Talk:Pallene (moon)

Pronunciation

pa-lee'-nee per Tripp's Meridian Handbook and by regular reading of Greek long vowel η in penult. --kwami 15:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saturn satellites

Hello. You keep changing the attribution of the discovery of Pallene, Methone and Polydeuces to Carolyn Porco. This is wrong, those satellites have been discovered by Sébastien Charnoz and Carl Murray. You claim to be representing Carolyn Porco. I think it is a lie as Ms Porco perfectly knows she has not discovered those satellites and i cannot believe she would try to abuse the scientific community. In the future if you change once again the attribution of the discovery i will ask you to provide a certified message from Sébastien Charnoz and Carl Murray stating they have not discoevered those satellites. Thank you very much. Regards. Med 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comments from Carolyn Porco

Here is Carolyn Porco's response to your comments, emailed to me: 'The official attribution for sightings of new moons or rings or features on the moons made by the Cassini imaging team members in Cassini images goes to the Cassini Imaging Team. This is standard practice in the astronomical community and is sanctioned by the International Astronomical Union. It would be entirely unfair and inappropriate to credit the 'discovery' to any one individual on a team of many scientists where many people contributed to the discovery. After all, no one attributes the discovery of America to the guy in the crow's nest of Christopher Columbus' ship. Furthermore, the first reports of these sightings were published in the IAU Circulars which are accurately referenced in the Wiki entries, and those reports constitute the offical announcement of the sightings along with the authorship `C.C.Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team'. This is not an abuse of any kind; it is standard practice, and it is the *correct* attribution for these discoveries'.

I suggest that you email Carolyn at cpcomments@ciclops.org if you wish to discuss this matter further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.32.254 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Erroneous Attribution

See discussion under Methone (moon). The official attribution goes to the Cassini Imaging Team. Charnoz was *not* the discoverer.

Response from Rebjon21

In response to what Carolyn has added and Med's reply, I have the following comments. First, I see that Med has changed the pages related to the three satellites, despite Carolyn's explanation. Second, I think now that this is the definitive word and the attribution for the discovery of the three satellites should, rightly, go to the "Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco", with Carolyn being named ONLY because she is the team leader NOT because she discovered the three satellites (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces) which is NOT what I have been claiming and I would never claim something that was clearly not true, especially something as important as the discovery of astronomical bodies orbiting Saturn. Can everyone involved in this dispute please look carefully at the following proposed sentence, what is being said, and the order of the words:

"It was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco".

Please read that again. It (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces respectively) was DISCOVERED by the CASSINI IMAGING TEAM - i.e. NOT by Murray NOT by Charnoz and NOT by Carolyn, but discovered by the TEAM - i.e. the words "Cassini Imaging Team" follow directly after the word "discovered" so it is clear to everyone who reads the articles on Wikipedia that the TEAM discovered the three satellites not any one individual. As for Carolyn's name being included in this sentence, this adheres to normal scientific protocol and again it is clear in what capacity she is included in this sentence, i.e. as the team leader NOT the discover. Please look at the order of the words.

It is clear that no individual team member should be singled out for this discovery, since many, many were involved.

I would like to add that it is interesting why Syntaxis, and more importantly Med, feel so passionately about this issue. Surely if they did not have a vested and personal interest in this issue they would not continue to insist that Murray and Charnoz be mentioned. Do Syntaxis and Med know Charnoz and Murray I wonder? It is clearly inappropriate for someone to make changes based on personal preferences.

As for what Med has said about Hubble, Cassini doesn't work like Hubble. The individual scientists using Hubble only propose and use the images. They did NOT build the instruments they are using, and they didn't take 15 years out of their careers to devote to a mission. It is not appropriate to compare two dissimilar scientific endeavours.

In my response in the section "Clarification from Carolyn Porco" on the Polydeuces talk page [1] I have argued that it isn't common practice to attribute discovery to "The Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco". The IAU itself does not do this so it can't be common practice. I'm not insisting on Charnoz or Murray being named, I want no-one named apart from the Cassini Imaging Team. But if we do decide to name names then we should name all the relevant people. As for why I feel passionately about this small point? Why does anyone else? Because I care about about the absolute accuracy of information and removing the possibility for misinterpretation. I note that these pages have now been protected, at least we get to discuss this without constantly changing things backwards and forwards. Syntaxis 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The pages Pallene (moon), Methone (moon) and Polydeuces (moon) have been protected because of persistant edit warring and reverts.

I encourage involved users to edit the talk page, resolve their differences, and craft a common version which suits everybody. You are all grown scientists, you are intelligent enough to do this. Rama 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Polydeuces (moon) talk page seems to have become the place for discussing this dispute. Please post any comments you have regarding this issue to that page so that this discussion can be more easily followed. --Volcanopele 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proactivity

Sooner or later, some well-meaning contributor will dig up the 2004 press release and put Charnoz' name back in, sparking another round of fruitless debate. It would seem best to proactively quash any such further occurence. Here's a first draft of the paragraph I would see added:

« Early press releases of the discovery<ref>Martinez, C.; Savage, D.; and Finn, H; [http://saturn1.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-04/20040816-pr-a.cfm Out from the Shadows: Two New Saturnian Moons''], JPL News Release (August 16, 2004)</ref> mentioned the first team member to actually see the moon in the processed images: Sébastien Charnoz, of the University of Paris. This bit of trivia was blown out of proportion in the following months, with Charnoz being credited as the "discoverer" by some sources. Because the discovery was a large team effort, involving tens of people and hundreds of hours of distributed work, a conscious decision was made by the IAU and NASA to officially restrict any credit to "the Cassini Imaging team" and to avoid unfairly singling out any one team member as the discoverer. »

I agree. I've added your suggestion to the three articles. However I've removed the names of individuals as it is best to leave out names so we don't start a name war again. Rebjon21 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions on improvement? Urhixidur 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise for Methone, and for Carl D. Murray and Polydeuces. Urhixidur 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why this needs to be reopened. If anyone adds either Charnoz or Murray's names, just revert and refer the editor to the discussion on the Polydeuces. --Volcanopele 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw Rebjon21's edit. That seems fine. --Volcanopele 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia recording

I've just uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything. :-) --Mangst (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note 10

The note 10 is editorializing and includes wording which has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. 195.169.141.54 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery year

@DN-boards1: looking for a source claiming it was discovered in 1981. "Discovery" is not always the first year an object is charted or photographed. Neptune appears in star charts from before it was discovered. Need to be sure that that's a real discovery (with orbit plotted) rather than what's known as "pre-discovery images". Geogene (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It was given a formal designation, as in "S/1981 S 14" IIRC, and then it was lost. It wasn't precovery, the moon's orbit wasn't calculated, and it went missing. Later, Pallene is discovered, they realize that this moon is S/1981 S 14, their missing moon. And voila. Basically, it was discovered two different times. It's not a Neptune situation. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting a source that says it was discovered by the Voyager team. This [2] doesn't look like a discovery, it looks like a prediscovery image. Geogene (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pallene (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050309115746/http://exp.arc.nasa.gov:80/downloads/celestia/data/solarsys.ssc to http://exp.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/celestia/data/solarsys.ssc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC 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 with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pallene (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212104504/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20061011-3/ to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20061011-3/

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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC 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 with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)