View source for Talk:Minor-planet moon

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=low|object=yes|solar_system=yes|ss-importance=Mid}}
}}

== Numbers of moons ==

The numbers of moons should be updated frequently. The reference web page appears to be updated regularly. [[Special:Contributions/115.128.18.201|115.128.18.201]] ([[User talk:115.128.18.201|talk]]) 12:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

== Rephrasing ==

"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"? [[User:Acanon|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"). [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold]] in editing.[[User:Rparle| ]]&#8212;[[User:Rparle|Rory]] [[User_talk:rparle|&#9786;]] 12:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

== Nomenclature? ==

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]]). [[User:Urhixidur|Urhixidur]] 23:28, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

An example is [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/06000/06082.html IAUC 6082], announcing [[(243) Ida I Dactyl]]'s naming.
[[User:Urhixidur|Urhixidur]] 23:44, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Also [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08177.html IAUC 8177], announcing [[(22) Kalliope I Linus]]' naming, and [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/07500/07503.html IAUC 7503], announcing [[(45) Eugenia I Petit-Prince]]'s naming.
[[User:Urhixidur|Urhixidur]] 00:04, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

== Speaking on the topic of moons......... ==

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.
:I suggest you move this question to [[Extrasolar planet]], as that is where any extrasolar moons would be. And when you do, please sign your post. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::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. [[User:CFLeon|CFLeon]] 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

== Previous Claims ==

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. [[User:CFLeon|CFLeon]] 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
: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. [[User:CFLeon|CFLeon]] 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

== Notable? ==
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: 

{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"
! width=132 | Name of primary !! Orbital type !! [[Diameter]] of primary ([[kilometre|km]]) <br> (or dimensions)!! width=156 | Name of moon !! Diameter of moon ([[kilometre|km]]) <br> (or dimensions) !! Distance between pair ([[kilometre|km]])
|- align="center"
| [[22 Kalliope]] || [[asteroid belt|main belt]] || (215&times;180&times;150)
| '''[[Linus (moon)|Linus]]''' || 30-45 || 1,065±8
|- align="center"
| [[45 Eugenia]] || [[asteroid belt|main belt]] || 214.6±4.2
| [[Petit-Prince (asteroid)|'''Petit-Prince''']] || 12.7±0.8 || 1,184±12
|- align="center"
| rowspan="2"| [[87 Sylvia]] || rowspan="2" | [[asteroid belt|main belt]] || rowspan="2" |  (384&times;264&times;232)
|'''Remus''' || 7±2 || 706±5 
|- align="center"
|'''Romulus''' || 18±4 || 1,356±5
|- align="center"
| [[243 Ida]] || [[asteroid belt|main belt]] || (59.8&times;25.4&times;18.6)
| [[Dactyl (moon)|'''Dactyl''']] || (1.6&times;1.4&times;1.2) || 108
|- align="center"
| [[617 Patroclus]] || [[Jupiter trojan]] ||  121.8 ± 3.2 
| '''Menoetius''' || 112.6 ± 3.2 || 685 ± 40
|-
| align="center"| [[58534 Logos]]
| align="center"| [[cubewano]]
| align="center"| 80
| align="center"| '''Zoe'''
| align="center"| 66
| align="center"| 8,010 ± 80
|-
| align="center" rowspan="3"| 134340 [[Pluto]]
| align="center" rowspan="3"| [[plutino]]
| align="center" rowspan="3"| 2306±20
| align="center"| '''[[Charon (moon)|Charon]]'''
| align="center"| 1207±3
| align="center"| 19,571±4
|-
| align="center"| '''[[Nix (moon)|Nix]]'''
| align="center"| 44-130
| align="center"| 48,675±120
|-
| align="center"| '''[[Hydra (moon)|Hydra]]'''
| align="center"| 44-130
| align="center"| 64,780±90
|-
| align="center"| [[136199 Eris]]
| align="center"| [[Scattered disk object|SDO]]
| align="center"| 2,800
| align="center"| '''[[Dysnomia (moon)|Dysnomia]]'''
| align="center"| 300-400
| align="center"| 30,000-36,000
|-
| align="center"| {{mpl|1998 WW|31}}
| align="center"| [[cubewano]]
| align="center"| 133 ± 15
| align="center"| {{mpl|S|2000|1998 WW|31|1}}
| align="center"| 110 ± 12
| align="center"| 22,300 ± 800
|}
: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. 
:[[User:Deuar|Deuar]] 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::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).[[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<sup style="color:green;">chat</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<sub style="color:red;">spy</sub>]]</small>'' 08:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (definitely '''not''' one of the "Plutonuts")
::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.[[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 14:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:::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? [[User:Deuar|Deuar]] 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I removed some of the moons under 200km.  Now the two parts of the table are about the same size.[[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
: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 small ''binary objects'' together is right. Just the title is not. [[User:Eurocommuter|Eurocommuter]] 22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::It seems ''Solar 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?). [[User:Eurocommuter|Eurocommuter]] 23:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Scope ==

I intended to start an article about ''binary 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. [[User:Eurocommuter|Eurocommuter]] 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed, TNOs aren't asteroids and they shouldn't be treated like them. --[[User:Perfection|Perfection]] 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
::: 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. [[Special:Contributions/146.199.0.203|146.199.0.203]] ([[User talk:146.199.0.203|talk]]) 18:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

== Scope (again) ==

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 term ''binary'' (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 has [[binary asteroid]] in addition to this article, I did not want to add to the confusion by creating ''binary trans-Neptunian object'' without some support. On the other hand, adding substantial TNB-related content to this article would imbalance it completely IMO. [[User:Eurocommuter|Eurocommuter]] ([[User talk:Eurocommuter|talk]]) 13:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
==Merge==
This article overlaps (indeed, swallows) [[List of minor planet moons]], and should be merged with it, I think. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>]][[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

{{done}}

== Punctuation ==

"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"? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

== Split? ==

Asteroid moon is a rather different animal than trans-Neptunian moon. People aren't normally thinking of Charon. Split the article? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 22:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:Different in what way exactly? --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 16:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

::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. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Granted, the article needs work. But what is the added value of having separate articles on asteroid moons and trans-Neptunian moons? --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
::::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 into [[natural satellite]]. Asteroid moons, however, were a notable discovery and got a fair amount of press. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

== Orbital period ==
Is there a reason that the table(s) do not include the "Orbital period"? -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 14:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
:I wouldn't think so, and it looks like a good thing to include. --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 14:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Minor-planet moon]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=785312180 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110012054/http://astro.berkeley.edu/~fmarchis/ to http://astro.berkeley.edu/~fmarchis/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909211704/http://astro.berkeley.edu/~fmarchis/Science/Asteroids/ to http://astro.berkeley.edu/~fmarchis/Science/Asteroids/

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified (January 2018) ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[Minor-planet moon]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/821651764|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225134811/http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/Storrs_1999_Icarus.pdf to http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/Storrs_1999_Icarus.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68IbrCDhx?url=http://cosmicdiary.org/ to http://www.cosmicdiary.org/blogs/nasa/franck_marchis/?p=465
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115013141/http://cilaos.berkeley.edu/PHP_scripts/VOBAD/BINARY/Binary_main.html to http://cilaos.berkeley.edu/PHP_scripts/VOBAD/BINARY/Binary_main.html

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

== Does Lempo still count as having two moons? ==

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... [[Special:Contributions/146.199.0.203|146.199.0.203]] ([[User talk:146.199.0.203|talk]]) 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

== Triple-system table... ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/146.199.0.203|146.199.0.203]] ([[User talk:146.199.0.203|talk]]) 18:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

== Conflicting Statements ==

The articles for [[3122 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.

Thanks!

[[User:CielProfond|CielProfond]] ([[User talk:CielProfond|talk]]) 23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Source of the provisional designations? ==

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. [[User:MPCBod|MPCBod]] ([[User talk:MPCBod|talk]]) 01:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|MPCBod|Exoplanetaryscience}} 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." <s>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 as ''S/2007 (32039) 1'' in our list, but not by JPL.[https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=32039&view=OSP]</s> <small>Sadly this method is unreliable, see edit from 08:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC). [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 08:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
: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):
::{{tq|Renerpho — Today at 2:27 PM<br/>I think much (about 11%) of that article is your work, mostly from edits made back in 2016.}}
::{{tq|Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:27 PM<br/>oh yeah... I figured the designations were pretty straightforward and just automatically assigned as a matter of course}}
::{{tq|Renerpho — Today at 2:28 PM<br/>You did what?}}
::{{tq|Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:28 PM<br/>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<br/>you don't usually need some specific agency to officially declare that it's star b, it just is}}
::{{tq|Renerpho — Today at 2:29 PM<br/>I see.}}
::{{tq|Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:29 PM<br/>obviously i know that's not quite the case now lol}}
::{{tq|Renerpho — Today at 2:29 PM<br/>I would like to quote you on this on-wiki, would you mind?}}
::{{tq|Exoplanetaryscience — Today at 2:30 PM<br/>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 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'',[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=38628_Huya&diff=683785287&oldid=681936007] 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,[http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/neb/rw/natsat/double/IAUC%209253.txt] and its designation would have been ''S/2002 (38628) 1'' if it had received one. The error got missed when [[(38628) Huya]] was rewritten in 2019 and turned into a [[WP: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,[https://iota-es.de/JOA/JOA2021_2.pdf] and again in 2022,[https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2022/08/aa41546-21/aa41546-21.html] and once again this month.[https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09739] By then, what started as a user-generated fictitious name had become what we might consider its [[WP: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-stage [[WP: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.
:I am tagging some of the users who have worked on this article, either recently or as major contributors, namely: {{u|Kheider}}, {{u|Nrco0e}}, {{u|Kwamikagami}}, {{u|JorisvS}}, {{u|The Singing Badger}}, {{u|Urhixidur}}, {{u|Rothorpe}}, {{u|Double sharp}}, {{u|Serendipodous}}, {{u|Fvw}}, {{u|Eurocommuter}}, {{u|JorisvS}}, {{u|Deuar}}, {{u|Quondum}}, {{u|ArkHyena}}, {{u|Ilvon}}, {{u|Tom.Reding}} -- Let's get this done. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 15:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:ArkHyena|Ark]][[User_talk:ArkHyena|Hyena]] (it/its) 19:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I'm out of my depth on this topic, and so would not know how to correct it.  I feel that this does '''''not''''' qualify as a [[WP:COMMONNAME]], and we should certainly erase any citogenic information.  —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{+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. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, no fake official names. We can move it to a temp name like [[Huya 1]] or [[satellite 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.  [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I moved it to the provisional title [[Satellite of (38628) Huya]].
:::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 to [[S/2018 (532037) 1]], but that's a rd. I haven't checked if it's legit. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! It has been removed. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 08:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kwamikagami}} Currently we have [[38628 Huya]] without parentheses but [[Satellite of (38628) Huya]] with them. Should those be consistent? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 03:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Double sharp|Kwamikagami}} You're right, it should be without parentheses when the object is named (like Huya), and with parentheses when it is only numbered but still takes its provisional minor planet designation. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I do prefer the parentheses, but best to be consistent [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks! [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 04:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::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 {{tq|â€“}} for {{tq|–}}) 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 of [[Selam (moon)|Selam]] (Dinkinesh I), a.k.a. S/2023 (152830) 1. If anyone could find out where that provisional designation comes from, that would be nice.
::Not all cases of apparent citogenesis are actually part of this article. In an off-wiki discussion, {{u|Nrco0e}} found [[Xiangliu (moon)|Xiangliu]] = Gonggong I, a.k.a. "S/2009 (225088) 1", as another dubious one. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gonggong_(dwarf_planet)&diff=prev&oldid=884646934 I started in 2019 (not knowing any better then)] and later got incorporated by JPL's Small Body Database when [https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/announcements/an20210913.html its 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: [[User:Nrco0e|<span style="font-size:103%; color: #528a2d">'''Nrco0e'''</span>]] <span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Nrco0e|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nrco0e|contribs]])</span> 23:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJ...838L...1K/abstract original 2017 paper that published Xiangliu's discovery] (and the [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016DPS....4812022M/abstract2016 conference abstract preceding it]) does not use any provisional designation, nor do they mention a CBET or IAUC. It seems like Xiangliu was not announced through CBET/IAUC.
::::Looking through the article history of Gonggong, it turns out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gonggong_(dwarf_planet)&diff=prev&oldid=884646934 I was actually responsible for fabricating Xiangliu's provisional designation when I added the satellite infobox on 23 Feb 2019].
::::A [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22S%2F2010+(225088)+1%22+before%3A2019-05-01&sca_esv=399d58b5fbc8bb15&sxsrf=ADLYWIKAx6tljcT4MJO0YKIIBEbwmwGR1A%3A1737510174944&ei=Hk2QZ5KlOZLQkPIP1bHQqQ8&ved=0ahUKEwiSrJXmmYiLAxUSKEQIHdUYNPUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22S%2F2010+(225088)+1%22+before%3A2019-05-01&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJSJTLzIwMTAgKDIyNTA4OCkgMSIgYmVmb3JlOjIwMTktMDUtMDFIildQAFjjVXAGeAGQAQCYAYUCoAHWIqoBBjMxLjYuNrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCIaACjhzCAgoQIxiABBgnGIoFwgIEECMYJ8ICEBAuGIAEGNEDGEMYxwEYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgIREC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYgwEYxwHCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYFBiHAsICBRAAGIAEwgIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAsICAhAmwgIEEAAYHsICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAggQABiiBBiJBcICBxAjGCcYrgLCAgUQIRirApgDAJIHBjIxLjYuNqAHsXQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp google search for "S/2010 (225088) 1" before 1 May 2019] shows zero results from reputable sources. This was before the discoverers of Gonggong announced the name contest in April 2019.
::::[https://web.archive.org/web/20190525040338/https://2007or10.name/ In the "Name 2007 OR10!" website (linked)], the discovers do not list a year at all for the satellite designation, instead writing as "S/(225088) 1".
::::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).
::::[https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/kuiper-object-2007-or10-has-a-moon/ According to Sky & Telescope which reported on the Xiangliu discovery in 2016], the discoverers were already aware of Xiangliu in 2009 Hubble images---these are the earliest detections of Xiangliu. Therefore, its provisional designation should've been S/2009 (225088) 1 (if it ever received one back then; otherwise "S/(220588) 1 is the best we've got because it was used by its discoverers in the "Name 2007 OR10!" website). [[User:Nrco0e|<span style="font-size:103%; color: #528a2d">'''Nrco0e'''</span>]] <span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Nrco0e|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nrco0e|contribs]])</span> 23:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{re|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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::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). [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Kwamikagami}} I wouldn't call those "informal". They are assigned by IAU when the satellite is named, as in [https://www.iau.org/static/publications/wgsbn-bulletins/wgsbn-bulletin-2316.pdf#page=5] (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's [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 08:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If they're formal names, then that solves our problem. We could then use ''Makemake I'', ''Huya I'' and ''FY27 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. 
:::::As for which is I and which is II, that's why I said I thought we should handle multiple systems first. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Kwamikagami}} On the contrary, them being (potential) formal designations is precisely the problem. ''Makemake I'', ''Huya I'' and ''FY27 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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed, that's not a very good approach. Maybe we should restrict ourselves to generic phrasing such 'moon', 'Huya's moon', etc. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Kwamikagami}} I just checked [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Moons]], to see what it has to offer. It's not very helpful, quote:
::::::::{{tq|For moons of planets or dwarf planets:}}
::::::::{{tq|[...] 3. If the moon is neither numbered nor named, use the provisional designation, e.g. [[S/2003 J 10]].}}
::::::::{{tq|For moons of minor planets, follow the general [[WP:AT|titling 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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think your [[Satellite of (38628) Huya]] works as an article title, and may serve as an example. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Should I remove the parentheses per Double sharp's point above?
:::::::::I changed 'FY27 I' to just '(moon)' in the nav box {{tl|Moons of dwarf planets}}. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I've replied there. It should be without parentheses in this case. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Agreed, we need to amend the naming conventions to specify what is a RS for formal designations [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Or be specific about what may ''not'' be a RS specifically for minor-planet moons, even though it is usually considered one for related topics (JPL). [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{re|Kwamikagami}} As an example for one of their "ASCII hacks": There was [[User_talk:Renerpho#Finding_minor-planet_names_in_MPC-publications|a question a few years ago]] whether it should be [[4388 Jürgenstock]] or [[4388 Jurgenstock]]. The former is the correct name, but the latter is how the MPC[https://minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?utf8=✓&object_id=Jurgenstock] and JPL[https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=Jurgenstock] spell it, just returning an error when searching for the correct spelling.[https://minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?utf8=✓&object_id=Jürgenstock][https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=J%C3%BCrgenstock] 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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 04:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::While this is clearly a problem, I think it's better to discuss it elsewhere, since that specific issue doesn't affect the ''designations'' of minor-planet moons (which are ASCII by default). For ''names'' of such moons, it may of course be an issue. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 04:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::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, take [[2001 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.[https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=139775&view=OSP] 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 of [[1991 VH]] has been designated "S/2008 (35107) 1" in its [http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/08900/08977.html IAUC 8977] (that's the official designation). JPL instead uses "S/1997 (35107) 1", a name that has never been used in '''any''' publication. JPL's reference [http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/06600/06607.html Pravec et al. (1997), IAUC 6607] does '''not''' 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). <s>Strangely, this is a case where IAU broke its own rule of assigning designations based on the earliest observation.</s>
::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). [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 08:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::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.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Trans-Neptunians_Size_Albedo_Color.svg] There are likely more such instances that each need to be addressed individually. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) That image has been taken care of. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've [[File_talk:10_Largest_Trans-Neptunian_objects_(TNOS).png#Please_update_the_names,_and_remove_fabricated_designation|notified]] the creator of [[:File:10 Largest Trans-Neptunian objects (TNOS).png]], which uses a wrong designation for Gonggong's moon. The solution should be straightforward in this case, as it can be replaced by the satellite's name. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 13:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

=== Removing false designations from other articles ===
::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 them '''erroneously''' are:
::* <s>[[809 Lundia]]</s> <small>Done. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]])</small>
::* <s>[[854 Frostia]]</s> <small>Done. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]])</small>
::* <s>[[1089 Tama]]</s> <small>Done. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]])</small>
::* <s>[[1313 Berna]]</s>
::* <s>The inner satellite of [[3749 Balam]]</s> (the designation for the outer satellite is valid)
::* <s>[[4492 Debussy]]</s> <small>Done. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]])</small>
::* <s>[[11264 Claudiomaccone]]</s> <small>Done. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]])</small>
::All of these articles currently include factually wrong information and need to be corrected. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 18:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I've removed the wrong designation from [[(175706) 1996 FG3]]. The articles listed above remain to be reworked, for which I haven't found the time yet. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::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 of [[130 Elektra]] from that article. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::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 of [[User:Rfassbind]]'s edits to these articles), but that's beside the point. [[User:Nrco0e|<span style="font-size:103%; color: #528a2d">'''Nrco0e'''</span>]] <span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Nrco0e|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nrco0e|contribs]])</span> 01:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Nrco0e}} Thanks! In the meantime I have removed the wrong designation from [[(31345) 1998 PG]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC) And one more, from [[(88710) 2001 SL9]]... [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC) And from [[(143649) 2003 QQ47]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I've also removed false designations from [[163693 Atira]], [[(190166) 2005 UP156]], [[(357439) 2004 BL86]] and [[(450894) 2008 BT18]].
:::::::I'm not quite sure what to do with [[(153591) 2001 SN263]], which claims names for the satellites that I can't verify in official sources. These might be unofficial names. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::I'm done checking articles for Near-Earth objects. Mars crossers next... [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::[[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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::[[(5407) 1992 AX]] included false information as well, but that was easy enough to remove. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Leaving the name parameter blank rather than removing it entirely fixes things. [[User:Nrco0e|<span style="font-size:103%; color: #528a2d">'''Nrco0e'''</span>]] <span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Nrco0e|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nrco0e|contribs]])</span> 02:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay! [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::[[90 Antiope]] contains a wrong designation "S/2000 (90) 1". This is another case where JPL claims that a designation exists,[https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=90&view=OSP] but the source they give doesn't contain one.[http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/07500/07503.html] [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::False designations removed from [[1338 Duponta]], [[1830 Pogson]] and [[2047 Smetana]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm done checking MBAs with numbers up to 8000, removing false designations from [[2121 Sevastopol]], [[2691 Sérsic]], [[2754 Efimov]], [[3034 Climenhaga]], [[3073 Kursk]], [[3841 Dicicco]], [[3868 Mendoza]], [[(6265) 1985 TW3]], [[6615 Plutarchos]] and [[7958 Leakey]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Finished checking the table of MBAs, removing false designations from three more articles ([[13123 Tyson]], [[20325 Julianoey]] and [[32008 Adriángalád]]). [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22S%2F2000+%2890%29+1%22&btnG= Google Scholar] tells me that the designation "S/2000 (90) 1" has been used in other CBETs. [[User:Nrco0e|<span style="font-size:103%; color: #528a2d">'''Nrco0e'''</span>]] <span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Nrco0e|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nrco0e|contribs]])</span> 02:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Interesting. Has it been named that, or are all of these cases where CBET is falling into the same trap as JPL? If no naming can be located then we should contact Gareth again. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 02:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::I've started removing false designations from TNO articles. [[(26308) 1998 SM165]] was another one of those where JPL[https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=26308&view=OSP] is citing a reference [http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/07800/07807.html] that doesn't support their claim. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm done checking TNOs (and with that all the tables), removing false designations from the articles [[(48639) 1995 TL8]], [[(60621) 2000 FE8]], [[(82075) 2000 YW134]], [[(119979) 2002 WC19]], [[148780 Altjira]] and [[(612095) 1999 OJ4]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Kwamikagami}} Do we? Why? [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 04:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 04:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay. I see you've already done this for [[31 Euphrosyne]], [[1727 Mette]], [[1313 Berna]], [[2020 BX12]] and [[2017 YE5]]. Looks fine; I agree we should stick to the version without brackets, which I didn't like in your original suggestion. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 10:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Does Euphrosyne's satellite truly have the "Euphrosyne I" designation? That's still in the infobox on that page. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 17:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::JPL says 'undesignated', so I removed it [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 18:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::There are articles like this in many other language Wikis. The one most heavily affected seems to be the German one. I've posted [[de:Diskussion%3AS%2F2019_(31)_1#Falscher_Name|a comment]] on their talk page for Euphrosyne's satellite (which has its own article on that Wikipedia). [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 18:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'd only been adding 'satellite' where there is no name, but noticed the same should be done with [[854 Frostia]]
:::::::::::I haven't found many spurious designations in the info boxes; haven't been checking the text [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::What about [[1333 Cevenola]] [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Missed during my search, probably because it comes directly after [[1313 Berna]] which had already been taken care of. I've removed it now, thanks! [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 18:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I took the liberty of deleting the des from [[2006 Polonskaya]], [[2121 Sevastopol]] and [[2486 Metsähovi]] per JPL [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::[[(35107) 1991 VH]] moon has an alt des for JPL with 1997 instead of 2008
::::::::::::::does JPL count as a RS for such things? [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::[[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. [[User:Nrco0e|<span style="font-size:103%; color: #528a2d">'''Nrco0e'''</span>]] <span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Nrco0e|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nrco0e|contribs]])</span> 19:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{re|Kwamikagami}} As noted above, and as confirmed by Gareth Williams, JPL is '''not''' a reliable source for designations of minor-planet moons. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::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? [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 21:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Okay, double checked the info boxes in articles in the binary/multiple categories [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::Returning to finish the work on this, so we can finally get rid of that "disputed" hat note: I've now removed ''Eugenia II'' as a probably invalid designation of [[45_Eugenia#S/2004_(45)_1|S/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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 22:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The article used to include a hidden comment <nowiki><!-- (Eugenia II) once confirmed and named --></nowiki> until [[Special:Diff/746556549|this 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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 22:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

=== Dealing with edge cases ===
::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 of [[Petit-Prince (moon)]], which Wikipedia gives as ''(45) Eugenia I Petit-Prince'' since 2004. The corresponding IAUC [http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/07500/07503.html], 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. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 23:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell, there is no rhyme or reason to the format of those names. The official announcement of [[Romulus (moon)]], whose official name is given as ''(87) Sylvia I Romulus'' in the Wikipedia article, assigns the name ''(87) Sylvia I = Romulus''.[http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/08500/08582.html] The official announcement of [[47171 Lempo#Paha]] gives no full official designation at all,[https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2017/MPC_20171005.pdf#page=926] 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? [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 23:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::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.  [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::do you think we could make this explicit by using the format ''''(87) Sylvia I''', named '''Romulus'''' in the lead? [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{re|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, like [[Weywot]], already interpret it that way, quote: {{tq|Weywot (formal designation '''(50000) Quaoar I'''; provisional designation '''S/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 [https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2009IAUTA..27..187T/0000188.000.html] vs. [https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2006/MPC_20061109.pdf#page=51].
:::::One more thing: [[Dactyl (moon)|(243) Ida I Dactyl]] has the same issue as Petit-Prince -- missing parentheses from the designation used in the IAUC.[http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/06000/06082.html] Whatever we do to Petit-Prince should be applied there, too. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 00:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::okay, i'll start doing that, though i don't plan on making pervasive changes
::::::if you don't like what i'm doing, please just rv and let me know [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 01:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

== "also called trinary minor planets" ==

What is the source for this phrase? I can't find it in the cited reference. It is not consistent with "ternary number system". [[User:Grassynoel|Grassynoel]] ([[User talk:Grassynoel|talk]]) 03:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:Michel, DeMeo & Bottke 2015 ''Asteroids 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.''
:` [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm replacing 'trinary asteroid' with 'triple', will only catch if the phrase 'trinary asteroid' occurs in the article
::Not addressing 'trinary star' unless I happen across it by chance [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::<s>The category is still 'trinary', though</s> - now also 'triple' [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)