, a mess, and I'm not even sure why it exists when there's no other table nearby for the other categories. It needs either fixing or deleting.
The age of the data in it seems extremely variable for one thing - e.g, it contains the information that Lempo is a trinary, but then asserts that Pluto is ALSO trinary system... even though we now know it to be composed of (at least!) six bodies. The structure being, depending on who you believe, either a central dwarf planet with one unusually large (would individually still be a strong DP candidate), close-orbiting moon and four other much smaller, more distant ones, OR a central lopsided binary (ie, Pluto-Charon) with four small moons orbiting *that*. Either way, it's certainly not a trinary by any stretch of the imagination.
I can't claim comprehensive knowledge of all the other items on that list, but given the range of discovery / determination dates listed in there, I would be surprised to find that Pluto is the only piece of misleadingly stale information.146.199.0.203 (talk)18:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for3122 Florence,(136617) 1994 CC, and(153591) 2001 SN263 all state that these are the only three trinary asteroids, with the latter two saying that they have been “unambiguously identified [as] triple asteroids,” implying that other triple asteroids have not been confirmed.
Seeing the long list of trinary asteroids here, I can only surmise that these statements are mistaken. Can someone please confirm? In which case, one will need to update the three above-mentioned pages accordingly.
What is the source of the provisional designations shown in the various tables? There are only two sources for official IAU satellite designations (whether of major planets or minor planets): Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (for objects reported prior to the 2015 IAU General Assembly); and the Minor Planet Center (for objects reported after). I do not see any mention of a lot of these designations in any publications of either the CBAT or the MPC.MPCBod (talk)01:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPCBod andExoplanetaryscience: Thanks for the comment, MPCBod, and apologies that it took so long for anyone to respond to this. The issue you raise is a valid one, and I believe this article needs a major overhaul. I am tagging Exoplanetaryscience as one of the main contributors to this page.
MPCBod, as you said in your email to me, "there are no official provisional designations for most minor-planet natural satellites."There is a simple way to check if a name is official or not, which is to go to the JPL SBDB page of these objects, which is linked directly from our Wikipedia list as a reference for most objects, and check the "Satellites" section. If it says "undesignated" then the name is not official. For example, the satellite of(32039) 2000 JO23 is listed asS/2007 (32039) 1 in our list, but not by JPL.[1]Sadly this method is unreliable, see edit from 08:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC).Renerpho (talk)08:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is where it gets complicated: Some of the designations are not only unofficial, but simply false, meaning they do not follow the correct format. I have checked with Exoplanetaryscience, who wrote much of this table in 2016 (when they were still a child!), and they thought the designations were straightforward and could just be assigned automatically. I am quoting the relevant parts of our off-wiki conversation here with their permission (apologies again to Exoplanetaryscience that I certainly sounded a bit harsh at some points):
Renerpho — Today at 2:27 PM I think much (about 11%) of that article is your work, mostly from edits made back in 2016.
Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:27 PM oh yeah... I figured the designations were pretty straightforward and just automatically assigned as a matter of course
Renerpho — Today at 2:28 PM You did what?
Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:28 PM well you know, I figured it was like exoplanets. If an exoplanet is discovered around the star and there are not any known exoplanets, it's just [star] b you don't usually need some specific agency to officially declare that it's star b, it just is
Renerpho — Today at 2:29 PM I see.
Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:29 PM obviously i know that's not quite the case now lol
Renerpho — Today at 2:29 PM I would like to quote you on this on-wiki, would you mind?
Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:30 PM yeah it's fine by me, i take full responsibility for any difficulties created as a result lol
The most problematic case of such a "fictitious designation" is that of the moon of trans-Neptunian object(38628) Huya, which is listed asS/2012 (38628) 1, even though JPL doesn't give that designation. That designation actually predates this table, as well as Exoplanetaryscience's edits, by about a year. First added to the article about Huya in 2015 asS/2012 38628 Huya 1,[2] it was later changed to its current form to more closely resemble the format of the official designations. The problem is that Huya's satellite was announced in 2012, but first observed in 2002,[3] and its designation would have beenS/2002 (38628) 1 if it had received one. The error got missed when(38628) Huya was rewritten in 2019 and turned into aWP:Good Article (again by a user who was still very young at that point; I'm afraid that's kind of a theme in this story). It was also missed when the name was picked up by a scientific journal for the first time in 2021,[4] and again in 2022,[5] and once again this month.[6] By then, what started as a user-generated fictitious name had become what we might consider itsWP:COMMONNAME, possibly making it "as good as official" for most purposes that concern Wikipedia. We may need to discuss that separately, as it is a prime example of late-stageWP:CITOGENESIS. No matter what we decide to do on Wikipedia, it is my opinion that its usage in the scientific literature should cease immediately.
I have no issue with people of any age contributing to Wikipedia. A lack of familiarity with the subject matter, and be it only because the user has not yet finished their secondary education, is an issue though. But that's a topic I would rather see being discussed elsewhere, if necessary. Let's concentrate here on the content of the article, and of the additional articles "in its orbit" (pun intended), those about specific objects that repeat the errors listed here.
How do we move forward? I think this article needs a complete overhaul. Given that many of the designations provided here are both false and unreferenced (having been made up by an editor who didn't know better), I suggest that we blank the tables until the issue can be resolved. Enough damage has been done already.
This uh, sounds pretty bad. I'm not that familiar on the astronomy side of space, but to me this seems to warrant the drastic and immediate action proposed here. Not sure how to handle Huya's satellite, as even if it is citogenesis on our part the fictitious designation has now spread to several publications.WP:COMMONNAME may not apply just yet since no major body has ever recognized or used the designation, just a handful of research teams.ArkHyena (it/its)19:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of my depth on this topic, and so would not know how to correct it. I feel that this doesnot qualify as aWP:COMMONNAME, and we should certainly erase any citogenic information. —Quondum20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I think we should delete all these by default. In cases where the citogenesis has spread to actual research papers, maybe there's an argument, but I would still favour removal: it's not a common name, just a misunderstanding.Double sharp (talk)23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no fake official names. We can move it to a temp name likeHuya 1 orsatellite of Huya until this is resolved.
First to be addressed should be multiple systems. If thhere's only a single known satellite, we can call it 'moon of X' if it has an article, and 'no designation' for a mention in tables like this one.— kwami (talk)23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that may be the only article title that's a problem. In our nav template we mention '2013 FY27 I', which seems fine to me as an informal designation. It links toS/2018 (532037) 1, but that's a rd. I haven't checked if it's legit.— kwami (talk)23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, FY27 I is also undesignated. I'll change the rd but leave that designation in the nav box for s.o. else to change if they think it needs to be.— kwami (talk)23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the initial replies, I have removed (nearly) all the provisional designations, and have tagged the article as "factually disputed", linking to this discussion. I suggest that designations are added back on a case-by-case basis. I had to automate removing the designations, and I may have broken some special characters (like– for–) in the process; I'll check again, but may not catch all of them.
I found a few cases that were clearly wrong, in the same way as Huya. I also found a few that might be right, but which I could not confirm because they are special cases. The most interesting was the provisional designation ofSelam (Dinkinesh I), a.k.a. S/2023 (152830) 1. If anyone could find out where that provisional designation comes from, that would be nice.
Yes, adding on to Renerpho's mention of my finding about Xiangliu's provisional designation. To summarize, "S/2010 (225088) 1" is an incorrect designation which also happens to be citogenesis, whichI started in 2019 (not knowing any better then) and later got incorporated by JPL's Small Body Database whenits website underwent a redesign in September 2021. As Renerpho mentioned below, JPL's Small Body Database isn't exactly authoritative on provisional designations. Not only that, the designation "S/2010 (225088) 1" has never been used in scientific literature, so I think it's safe to say we can disregard JPL SBDB as a source and just remove all mentions of "S/2010 (220588) 1". Anyways, here's my full investigation of Xiangliu's provisional designation:Nrco0e(talk •contribs)23:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the contest ended, it seems like more websites (mainly encyclopedias and fact regurgitators, not actual articles) began using the S/2010 designation straight from Wikipedia.
Sometime in (or after) September 2021, JPL's SBDB updated to include minor planet satellite information and they added S/2010 (225088) 1 as the prov. designation for Xiangliu.
However, the 2010 part of the designation is wrong, because 2010 isn't the year of first observation for Xiangliu (at the time of its discovery announcement).
@Nrco0e: Thanks! I wasn't aware that the designation for Xiangliu actually had the wrong year, like Huya. At least we can reconstruct the history of those fabricated designations quite convincingly.Renerpho (talk)00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the moons that are currently listed only in the "[name] I" format, I have done nothing. It should be checked if provisional designations exist, and if not, if fictitious ones are used in the Wikipedia articles (like in the Gonggong/Xiangliu example).Renerpho (talk)07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the "[name] I" format is fine, but perhaps we should note in articles that use it that it's an informal designation.— kwami (talk)07:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: I wouldn't call those "informal". They are assigned by IAU when the satellite is named, as in[7] (bottom of the page). In those cases, there is a reference to cite, and the designation is official. Are they ever assigned before the naming of the satellite?
Can we be sure that, in cases where a second satellite is found later and they both get named, that "[name] I" & "[name] II" are assigned in the chronological order of their discovery (rather than, say, ordered by distance from the primary)? Otherwise we run into the same problem we have with the other format: We assign designations ourselves, overconfident about our understanding of the process, in anticipation of an eventual official designation in that format. That'sWP:OR.Renerpho (talk)08:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they're formal names, then that solves our problem. We could then useMakemake I,Huya I andFY27 I as article names. But I suspect not, not without evidence that they actually are the formal name. If we can't show that, I think we'd have to say they're informal or ad hoc.
@Kwamikagami: On the contrary, them being (potential) formal designations is precisely the problem.Makemake I,Huya I andFY27 I are all "informal", in the sense that IAU has not (yet) assigned those designations;Dinkinesh I is not, that's an actual designation. We should refrain from assigning any designations, formal or not, that mimic the format of an official designation. It just causes confusion, and it may bite us later. "[name] I" is not that different from "S/[year] ([number]) 1", and we should be warned by how guessing those has gone.
The alternative is to follow every such "[name] I" designation by an explicit "(informal)". That's clumsy, but it might work within an article or a table like this one. If we want to use those as article names then that's in conflict with Wikipedia's own naming guidelines.Renerpho (talk)03:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's not a very good approach. Maybe we should restrict ourselves to generic phrasing such 'moon', 'Huya's moon', etc.— kwami (talk)03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[...] 3. If the moon is neither numbered nor named, use the provisional designation, e.g.S/2003 J 10.
For moons of minor planets, follow the generaltitling policy.
The naming guideline for moons of planets assumes that a provisional designation exists, and no specific guidance is given for minor-planet moons. I think this needs to be clarified once we've decided how to handle this.Renerpho (talk)03:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or be specific about what maynot be a RS specifically for minor-planet moons, even though it is usually considered one for related topics (JPL).Renerpho (talk)03:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if JPL says 'no designation', we can probably take that at face value [assuming they're up to date]. But if they provide a designation, we can't accept that. Though an actual name - that's probably fine.— kwami (talk)03:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar problem with ASCII hacks for Unicode characters, even at the MPC/IAU. I've written in about errors, and they've said they'll fix them, but the fixes are often piecemeal. I don't think we should copy ASCII hacks just because they're on an official website. They initially objected to Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà and its moon because they couldn't handle the click letters, until ppl pointed out that that would violate their claim of inclusivity. They then accepted it, but with several ad hoc renderings.— kwami (talk)03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: As an example for one of their "ASCII hacks": There wasa question a few years ago whether it should be4388 Jürgenstock or4388 Jurgenstock. The former is the correct name, but the latter is how the MPC[8] and JPL[9] spell it, just returning an error when searching for the correct spelling.[10][11] It turns out they just can't handle umlauts (or any non-ASCII characters) and omit them by default. For names of asteroids, we can't trust the JPL or MPC websites, and have to go to the original source (an announcement in a Minor Planet Circular or WGSBN Bulletin). The issue for minor-planet moons is similar, only designations that were announced in an IAUC, a MPEC, or by WGSBN can be assumed to be real.Renerpho (talk)04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But even then there may be problems. The Hawaiian 'okina, for example, may be rendered different ways in the circulars and bulletins. That's not an intentional, or meaningful, distinction, just how the name happened to be typed up in different instances. Same with the palatalization mark in Russian names. Some have been corrected in subsequent bulletins, but not consistently.— kwami (talk)04:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this is clearly a problem, I think it's better to discuss it elsewhere, since that specific issue doesn't affect thedesignations of minor-planet moons (which are ASCII by default). Fornames of such moons, it may of course be an issue.Renerpho (talk)04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if JPL says 'no designation', we can probably take that at face value [assuming they're up to date]. But if they provide a designation, we can't accept that. Agreed. And that's even though they always provide a reference for the designations, sometimes even a link to an IAUC. As shown by the example of "S/1997 (35107) 1" (see below), that's not sufficient.Renerpho (talk)04:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new complication: JPL, which I thought relied solely on official designations, sometimes uses designations assigned in papers (similar to the Huya case), and should not be used to check if a designation exists. What matters is whether there is an IAUC issued by CBAT with the designation.
As an example, take2001 QG298's possible satellite "S/2003 (139775) 1". It is unclear if that satellite actually exists. The name comes from Sheppard & Jewitt 2004. AJ 127, 3023, which is the reference used by JPL.[12] No IAUC was ever issued, and as far as the IAU is concerned, the satellite (if it exists) is considered undesignated. 2002 QG298 is believed to be a contact binary, an explanation even favored over a "true" satellite by Sheppard & Jewitt themselves.
The moon of1991 VH has been designated "S/2008 (35107) 1" in itsIAUC 8977 (that's the official designation). JPL instead uses "S/1997 (35107) 1", a name that has never been used inany publication. JPL's referencePravec et al. (1997), IAUC 6607 doesnot assign that designation, making this a case where JPL assigned it themselves (without having that authority, and in contradiction to what CBAT did 11 years later).Strangely, this is a case where IAU broke its own rule of assigning designations based on the earliest observation.
Of course there comes a point where we can't be expected to follow a paper trail. But I suggest that we stop using JPL as the reference for whether a minor-planet moon has a designation, and what that designation should be, and rather go to the original source (CBAT/IAUC).Renerpho (talk)08:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, this is a case where IAU broke its own rule of assigning designations based on the earliest observation. -- I've asked Gareth Williams (IAU) if that's true. It turns out the rule is a bit more nuanced: "Provisional designations are only given when there are observations showing the satellite as a distinct entity separate from the primary. The 1997 observations were only a suspicion of the binary nature, based on light curve studies." The designation "S/2008 (35107) 1" is not in error, but JPL's is.Renerpho (talk)21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the fictitious designations are "hard-coded" into widely used images from Wikimedia Commons. I have asked the file creator of one such image,File:Trans-Neptunians Size Albedo Color.svg to remove those from the image.[13] There are likely more such instances that each need to be addressed individually.Renerpho (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) That image has been taken care of.Renerpho (talk)02:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An addition to what I wrote about the satellite of Huya, and how its fictitious designation came to be: It turns out that the IP user did not invent the wrong designation in 2015. At least they weren't the first to do so. An article "S/2012 (38628) 1" was created on the Portuguese Wikipedia on 18 June 2014[14] without giving any references that would have supported that title.Renerpho (talk)23:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese article has been moved to a neutral title (like on the English Wikipedia); other articles about minor planet satellites with wrong designations should follow, according touser SEPRodrigues.Renerpho (talk)19:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i moved and reworded the french and German articles on huya's moon as well, thouh Renerpho maybe you could check that i didn't completely screw up the German. i've done this a few times with other objects on other wikis, but not consistently.— kwami (talk)20:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Thanks for that! I've moved the German article to a title that's probably more grammatically correct. I say "probably" because any such construction is going to be clumsy in German. I had already removed any mention of "S/2012 (38628) 1" three days ago.Renerpho (talk)21:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SenseiAC: I just noticed that the FrenchListe de systèmes astéroïdaux lists a lot of the fictitious/false designations that we have recently removed from the English article. Most of that list is your work, so I thought I might ask if you could help by doing the same on the French version?Renerpho (talk)21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SenseiAC: Is it? Take (139775) 2001 QG298 for example. Johnston's table[15] lists "S/2003 (139775) 1" as a designation for the satellite. The page for the object itself[16] doesn't mention that designation, and I cannot find a reliable source for it. JPL lists it, with a reference to "Sheppard & Jewitt 2004. AJ 127, 3023",[17] but the designation is not mentioned in that paper, and Sheppard&Jewitt only suggest a possible binary nature as one of several possibilities to explain the object's lightcurve (another being a contact binary). None of the references given by Johnston mention the designation, and none of them would be qualified to assign one. Johnston usesTakahashi 2004 as his reference for the properties of the satellite. The abstract of that paper shows that this is not a confirmed binary. As said by Gareth Williams (near the beginning of this thread), IAU only gives designations to satellites that have been directly imaged. That would be impossible for the putative moon of 2001 QG298. More recent publications, like[18] from 2011, favor the contact binary model -- indicating that the designation is not only wrong, but that the satellite listed by Johnston does not exist.Renerpho (talk)12:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Johnston uses JPL SBDB, which would make his site useless as a reference for satellite designations (just like JPL's). I'll try to confirm though with Johnston himself.Renerpho (talk)00:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The most problematic case of such a "fictitious designation" is that of the moon of trans-Neptunian object (38628) Huya, which is listed as S/2012 (38628) 1, even though JPL doesn't give that designation. That designation actually predates this table, as well as Exoplanetaryscience's edits, by about a year. First added to the article about Huya in 2015 as S/2012 38628 Huya 1,[2] it was later changed to its current form to more closely resemble the format of the official designations. The problem is that Huya's satellite was announced in 2012, but first observed in 2002,[3] and its designation would have been S/2002 (38628) 1 if it had received one."
As systematic designations go, S/2012 (38628) 1 follows the expected form. IAUC 9253 does not mention a designation, and does report "archival data shows evidence of the unresolved secondary in images obtained with the HST Imaging Spectrograph instrument on 2002 June 30.81257 and 2002 July 01.61459." This wouldnot have resulted in the designation changing to S/2002 (38628) 1 (these designations never backdate to precovery images). Intriguingly, S/2012 (38628) 1 is used (sparingly) in the litterature. One finds F. L. Rommel et al. (2025),Stellar occultation observations of (38628) Huya and its satellite: a detailed look into the system, stating "Observations from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) revealed a 1.4-mag fainter companion located about 1740 km from the primary body, provisionally designated as S/2012 (38628) 1 (Noll et al. 2012), though its orbit remains unpublished." but the Noll et al. 2012 reference is IAUC 9253, so that's not convincing at all.Urhixidur (talk)02:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would not have resulted in the designation changing to S/2002 (38628) 1 (these designations never backdate to precovery images)
What do you mean by that exactly? There's moons likeS/2004 N 1 (Hippocamp) that were first identified in later imagery (e.g. 2013 in the aforementioned example), but were precovered (e.g. 2004 aforementioned) and ended up with the precovery year in their designations.Nrco0e(talk •contribs)05:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: Back in January, I asked WGSBN Secretary Gareth Williams (who had started this thread) about that, and whether the designation would have been "2002" rather than "2012". He confirmed it, quote:if there had been [an official provisional designation], the designation would have been based on the date of first observation, not the first reporting. So you are correct in your statement. His statement included no word about precovery observations being handled differently.Renerpho (talk)06:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hippocamp is a nice analogue to the situation with Huya: It was found in 2013, using images taken in 2009, and was then also found in images from 2004. It ended up being designated according to the date of first observation: S/2004 N1 -- not "S/2013 N1". In the same way, Huya's satellite, which was found in 2012 using images from 2002, would have been "S/2002 (38628) 1", if it had qualified for a provisional designation.Renerpho (talk)07:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. I guess I stand somewhat corrected. However, wouldn't this mean multiple different provisional designations could occur? Say an object is spotted in year X and announced in an IAUC, but some other author later reports a precovery in year Y. Would the designation change?Urhixidur (talk)15:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: If the later observations were immediately connected to the other tracklet then I think the designation would remain the same. If they are announced as a new object, they would get a new designation, and I think both designations would remain valid even when those two tracklets are later linked together. For asteroids, that is a regular occurrence, and I suppose it is possible for moons as well (although I don't think this has ever happened).Renerpho (talk)15:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the designation "S/2006 (50000) 1" from theWeywot article. The reference that was given there was JPL (not a reliable source for provisional designations, per the above), who give "Brown and Saur 2007", a.k.a.IAUC 8812, which in turn doesn't assign a designation. If IAU has assigned a provisional designation elsewhere, feel free to add it backwith the correct source.
I have also removed apparently fictitious designations fromActaea (moon) andVanth (moon). The latter included an interesting note, which I am copying here so it doesn't get lost:
In his blog posts, Michael Brown wrote Vanth's provisional designation asS/1 90482 (2005), which is a not a standard way of writing satellite provisional designations.[1][2]
In 2009, Brown wrote on his website that (quote, my emphasis)“S/1 90482 (2005)” is really not much a name as a license plate number. As does a license plate number, it tells you pretty much everything you need to know to identify the object in question. “S” is for satellite. “/1” means it is the first discovered. The “2005” at the end tells the date of discover, and the “90482” tells whose satellite it is, but only by yet another number. This number refers to the 90482nd minor planet (in the old terminology; no one quite knows what the new terminology is, but the numbers keep coming) to be officially recorded. That object is more commonly referred to as the large Kuiper belt object Orcus. We don’t ever call the moon of Orcus by itsofficial name of S/1 90482 (2005). Instead, around here, it is referred to mostly as “the moon of Orcus.”[1] This is, of course, not how official designations work -- not then, and not now.
I have a problem with the provisional designations of the moons of Pluto.JPL SBDB, which we have established as not authoritative, gives the following designations and references:
(134340) Pluto I Charon — Year Discovered: 1978 — Provisional Designation: S/1978 (134340) 1 — Reference: Smith (1978), IAUC 3241
(134340) Pluto II Nix — Year Discovered: 2005 — Provisional Designation: S/2005 (134340) 1 — Reference: Weaver et al. (2005), IAUC 8625
(134340) Pluto III Hydra — Year Discovered: 2005 — Provisional Designation: S/2005 (134340) 2 — Reference: Weaver et al. (2005), IAUC 8625
(134340) Pluto IV Kerberos — Year Discovered: 2011 — Provisional Designation: S/2011 (134340) 1 — Reference: Showalter et al. (2011), CBET 2769
(134340) Pluto V Styx — Year Discovered: 2012 — Provisional Designation: S/2012 (134340) 1 — Reference: Showalter et al. (2012), IAUC 9253
Most of these are either dubious, or don't agree with what we write on Wikipedia.
IAUC 3241 assigns the designation "1978 P 1". "S/1978 (134340) 1" would have been anachronistic because Pluto wasn't numbered in 1978. That designation would have had to be announced after the numbering of Pluto, but before Charon was named, which is impossible. As far as I can tell, "S/1978 (134340) 1" is not used anywhere on the English Wikipedia, so this is not a big deal. It just shows once again that JPL is worse than useless on this particular question.
IAUC 8625 assigns "S/2005 P 1" and "S/2005 P 2". No word of the provisional designations claimed by JPL, but this isn't a problem becauseNix (moon) andHydra (moon) don't cite JPL, and are giving the correct designations. All good for those two.
CBET 2769 does assign "S/2011 (134340) 1" to Kerberos, so JPL is correct about this. The CBET does, however, not assign the designation "S/2011 P 1" that is claimed in theKerberos (moon) Wikipedia article, which cites Scott Sheppard's private website. We have found in the sectionSheppard's TNO satellites that Sheppard is not authoritative in this matter either, and that many designations given on his website are false.
I have no access to IAUC 9253 at the moment.Styx (moon) is claiming a provisional designation "S/2012 (134340) 1" (without citation), which I strongly suspect is wrong.
I just removed the designation "S/2001 (58534) 1" from58534 Logos. It is given by JPL (established as unreliable per prior discussion),[20] with reference toIAUC 7824, but the designation is not assigned there. Johnston doesn't mention it.[21] It looks like we're still not quite done with fixing this problem.Renerpho (talk)14:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find a source for the provisional designation ofSquannit,S/2001 (66391) 1? Neither of the two relevant telegramsIAUC 7632 andIAUC 7633 mentions the designation; JPL doesn't give it,[22] and neither does Johnston.[23] I think this is another one that was missed during our first round of clean-up, in which I ignored named moons. I have now checked the named moons in the table, and all the others seem to be okay.
I haveremoved the fictitious designationS/2003 (1089) 1 fromPierre Antonini. We had previously removed it from1089 Tama, but we missed the associated biography. I believe that this is the only such case.
My original searches for fictitious designations only included asteroids that are actually listed inour list. There are quite a few asteroids that are binaries but that were never added to the table. Examples that I just dealt with include:
4383 Suruga, which mentioned a satelliteS/2013 (4383) 1 (designationremoved)
Both of these were added in June 2017, during a large sweep of updates to many hundreds of asteroid articles by the now inactiveRfassbind. As far as I can tell, these two are the only extant minor-planet moon designations that got added to articles at that time.
I just checked when (and by whom) the fictitious designation for Squannit had been added. It turns out it was on Wikipediasince 24 July 2004. The fictitious designation of58534 Logos that I removed on 27 September 2025 was added on14 July 2006 by the same user. Since all the reliable sources for the designation are younger than 2004, I think we have a case ofWP:CITOGENESIS here.Renerpho (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I just confirmed that the only source in the article at the point of the 24 July 2004 addition,Johnston's Archive (archived url from June 2004), did not support a designation for the moon. It did, however, link to a lot of news reports by reliable sources,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] none of which by August 2004 claimed that the satellite had a designation.Renerpho (talk)01:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: I just noticed that you are still active (and have been serving as an admin since 2004, nice!). I think these two designations were added by you, in 2004 and 2006. Do you remember where you got them from?Renerpho (talk)00:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed 18 designations I had missed the first time. There are a number of Wikipedia articles about those asteroids that also use the false designations. Among the articles that use themerroneously are:
I've taken care of everything except Berna and Balam, which require more than removing single sentences. I have removed the false designation for the third satellite of130 Elektra from that article.Renerpho (talk)01:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the satellite designations from Berna and Balam. Quite annoyingly, I see that almost all of these minor planet articles have inappropriate italics for the asteroid names (a byproduct ofUser:Rfassbind's edits to these articles), but that's beside the point.Nrco0e(talk •contribs)01:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1727 Mette Includes an infobox with a wrong designation. How can it be removed without breaking the template? Just removing the "name" parameter cause it to default to "1727 Mette", which is wrong.Renerpho (talk)02:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Mette, I'm done checking the Mars crossers. Next is the by far largest section (and likely the one containing the most errors), about main belt asteroids.Renerpho (talk)02:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Has it been named that, or are all of these cases where CBAT is falling into the same trap as JPL? If no naming can be located then we should contact Gareth again.Renerpho (talk)02:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OmegaAndromedae: You've just tried to add back "S/2000 (90) 1" to the article, without reference. We had removed this one out of caution, together with the more clear-cut cases of false designations. I think it's best to leave it out, unless you can make a convincing case for it. As explained above, the one official way how designations are assigned is by being announced in anIAU Circular. Not a paper, not a database like JPL. Whether we count telegrams is a matter of debate because they are technically issued by the IAU, although I believe the amount of oversight is minimal for those (and there's a standard notice at the end of every CBET, includinghttp://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iau/cbet/001200/CBET001263.txt, stating that IAUCs supersede them). I'd be hesitant to include designations that are only used in passing, like this.Renerpho (talk)09:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my addition of the designation but it was mentioned on 90 Antiope, this has a designation on the article and and mentioned bellow it before the moons of the pjupiter trojans so it was quite convincing. If it was rather not included in both the article of 90 Antiope and the article which where you saw the anomaly. In my case, it was a quite convincing name an was in articles where information of it would be completely valid and deeply sourced.OmegaAndromedae (talk)11:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its great! Since S/2000 (90) 1 is an unofficial name. But it would be better if like it had a name of S/2000 (90) 1 here and has the(unoffical) at the bottom like how the Gamma and Beta name were with the Near-Earth Objects.OmegaAndromedae (talk)22:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously isn't but it's a name just not formal or well known. Take Gamma and Beta of 1994 CC, they are included though with the (unofficial) tag at the bottom, just like S/2000 (90) 1.OmegaAndromedae (talk)22:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are included in some cases, but not "just like S/2000 (90) 1". Those "beta" and "gamma" designations are sometimes assigned in papers so that the authors can refer to satellites in systems where there is more than one moon, or where things need to be disambiguated for other reasons. To my knowledge, there is no paper that does this for 90 Antiope. I think including those nicknames in the articles is about the same as mentioning the nickname "MK2" for Makemake's satellite. Those names are understood as placeholders.
"S/2000 (90) 1" is unofficial in a very different sense. It has never been formally assigned in an IAUC, but has been used by the IAU in a telegram once. If it wasn't for its usage in that CBET, I'd argue that we should get rid of it entirely...
I'm not sure how to handle the telegram. As I said in my comment from 02:52, 8 February 2025, this may be a case where we should ask Gareth again for the IAU's view on the matter.Renerpho (talk)23:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a moon has no designation, I've been placing '(satellite)' or '(moon)' in the 'name' slot. I think we need something to ID the topic of the info box— kwami (talk)03:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The info box will appear in various places depending on the reader's setup. It's rarely in the satellite section. It may be fairly obvious what it describes, but it's still best to be clear and state it overtly, if only for ease of skimming the article.— kwami (talk)04:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami beat me to it. That designation is as false as the others.
This complicates things, because the checks I did were specifically for designations starting with "S/" (a string that can be quickly found in any article). If there are false designations of the form "[name] I" floating around, I wouldn't have caught them.Renerpho (talk)18:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles like this in many other language Wikis. The one most heavily affected seems to be the German one. I've posteda comment on their talk page for Euphrosyne's satellite (which has its own article on that Wikipedia).Renerpho (talk)18:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't even use the PAGENAME magic word because the MPC number won't be included. There aren't all that many satellite info boxes, so those can be searched by hand, but searching the text would be a pain. I don't know if there's a reliable way to program JWB to do the search.— kwami (talk)18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only been adding 'satellite' where there is no name, but noticed the same should be done with854 Frostia
User:Renerpho made a comment about 1991 VH's moon provisional designation earlier. In short, S/2008 (35107) 1 is the commonly-used designation in papers and was assigned in the CBET that announced its discovery in radar observation. The 1997 designation was never used.Nrco0e(talk •contribs)19:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I thought perhaps the alt name was still there after the error was pointed out because JPL had used it -- that is, that JPL was a RS for JPL, without any claim that it was valid beyond that. Should it be removed?— kwami (talk)21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether having it makes it more or less likely that someone finds it and uses it incorrectly, or that someone tries to add it back. Following your latest edit, it says that the designation is spurious. I'd keep it as it is now.Renerpho (talk)21:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to finish the work on this, so we can finally get rid of that "disputed" hat note: I've now removedEugenia II as a probably invalid designation ofS/2004 (45) 1. Designations with Roman numerals are assigned when the satellite is named, which hasn't happened in this case. There are no other cases like this in the table.Renerpho (talk)22:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article used to include a hidden comment <!-- (Eugenia II) once confirmed and named --> untilthis edit. The "and named" part is crucial. I won't add that comment back though. I think we've established that it's a bad idea to assume possible future designations.Renerpho (talk)22:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered a few edge cases, but decided not to do anything about them, because the differences between the official names and those used on Wikipedia are minuscule. The most interesting (and still pedantic) case that I found was the official name ofPetit-Prince (moon), which Wikipedia gives as(45) Eugenia I Petit-Prince since 2004. The corresponding IAUC[37], issued 3 October 2000, gives(45) Eugenia I (Petit-Prince) -- with "Petit-Prince" in parentheses. The version on Wikipedia is technically wrong, but whatever. If anyone cares about the difference, please reply here and tag me.Renerpho (talk)23:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there is no rhyme or reason to the format of those names. The official announcement ofRomulus (moon), whose official name is given as(87) Sylvia I Romulus in the Wikipedia article, assigns the name(87) Sylvia I = Romulus.[38] The official announcement of47171 Lempo#Paha gives no full official designation at all,[39] leaving Wikipedia's version(47171) Lempo I Paha technically unreferenced. This looks (to me) like the IAU doesn't care about the exact format, so we probably don't need to care either. Right?Renerpho (talk)23:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i 'fixed' petit-prince, but per your latest maybe better to use a consistent format on wp when we're only dealing with differences in punctuation. the way i read it, the punctuation isn't intended as part of the formal nomenclature, but rather marks explanations. so eg(45) Eugenia I (Petit-Prince) means '(45) Eugenia I (which btw is named Petit-Prince)' and(87) Sylvia I = Romulus means '(87) Sylvia I (which btw is named Romulus)'. from responses when writing to ppl, things are perhaps a bit less formal there than we might expeect, and i think we can apply consistency in formatting without harm.— kwami (talk)23:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: I think that's fine! Maybe we should drop the claim that names like(45) Eugenia I (Petit-Prince) are "formal", when that doesn't appear to be the case. The formal part of this is(45) Eugenia I, the rest is just some way to state what its name is. Some of our articles, likeWeywot, already interpret it that way, quote:Weywot (formal designation(50000) Quaoar I; provisional designationS/2006 (50000) 1) is a natural satellite or moon of the trans-Neptunian dwarf planet Quaoar. An example where the IAU itself interprets their own publications in this way is[40] vs.[41].
Scott Sheppard has started to use apparently fictitious designations for some of his TNO satellite discoveries on[43]:
KBO satellite S/2007TY430 1 (numbered (341520) and named Mors-Somnus)
KBO satellite S/2014LQ28 1
KBO satellite S/2005SF278 1
KBO satellite S/2015QL14 1
Dwarf Planet satellite S/2013 FY27 1
KBO satellite S/2021DN15 1
KBO satellite S/2021DS15 1
KBO satellite S/2021DM15 1
Nrco0e asked off-wiki how we should deal with those, especially the satellite of2013 FY27, a.k.a. Chiminigagua. This looks similar to the case of theSatellite of 38628 Huya, and my proposal would be to keep referring to it asSatellite of 532037 Chiminigagua. I see no evidence that any of Sheppard's designations are used elsewhere, and they're definitely not IAU-sanctioned. I presume Sheppard made them up himself, possibly without being aware that these designations don't quite work like that.
In the case of the satellite of Mors-Somnus, JPL are also using that designation, with reference toIAUC 8962. The designation isnot assigned there. This is one more case where JPL use a fictitious designation, as demonstrated for many other cases in the discussion we had previously. In contrast, JPL correctly refers to the satellite of 2013 FY27 as "undesignated".[44] Same for the others, all referred to as undesignated by JPL.Renerpho (talk)23:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
since this is official nomenclature, i think we should stick to mpc announcements and not further spread the likely confusion these will cause.
if they use unofficialnames, i think we can repeat those as we have in the past with xena etc, just clarifying that they're personal usage. but IMO it would be too confusing to do the same with fake mpc numbers, and there would be no benefit to it. if a fake number becomes notable -- say in the title of a rs publication -- then i think we should create it as a rd, mention it under 'names', and clarify there that it's fake, but we should probably not include it in the info box as it's too likely to get picked up by careless readers if it's there— kwami (talk)23:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we might consider creating rd's for them, if we think ppl might search for them. but there would be a potential conflict, as it's common to nominate rd's for deletion if they're not mentioned in the article. so as long as ppl can find the main wp article from the info on sheppard's website, perhaps we don't even need to bother with rd's.
We shouldn't mention fake designations in the article unless they become widely used. And as you said, I don't think those redirects would survive, so creating them seems pointless to me.Renerpho (talk)00:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i meant rd only, no mention. but as you say, maybe not worth the bother.
i think it's a shame now that we dropped the parentheses from the mp number of named objects. (4) vesta etc would be more formal, and is easier to read in context, esp when the numbers get long. but at this point it would be a real pain to move them all.— kwami (talk)00:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't explicitly say so, but none of these designations follows the correct format (ignoring the fact that they are not official). Instead of "S/2013 FY27 1", it should have been "S/2018 (2013 FY27) 1", because the satellite was discovered in 2018. The correct format for "S/2007TY430 1" would probably have been "S/2007 (2007 TY430) 1", because the first images that showed its binary nature were taken in 2007. I say "probably" because one could have argued for "S/2008 (2007 TY430) 1" if the evidence from the 2007 images was considered too weak. I suppose there's no way to know what year IAU would have used, had they decided that it passes their threshold for being designated. JPL's designation "S/2007 (341520) 1" is anachronistic because the asteroid had not been numbered when that designation was allegedly assigned. It should be noted again that even these "corrected" designations are still fictitious and should not be used...Renerpho (talk)06:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above bySenseiAC, Johnston's Archive lists designations for many minor-planet moons at[45]. Unfortunately, as shown by the example of (139775) 2001 QG298's putative satellite "S/2003 (139775) 1" (a fictitious designation, for an object that itself doesn't seem to exist), Johnston's Archive suffers from the same problem as JPL and some other seemingly reliable sources. I suspect that Johnston copied this and some other designations from JPL, who themselves appear to pull them out of thin air.
I will try to reach Johnston, and see if I can find out where exactly the designations on his page come from. In the mean time, it would appear that this is one less resource we can use for this cleanup operation. I've started this subsection so I can put the results of what I find out here, and because I intend to check if any fictitious designations have made it from Johnston's Archive on Wikipedia that we haven't found yet.Renerpho (talk)00:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I paste the text of my email to Johnston below.
Dear Mr. Johnston,Thank you for your work on minor planets and their satellites. I have a question regarding your list of "Asteroids with satellites",https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/asteroidmoons.html.For context: In June 2023, Gareth Williams, the former director of the Minor Planet Center and now secretary of IAU's WG Small Bodies Nomenclature, asked on the talk page for Wikipedia's list of minor-planet moons where some of the provisional designations came from. The lengthy but fruitful discussion that this sparked (seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minor-planet_moon#Source_of_the_provisional_designations?) has since resulted in many fictitious designations being removed from Wikipedia and beyond. Gareth Williams has also confirmed that the vast majority of minor-planet moons never receive a provisional designation, and that the IAU takes their monopoly on the right to assign such designations seriously, despite the many fictitious designations listed by sites like JPL's Small Body Database.My question: What is the source for the provisional designations you list on your website?This is a general question; but as a first example, take "S/2003 (139775) 1" (a designation that, according to the IAU, does not exist). As a second example, take "S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1" (a designation that is not assigned in any of the IAUCs you cite, and that is only mentionedspeculatively in a footnote to "Binary Asteroids in the Near-Earth Object Population" by Margot et al. 2002, who don't have any authority to assign designations anyway).I hope you can shed light on this admittedly complicated question.
A brief update: I have been in email contact with Johnston since last week. He said that he's fine with me citing him here, and has given a couple interesting details:
8 September 2025:
I concur that the IAU is authority for provisional satellite designations. The two instances you mention from my list are questionable and likely erroneous. S/2003 (139775) 1 was added to my list based on JPL Small Body Database.S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1 as best as I can tell came from the Margot et al. footnote, though in checking it looks like I added it to my list prior to publication of their paper, but that's as far as my digging has gone so far.
9 September 2025:
I suggest holding off on citing this to Wikipedia as I'm still attempting to have something more concrete confirming/denying where those designations came from. Will get back to you ASAP.
And later the same day:
Here's what I can determine (which you can cite if desired):S/2003 (139775) 1--I am not aware of an official IAU/MPC citation for this designation. In 2023 the JPL listed this in their Small Body Satellites database (https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sb/sats.html).S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1 (= S/2000 (185851) 1)--I cannot identify an official IAU/MPC citation for this designation. JPL identifies this as "the first IAU-numbered satellite of (then unnumbered) asteroid 2000 DP107" (https://ssd-api.jpl.nasa.gov/doc/sb_sat.html). In March 2002 J. L. Margot, et al., published a paper on this satellite and mentioned this as a hypothetical designation in a footnote (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1072094), but did not otherwise employ the designation in that paper or in subsequent publications. The designation was apparently used prior to this as I had it listed on my website no later than Oct 2001, alongside other IAU-assigned provisional satellite designations but in contrast to others without such designations. I am unfortunately unable to determine a source.
@SenseiAC: The origin of the S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1 designation is still a bit of a mystery, but S/2003 (139775) 1 appears to have been copied from JPL. Either way, I think Johnston confirms that his asteroid moon designations come from a variety of sources, some undocumented, and may not be considered official. What also becomes clear from this response is that the issue of erroneous moon designations dates back to no later than October of 2001.Considering that the satellite's discovery was only announced on 25 September 2001 (without using the designation),[46] that doesn't leave much room for when and where the designation could have originated.Renerpho (talk)10:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston further clarifies (16 September 2025):
CBET 7496 was issued 25 Sep 2000, not 2001. I listed the S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1 designation somewhere between 24 Sep 2001 and 7 Oct 2001, as I posted the first version of the "Asteroids with satellites" page on 24 Sep, and the version of 7 Oct 2001 listed that designation (see Internet Archive capturehttps://web.archive.org/web/20011015001729/www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/asteroidmoons.html). I would not be the original source--note that the only other provisional designations listed are those unambiguously attributed to the IAU. The 2000 DP107 satellite designation is also included in the first version of my page "List of IAU preliminary designations of natural satellites" on 15 Jan 2002, which otherwise only lists unambiguous IAU designations. But I cannot rule out that I got it from a secondary source erroneously using that designation. For example, Gerard Faure's site listed the S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1 designation in early 2001 (based on Internet Archive capture).
Faure's website[47] included the designation "S/ 2000 (2000 DP107) 1" by 28 April 2001. It seems like, apart from the two problem cases discussed here (139775 and 2000 DP107), Johnston's list might be "clean".Renerpho (talk)07:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that JPL lists the source for thespeculative designation S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1 as one of the examples in their intro/description tohttps://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sb/sats.html, quote:
This page lists known and suspected natural satellites of small bodies. Suspected satellites are marked as [unconfirmed] in the “Satellite Notes” column. Publicly available orbital and physical properties of the satellites can be displayed in the table below by selecting the appropriate checkbox. Additional information might be available in the object page that can be reached by clicking on the object name.
Satellites of small-bodies are mainly discovered through radar observations (e.g.,Margot et al. 2002, Science 296), lightcurve observations (e.g., Pravec et al. 2006, Icarus 181), and direct optical imaging (e.g., Brown and Margot 2001, IAUC 7588). The method of discovery for each satellite is described in the source listed in the “Satellite Reference” column. Most small-bodies with known satellites are binary systems, i.e, they have a single known satellite, but some systems have two or more satellites.
And, for completeness, here's again the relevant part of that footnote from Margot et al. 2002, where they explain the format of IAU's provisional designations, without actually claiming that this designation is real:[48]
In the rest of this paper, we refer to the larger component as “primary”, to the smaller component as “secondary” or “satellite” [...] The first companion discovered around an asteroid with provisional designation 2000 DP107 receives the provisional designation “S/2000 (2000 DP107) 1” if discovered in the year 2000. A second hypothetical companion discovered in 2002 would receive the provisional designation “S/2002 (2000 DP107) 2”.
"A second hypothetical companion discovered in 2002 would receive the provisional designation “S/2002 (2000 DP107) 2"
That's actually wrong. The established pattern is that S/2002 (...) 2 would be thesecondsatellite discovered in 2002, implying there exists a S/2002 (...) 1.Urhixidur (talk)14:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: You're right, and that's the problem with "user-assigned" designations (where the definition of "user" is very broad, including scientists who write about the objects, sites like JPL, and even the discoverers of the objects themselves): Many of us don't know how this works, and come up with all kind of stuff that we believe fits some "established pattern". Mike Brown has demonstrated this with his blog post about the moon of90482 Orcus, which he called "S/1 90482 (2005)" (see my comment above from 22:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)); Scott Sheppard has done it, and so have others -- on Wikipedia and elsewhere. We cannot operate under the assumption that we know how the system works.Renerpho (talk)17:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source given for the designation S/2014 (130) 2, but it's tothe paper detailing its detection, rather than to the MPC. Is there any evidence from the MPC about this?
(Although I must say, itis really annoying not to haveany designations for these things. Well, I guess that paper also uses S1, S2, and S3 for the three Elektran moons.)Double sharp (talk)18:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: I agree, and I think it is no coincidence that people at various times have started to assign "wild designations". There clearly is a need for designations, and if the body who are tasked with providing those designations fails to provide them, people will make them up. Of course that doesn't mean that Wikipedia(ns) should join them...
The discovery announcementCBET 5066 gives no designation for Elektra's third satellite, and none has ever been assigned officially. JPL gets it right this time, leaving itundesignated.[49] There are multiple papers that use the designation "S/2014 (130) 2", even though it has never been assigned and should be regarded as unofficial. On the same level, these papers assign various designations to differentiate between the moons: S1, S2, S3 inBerdeu et al. 2022; beta, gamma, delta inValvano et al. 2023 (the primary is "alpha"); 1, 2 and 3 inFuksa et al. 2023 (where the primary is "0").
Amusingly (or confusingly, depending on how you think about it), "S/2014 (130) 2" briefly existed as an official designation -- for Elektra's second moon. It was erroneously assigned in December 2014 inCBET 4035, before being corrected to "S/2014 (130) 1" inCBET 4036.Renerpho (talk)20:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michel, DeMeo & Bottke 2015Asteroids IV, p356 say,
[they]will be referred to as binary asteroids (or binaries) and triple asteroids (or triples), respectively. (Triple is favored over the more directly analogous terms trinary and ternary because of long-established usage in astronomy.
– The term "minor planet" doesn't seem to be rendered with a hyphen on any other astronomical articles besides this one except for thebinary asteroid article and theSolar System moons template from what I can tell. It doesn't make sense to only hyphenate it when the word "moon" is added to it, as this just makes it inconsistent from how the term is spelt on other articles.Thirtyfourninety (talk)21:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Done.jpg)
![[13]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile_talk%3aTrans-Neptunians_Size_Albedo_Color.svg){kind=link}
.png%23Please_update_the_names%2c_and_remove_fabricated_designation){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}