Talk:Kerberos (moon)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kerberos (moon) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

A fact from Kerberos (moon) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 August 2011.

Wikipedia

Name of the article

can anyone please have a look at the Lemma of the article S/2011 P 1? The designation given there is wrong, as Pluto is no longer considered a Planet. With Pluto being a dwarf planet, the correct designation is "S/2011 (134340) 1". This designation is also confirmed in the IAU release on the discovery of this moon [1]. As IAU is the only authority to asign these provisional designations, the article should be named this way. Please see also Astronomical naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets on this topic. Thanks, --Spiritus Rector (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We note your helpful suggestion, and have adjusted the first para to make clear its correct lemma. It's probably simpler for us to change the title when the IAU gives the little guy an official name. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Spiritus Rector is right but should we leave it at its name until it gets an official one? That's what en.wiki decided to do after a huge debate, here. Now a question. When it gets officially named, should we say something like:

Name here (formal designation: S/2011 (134340) 1) is ...

and get rid of everything about S/2011 P 1 and P4 and leave them as redirects or:

Name here (formal designation: S/2011 (134340) 1, also called S/2011 P 1 and P4) is ...

?

DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 15:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would leave it as it is now for the moment. The crucial thing was to tell them it's just a temporary label, and that's done. When it's named we should only use the official name, the lemmas can be redirects. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, OK, thank you. I guess the best thing is to create the redirects after the moon gets a name. DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any idea how long it will take for them to name it? DJDunsie ^(talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a year on and the moon is still unnamed. That's a very long time for a 'temporary' label. DJDunsie (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that they are not going to name the moons for a while, probably not until the New Horizons probe arrives. Can we therefore move the articles to their correct names now? DJDunsie (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no objection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]