Jump to content

Talk:Charon (moon)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pronunciation

I've heard all kinds of pronunciations for this - even chair'-un. Would be good to know if Christy pronounced the first syllable as Charlene (shar'-un), or if he pronounced it like Sharon (shair'-un), which is easier to say. It would be nice to reduce the pronunciation to just two variants, Christy's and classical. Don't know if I'll be able to contact him, however, so if anyone knows for sure, please comment here and make the correction. kwami 08:48, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

The OED lists the adj. form Charonic (kair-on'-ik), so Charonian (shair/kair-oe'-nee-un) should do for the demonym. kwami 2005 June 30 06:27 (UTC)

Going with shar'-un, based on this comment:

The word Charon is pronounced "KAIR en." Alternatively, some pronounce it "SHAHR en." [1]

That makes sense, given the pronunciation of Char(lene), but really needs to be confirmed with one of the Pluto teams. kwami 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Science channel (cable TV) just aired a special on the New Horizons mission (it's two days to launch). Three people mentioned Charon, and all pronounced it [ˈʃɛɹ.ən]. This includes Hal Weaver, co-discoverer of the outer moons, who said it three times. Given that print sources are often ambiguous as to whether the vowel is [ɛ] or [ɑ], and that even if they're explicit, they may be trying to interpret ambiguous material, I'm switching over to Weaver et al's pronunciation. (It's also the easier to reconcile with the print sources.) I'm also going to make the assumption that it's identical except for the initial consonant to the classical pronunciation, which the OED has as [ˈkɛərən] in RP, so that people who distinguish marry and merry would still pronounce it as air. kwami 10:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Heard a story on NPR on 19 Jan 06 specifically discussing pronunciation of Charon the planet. Seems that Christy, in addition to pronouncing the Ch as "Sh" also gave equal weight to both syllables, rather than an accent on the first syllable. I don't know if this matters, but here is the link. [2] Isoxyl 14:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Not equal weight, but full vowels, at least while illustrating the classical and astronomical pronunciations. The astronomer at Christy's institution pronounced these both with exaggerated vowels, [ˈkɛːɹɑːn] and [ˈʃɛːɹɑːn], but when assimilated into normal speech [ˈʃɛɹən] with a reduced vowel (like the name Sharon) still seems to be the form used. Very clear account though from Christy's colleague that Charon does not have the [ɑ] vowel of Charlene in its first syllable, as he clearly distinguishes them. kwami 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters further, classicists do not always pronounce classical names consistently, and the pronunciations normally used by classicists may not always be the historic pronunciations (which may also have varied during the classical period). However, I believe that the historic pronunciation of Charon have a hard "ch" as in "loch" (that shook you). PatGallacher 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a standardised literary English pronunciation of Greek words, but of course some people will try to be more authentic than that. We really don't need to give the [k] pronunciation of Charon at all - after all, Io is commonly pronounced ['i:ou], but we don't list that because it can be understood from the Greek, which we do give. There's just more debate in the case of Charon, and we'd get in an edit war if we only listed the Sharon pronunciation alongside the Greek. kwami 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a standardized literary pronunciation (since this article is in English, let's not confuse the question further by going to Greek; if we did, the Classical Greek pronunciation of the Ch- is just like initial English k, not as in loch and in Modern Greek). In the case of Charon, the standardized literary pronunciation is the one represented on the current page ˈkɛərən. Both Classics scholars and astronomers (and we could add mathematicians, doctors, etc., etc.) are, taken as whole groups, very sloppy about observing any principles, rules, or traditions to pronouncing names derived from Greek and Latin. In graduate school, I heard a Macarthur-genius-grant-winning Greek professor pronounce the Hellenized version of the Egyptian pharaoh's name--Cheops--with the same initial consonant as "chopstick." So we can't use the "scholar on the street" as the authority. What are the advantages of sticking with the traditional literary pronuciation? There are two big ones. First, these names are chosen by astronomers because of their resonance with mythological stories familiar to English-speakers; for example, there is absolutely no doubt that, in Byron's Don Juan II.ci.803 [3], or in Walter Savage Landor's "Dirce" [4], we are to pronounce ˈkɛərən. Second, astronomers have by and large traditionally gone with those same pronunciations familiar from English literature and every generation of cultivated English speakers up until things got anarchic in the last 50 years; I'd like to cite some decisive proof for this, but I can't--however, have a look at the article Pronunciation of asteroid names, since this article, not infected by any controversy that I can tell, lists remarkably conservative and traditional-literary pronunciations. Check out the recommended pronunciation of Protogeneia, for example; this would make Byron or an Oxbridge snob of 1940 very happy. I think the traditional literary pronunciations (these are always easily checked by looking in a slightly older dictionary, like say the 2nd Webster's or the OED) are a fairly clearly established norm of English-language usage, both literary and astronomical. Wareh 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me add a brief clarification. Christy may have enjoyed fancifully connecting the name to his wife's, etc. But the IAU has pretty strict principles about what makes a valid name. A satellite in our solar system must be the name from Classical mythology. Moreover, if "Charon" did not have a mythological connection to Pluto (via the underworld), it would never have won acceptance. This is an article about the celestial object known to astronomers throughout the world. We should use the name that conforms with the international principles of naming astronomical objects. To anyone who thinks English speakers ought to say "sh," I ask one simple question: why does not a single German-speaking astronomer attempt to honor Christy's pronunciation, but rather they all use the standard pronunciation known to Germans as the ferryman's name? Wareh 04:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the central point.
(And BTW, I wrote the Pronunciation of asteroid names article, as I wanted to provide a ref for the Oxbridge snob types. Most of these names cannot be found in Webster's 2nd or similar dictionaries, they're too obscure. Also, if you can contribute further to that list, I'd be obliged!)
That point is this: The pronunciation of a word is how it is pronounced. Among astronomers, and even on astro documentaries on television, shair'ən is the dominant pronunciation. The IAU is completely irrelevant, as they have nothing to say about pronunciation. There are no official guidelines for the pronunciation of astronomical bodies in English. As for German, that again is irrelevant: German orthography is reasonably phonemic, English is not. The sh pronunciation is an English convention. kwami 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, my intention was to improve the information provided by the article. I certainly think it should include information about the mispronunciation current among astronomers. Mathematicians misspell and mispronounce parallelepiped in scholarly journals, but quality works of reference (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.) do not stop providing the more authoritative guidance. So I will respectfully disagree with the principle here and leave the editing of this article to others. Before I got to the article, however, there was a lot of bad misinformation by anyone's standards: that there exists a "Classical" pronunciation with the sound of "loch," etc. I hope the article will, in its eventual form, inform the curious reader as to the only widely accepted pronunciation of the name of the Stygian ferryman in English. This is where the IAU is not irrelevant, because it has in fact enforced the principle that satellites in our solar system are to be referred to by the names of such mythological beings. And those who want to follow the IAU's principles & enjoy connecting the satellite to the ferryman, may wish to know the standard pronunciation by which he's usually known in all other contexts. Wareh 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the name Charon in Dutch is not commonly pronounced with the classical 'k' sound, as suggested by the author. The sound of the first syllable in Dutch is not common in the English language and sounds a bit like a gentle clearing of the throat.

Presumably as in "loch" and "Bach"? I notice that "The Sky at Night" (long-running UK astonomy TV programme) tends to pronounce it as in "church". Bluap 19:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my recent edit was that Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese pronounce the first consonant of the mythological figure's name as /k/. It seemed an oversimplification to have "which is the ch sound" there. The sentence without that final clause was still accurate: "In European languages other than English, speakers generally follow the pronunciation established for the mythological figure." (I don't have a strong opinion about what the correct English pronunciation is.) --Cam 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I do have a strong opinion about it, but it's not relevant here. :-)
I think if the clause stays it should probably have a little more detail (some say [x], some say [k], or whatever). --Cam 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think all the pronunciation references should be kept on the page, as long as they are accurate. Keep all the information about the various pronunciations and the reasons behind them. This kind of thing is good, informative, and accurate. Why do we need to minimize the data? People use the planet/planetoid pages for different reasons. I use the pages for a good half-dozen reasons myself -- for astronomical, historical, and literary research. The naming tie-in with the discovery, any historical conflict, and references to their associated ancient mythological counterparts is important to me. Other folks may use other data elements that I have no use for. So, it is important to continue incorporating the many sides of the subject matter. That is what encyclopedias do. Please keep the pronunciation data. One man's soup is another man's dessert. Tesseract501 8 March 2007
I suggest the standard/traditional "Karen"-type pronunciation first, followed by "popularly also pronounced as "Sharon"." - The popular version comes from the mind-set wherein every unfamiliar foreign-looking word is to be pronounced as if it were French (cf. Chavez, machete etc.). That the "sh" pronunciation is also part of an "inside joke" in some circles of astronomers does not seem like something that should affect advice to the general public.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is not only to report, but to educate. I was quite surprised decades ago when English-speaking TV reporters starting talking about "Beizhing" - after all, the purpose of the "j" spelling was to remind English speakers of words like "jingle", "jingo", the "j" of which is much closer to the actual Chinese.But no, the Frenchify-everything mind-set evidently trumps all other considerations.
I tell my long-struggling Taiwanese students that "ch" is "tch" for native English words and early French loans; as "sh" for recent French loans, and as "k" for loans, new or old, from Classical Greek (even via Latin). The wording I suggest above gives readers the chance to make an informed choice; if you just write "some say it this way, some say it that way", how is the novice supposed to make a choice? For many people, following the majority is their basic criterion, and the wording I suggest will explicitly steer them towards their goal; a subtle reading of my wording implies that the FIRST listing is "not the popular one", which the popular-minded will reject, but which will lead others, the "stickler"-type, to perhaps choose it instead. Jakob37 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, whether we are using an American accent or a British one, the main vowel in the two (traditional & popular) versions is the same, although in RP it may sound a bit higher than a typical American accent. On either side of the Atlantic, the word sounds just like "baron" except for the different initial. So, I'm going to correct that, and leave my other comments above to my esteemed co-editors' consideration. Also, the Greek vowel is /a/, so I have changed "as in" to "from".Jakob37 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with pronouncing 'Chumash' as Shumash, or 'Beijing' as Beizhing. The 'inside' pronunciation is quite pervasive. It isn't just a joke among the discovery team. Also, the mythological figure Charon does not rhyme with baron: one has the vowel of ate, the other the vowel of at (though I pronounce them the same before an ar). You changed both pronunciations to the vowel of et. Also, the phrase "as in Greek X" means that it is pronounced as the Greek name is pronounced, in English. After all, these are all English pronunciations, not Greek ones. All it means is that, if you wish to remain true to the Greek, use the second pronunciation, which is the normative literary pronunciation of the mythological figure. Anyway, I restored the pronunciations. kwami (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this is an area of English pronunciation where British accent(s) and the American accent are definitely not the same (especially if you are considering the woman's name Sharon to have a short "a"), you should at least inform readers which accent is being represented (this problem comes from using the phonetic symbols -- if you just said, "rimes with X", that would automatically be interpreted by any native speaker, be they from LA, Maryland, Edinburgh, Oxford or wherever). Footnote #7 is not very useful: if one reads the Wikipedia article "English language vowel changes before historic r", one can see that the dictionary in footnote #7 is representing only one, probably minor, type of accent. Again, words, rimes, not overly detailed phonetic symbols, would mean more to most readers.

Also, by the way, I'm afraid the phrase "pronounced as Χάρων is pronounced, in English." will not produce any meaningful concept in the minds of about 99% of our readers.Jakob37 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They are defined by rimes, they are not phonetic, and they are not specific to either GA or RP. If you follow the link, you'll see that /ær/ is defined as the sound in barrow and marry, for instance. The same is true for footnote #7, which uses orthographic conventions more familiar to people (mostly in the US these days) who haven't been exposed to the IPA. The Greek is included for readers who insist that a pronunciation is wrong, even if it's attested in the OED, because their Classics teacher taught them a different way of pronouncing Greek names. It's designed to head off truthy edit wars, not to be accessible by everyone. kwami (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think most people would prefer a "as in ...." instead of having to "follow the link". Well, 算你厲害了！btw, what is "truthy"? For that matter, the whole 2nd part of your comments ( The Greek is .... by everyone.) is, at least to me, incomprehensible. Jakob37 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "as in" is that it's very difficult to convey the pronunciation unambiguously. It also takes a lot of space, which disrupts the flow of the intro to the article. Sometimes people add a "sounds like" or "rimes with" to an article, but per the MOS, after long discussion, it was decided this should normally be in addition to the IPA. (It's a different matter when there are two common pronunciations to a word, like vase, and we merely need to indicate which one is being used in a given context.)
"Truthy" is political slang. Check truthiness. It basically means something is true because I know it to be true, and no evidence or logic on your part is relevant. Think of George Bush.
There are multiple ways to pronounce Latin and Greek words in English. /ˈkeɪrɒn/ or /ˈkeɪrən/ is the literary pronunciation, like what you'd expect in Shakespeare. However, if Charon where a genus of animal or plant, a zoologist might prefer a different pronunciation, a botanist still a different pronunciation, and if it were a biblical figure, a biblical scholar might prefer yet another. So someone might argue that Charon should be pronounced /ˈxɑːrɔːn/, for example, or ˈkæroʊn. I've seen edit wars between people from different disciplines arguing over the proper conversion, one actually saying that his professor had taught a certain method, so that is what we must follow on Wikipedia. Since these people will almost certainly all be able to derive their preferred pronunciation if we give them the Latin or Greek, it seems easier to do that than to fight over it. In the meantime, it's the literary pronunciation you normally find in dictionaries, and that also has the most complicated conversion algorithm, so I believe giving that form is the most helpful to the average reader. kwami (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Viktor Laszlo (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I believe that remarks on how the word "Charon" is pronounced in languages other than English are totally irrelevant here simply because this is an English word. The kh /x/ phoneme as in (Ancient) Greek is not known in English except in few (originally foreign) words, and (if I'm not mistaken) always word-finally as in loch. Please notice that the pronunciation of Munich as /ˈmjuːnɪx/ is widely regarded as "incorrect" (the "correct" form being with final /-k/), as this is the English language form of the name for the German city of München (i.e. /ˈmʏnçən/, i.e. completely different from Munich).

Similarly, the fact that it was originally an Ancient Greek word would imply that the (stressed) A vowel should also be pronounced accordingly, i.e. like "ah" (as in garAge or IrAq → khah-ron /ˈxɑːrən/, /ˈxɑːrɒn/) but any of you really think this should be the case?...

I think that the pronunciation with "sh" /ʃ/ should not be mentioned in the right-hand column, and be classed as "widely used but incorrect" (if not "jocular"), irrespective of whether Christy originally mistook the digram "ch" for something to be pronounced as in "chassis", "chauffeur", etc. Ultimately, "Charon" is obviously not a French word, irrespective of whether 99% of (cultivated) astronomers think this is a French word!

Charon should be /ˈke(ə)rən/ (or /ˈkɛ(ə)rən/).

"Should" belongs in a blog or editorial, not in an encyclopedia. The name is commonly pronounced with an /ʃ/. kwami (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Viktor Laszlo (talk)Ok Kwami, then, if you prefer, replace "should be" with "is". Please remember that English-speaking users don't make the totality of Wikipedia users, and that the pronunciation with /ʃ/ (as correctly observed by some contributors on this page) seems to be confined to people whose first language is English (and are prone to treat every other language in the world as French-like). —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

Utterly irrelevant. This is English Wikipedia. We give pronunciations in English. kwami (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Charon is a moon? I thought it was determined to be another planet? Capt.Nero

You might be thinking about theories that it's been captured, and therefore had an independent orbit about Sol at one point - or that it and Pluto are sometimes called a "double planet". As for the former, it's currently a moon, and in any case there are alternate theories; and as for the latter, even the planetary status of Pluto has been called into question. If you want to define a "planet" as a body large enough to pull itself into a sphere, as some do, then yes, Charon is a planet, but then so is our moon. kwami 19:44, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
Within the next couple of days the International Astronomical Union will have declared Charon a planet, part of a "double planet" configuration with Pluto in our 12-planet solar system. Better get to revising. Bustter 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
... or not. Jimp 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that near the bottom of the page, there is mention of Charon "occulting." Having little to no experience with Astonomy, I haven't the faintest idea what that verb means. Perhaps someone could make it a link? Canaen 2005 July 29

Charon page notes that surface is thought to be frozen water unlike Pluto which is said to have a surface largely composed of frozen nitrogen. However New Scientist reports (10:35 30 July 2005 Jeff Hecht)that Pluto is covered in frozen methane (like newly discovered planet [2003 UB313]). Anyone have recent actual knowledge of this? Pluto's surface composition should be well known by spectrographic analysis. Charon may not reflect sufficient light to do this analysis.Sidney2 19:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Barycenter; inclination

copy of the entry in Talk:Pluto

  • Could someone trace the source of the statement that the barycenter lies above the planet's surface, please? New data from (Bluie, Grundy et al. 2006 do not seem to support that (mass ratio: 0.1165±0.0055)
  • Does someone know the source of the inclination data for the moons (Charon's infobox)? Again, they are at odds with the source quoted above (~96 degrees to the ecliptic). Thank you. Eurocommuter 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

"Charon and Pluto revolve about each other every 6.387 days"

is this meaning 6.387 Earth days or Plutonian days?

Earth days. Since they're tidally locked, they revolve around one another once each Plutonian day. ;) --Stlemur 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclinations apparent discrepancy

Note the apparent discrepancy between the (ecliptic) inclination value for Charon's orbit given by http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512491 vs. the one shown here. The explanation resides in their Table 3, which gives an inclination of 96.145±0.014° for epoch JD 2452600.5. The calculation used here takes their Fig. 2 orbital/rotation pole coordinates, for epoch J2000 (JD 2451545.0), and reduces it to the J2000 ecliptic. --Urhixidur 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very puzzled by the 96.145 value in that Buie et al paper. I get practically the same values as you (112.79° to ecliptic & 119.60° to solar orbit), using only the following: RA (133.05°)& declination (-6.15°) of the Charon orbit from Fig2 in the paper; known inclination and longitude of ascending node of Pluto's orbit; and Earth's axial tilt (for the ecliptic->equatorial coordinate transformtaion). Surely none of these quantities change much over those ≈3 years between the epochs you mention above. So what's this weird inclination of 96.145° with respect to? I can't seem to track down an explanation in the paper. Deuar 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you using the RA of the pole to get the inclination angle? The Pluto page seems to do the same thing. Isn't that different way to define "Inclination" and "Obliquty" from how all the other planet pages (and other source data, such as NASA's planet pages, etc.)? I could be mistaken, but I think its a simple angular calculation in 2D (not 3D). Orbital Inclination (unless the page specifically indicates something different) is supposed to be the body's orbital plane to the Earth's ecliptic (orbital plane). Or, in the case of satellites and secondaries in binary systems (such as Charon), in relation to their principal's orbital plane. Pluto's orbital plane (around the Sun) is about 17.16º (not 112.78º) -- per sources like NASA (www.spds.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html). Since the 112.78 value matches the Pluto page, I assume the intent is to give them the same reference point (i.e, the orbit of the Pluto-Charon-Nix-Hydra System around the Sun - such orbits inclination to the Earth's ecliptic. Why does the page indicate 112.78, when other source documents indicate 17-degrees? If you are adding additional parameters (RA of the poles, etc., to come up with a concise value for a 3D model, then maybe the value should be given a different lable (instead of Inclination)? Or, am I way off base here? Regardless, the labeling and use should be consistent on all the planet and planetoid pages, because the general reader (i.e., me among many) is easily confused). Tesseract501 8 March 2007
Seems like you've definitely sniffed out something fishy here. Here's what i've been able to pin down:
  1. The inclination of Charon's orbit to the ecliptic is ≈96.1° (this Nasa datasheet gives 96.16° and explcitly says that it is with respect to the ecliptic, while Buie at al gives 96.145 ± 0.014° for what they call "inclination").
  2. The orientation of Charon's orbit is given by Buie et al as Ω = 223.046 ± 0.014°. Nix and Hydra get extremely similar numbers, so this must be in standard ecliptic coords.
  3. There's no reason to doubt Pluto's orbital parameters in its article I think (i=17.14175°, Ω=110.30347°).
  4. It's known that Pluto's pole is in the same direction as the axis of Charon's orbit.
So, clearly Charon's inclination and Pluto's axial tilt to the ecliptic must currently be wrong. Deuar 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the inclination of this plane to Pluto's orbit, the angle between the normal vectors can be calculated. For a plane characterised by i and Ω, the unit normal vector is going to be ( sin i sin Ω, – sin i cos Ω, cos i ), where (1,0,0) is the direction of the vernal equinox, and (0,0,1) is perpendicular to the ecliptic. The angle that I get between Pluto's and Charon's orbital planes is 102.45° Deuar 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, something is still not right.
5. NASA gives 119.61° for Pluto's equatorial inclination to its orbit.
Perhaps my point 4. above was way wrong? Deuar 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Now in This forum discussion with Marc Buie, he Sanjay Limaye gives Pluto pole coordinates as RA=311.63°, δ=4.18°.
Calculating away as per the formulas in ecliptic coordinate system, this gives β=21.31° and λ=315.33°. The angle between this and the normal to Pluto's orbital plane turns out to be 117.61°. Almost the same as the NASA data, but differs by exactly 2°. The fact that the two most significant digits are the same makes it look suspiciously like one of the above sources made a typo. But which one? Deuar 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, NOW I get it. The coordinates in Buie et al (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512491), and in particular the inclination, were given in J2000 coordinates, which are practically the same as equatorial coordinates. Hence, the Charon orbit pole (as well as the Pluto spin pole since they're tidally locked) is pointing at RA=133.046±0.014°, declination=-6.145±0.014°. This finds confirmation at the JPL ephemeris, where the inclination of 96.151° of Charon's orbit is referred to the ICRF. Having this, then the inclination of the orbit to the ecliptic can be worked out as 112.78° and to Pluto's heliocentric orbit as 119.59°, agreeing with some but not all of the previous values. Deuar 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Discovery image

I've substituted the initial uploaded image (seen on the right)

for a cropped version that does not contain the blue border and caption (to avoid a messy look to the page, while keeping the discovery image, which I agree is a good idea to have). The caption appears in text on the description page of the newer cropped image.

Charon, the planet?

Charon is soon to be redefined as a planet, not a moon. This will mean a huge reconstruction of the article and renaming. -- 86.13.152.237 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who have argued against Pluto as a planet consider the two as the first discovered trans-Neptunian objects.

Actually, if these two are reclassified as plutons, it wouldn't change their status as trans-Neptunian objects (and Kuiper belt objects).--JyriL talk 12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Plutons, according to the proposal before the IAU, are planets. We have a 12-planet system. It's all here. Bustter 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is currently officially planet. But it doesn't stop it from being a Kuiper belt object. Nobody is denying that. The debate is about can Pluto and other similar object be also planets. (BTW: Here's the original release: [5]).--JyriL talk 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is, there is no longer a debate. The certain ratification of the proposed definition of "planet" makes Pluto and Charon a binary planet, part of our 12-planet system. This becomes scientific consensus August 24, between 14:00 and 17:30 CEST Bustter 14:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is still only a draft. Nothing has been voted yet. It is possible that they don't accept the draft and the current status remains.--JyriL talk 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this proposed definition include Charon but not the Earth's moon? Is it because the gravitational centre of the Pluto-Charon system is outside Pluto? That could be a rather fine distinction. PatGallacher 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes: the IAU has a nice Q and A page, which says:
" Q: What is a “double planet”?
A: A pair of objects, which each independently satisfy the definition of “planet” are considered a “double planet” if they orbit each other around a common point in space that is technically known as the “barycentre”. In addition, the definition of “double planet” requires that this “barycentre” point must not be located within the interior of either body." [6]
HenryFlower 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2010

I'm not too sure when exactly this happened but Charon, Pluto, Xena (2003UB313 and Ceres are classed as 'dwarf planets' the others are classical planet. This is completely ratified and I am now going to change this page from 'moon' to 'dwarf planet' on the 14th of April 2010, unless someone has an objection before I do this - 11th of April 2010 mspence835. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspence835 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The failed 2006 draft definition would have made Charon, Eris, and Ceres (dwarf) planets and created dozens of (dwarf) planet candidates, but the passed RESOLUTION 5A (d) makes it clear that satellites can not be planets (at this time). Charon is no more a planet than Titan, Europa, or our moon. They are all secondary bodies. -- Kheider (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name change

Ok. Assuming that the propopsal passes on the 24th, this page will need a name change. So let's see if we can get a good name agreed to in advance. Let me stress that this is assuming the thing passes. If the proposal fails, this whole discussion becomes moot.

Charon itself is already a disambiguation page. The other two possibilities that occur to me are Charon (planet) and Charon (pluton). The second seems a bit more specific to me, but the first seems more basic and logical. More intuitive. I lean towards the first. Whichever is chosen (or something else someone else comes up with), the other likely should be created as a redirect, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd favor Charon (planet) as it is more general; more likely to be found, and not conflicting with any other Charon in the solar system. --Stlemur 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd also go for Charon (planet). However, let's wait until the IAU decision is ratified before making the move. Bluap 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
100% agree. Nothing is official until the IAU votes. - TexasAndroid 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
While nothing is "official," the proposed definition for planet represents the closest thing to a "scientific consensus" on these long-debated matters that we have, as it was derived by an international, official body of the IAU. Areas of debate remain open prior to the vote, but at present the information presented here could be argued to be contrary to the scientific consensus. I don't think the proposed changes should be applied prior to the vote, but the essentials of the matter (12 planet system, status of Charon and Ceres), including the date and time of the vote, should be incorporated into the affected articles now, perhaps through a template that could be applied to all affected articles (Charon, Pluto, 2003 UB313, 1 Ceres, Solar System, planet, perhaps others). People will be looking up these matters in the next few days, a template would allow up-to-date information to be easily included. There's an [interesting NY Times piece] that indicates a bumpy road to ratification. If ratification fails, a template would provide a useful means to delineate an extended disagreement.
addendum I find that Wikipedia policy recommends against including article information in a template. Therefore it may be best for any such template to include a link to a separate article on IAU Draft Resolution 5, which in my opinion merits an article of its own anyway, owing to its ambitious goal of debate resolution, whether it is ratified or not. - Bustter 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It does have its own article: 2006_redefinition_of_planet --Volcanopele 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So I see. I'm happy with what's been done at the top of the article. Bustter 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated Charon (planet) for a speedy deletion since Charon (by definition) is NOT a planet.
-- Kheider 14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the only link to it from Main article space. Go ahead and delete. (Or I will if you like.) kwami 01:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see it deleted, but it looks like we need more time to see what the outcome will be.
See: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Charon_.28planet.29_.E2.86.92_Charon_.28moon.29 -- Kheider 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Satellite

Reading this article for the first time, trying to understand the IAU proposal, I baulked at the first sentence, which states that Charon is a "satellite" of Pluto. This is contrary to the following Q&A from the IAU site.

Q: What is a “satellite” of a planet?
A: For a body that is large enough (massive enough) to satisfy the definition of “planet”, an object in orbit around the planet is called a “satellite” of the planet if the point that represents their common centre of gravity (called the “barycentre”) is located inside the surface of the planet.

But I'm not clear on whether this a proposed new definition of satellite, or the existing one. --KJBracey 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This article does not reflect the IAU proposal, since that proposal has not been approved yet. Once it is, we'll change those sentences. DenisMoskowitz 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was kind of my question. If that is a propsed new definition of satellite, is there a formal existing one, or does it suffer same ambiguity as "planet"? The IAU press release totally glosses over the fact that they're redefining "satellite" too, leading to my uncertainty. I note that the Natural satellite article doesn't reference this IAU proposal - it could do with the same Current Event tag. --KJBracey 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I haven't heard that they are redefining satellite, just that they are redefining "planet" to include more objects. And Charon would now be considered a planet ofit's own, not a satellite. But the issue is more one of timing than of what the new definittions are.
There are a number of things in the article that will need to change, assuming that the proposal passes in a little over a week. Until the vote is taken on the 24th, nothing in the proposal is official, and Charon is still officially considered a moon. It's possible that the proposal will even be defeated, though I have no idea how likely that is. But until it passes, it's still a moon and a satellite. - TexasAndroid 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting definition. Wonder who invented it. Unfortunately it has no "official" or scientific basis (i.e. it sounds more or less original research).--JyriL talk 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Ah, sorry for not reading your question carefully. I don't know what the IAU definition is, but our Satellite page says, under "Definition of a Satellite", "The general criterion for an object to be a satellite is that the center of mass of the two objects is inside the primary object." DenisMoskowitz 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So it does, but "citation needed" I see. I didn't get there; I only read Natural satellite, which doesn't include that definition. So this article's first sentence is contradictory to the Wikipedia's definition of Satellite. I'll leave it to you experts to resolve it.
I also note there's no link from Satellite to Natural satellite; I think the relative structure of those two articles need a little work. The two articles don't seem to be able to decide whether they're a primary and satellite or a binary pair :) --KJBracey 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be covered above, but if so I didn't see it. Our article first of all says Charon is a satellite of Pluto. Then later it says that Pluto and Charon are circling each other. Completely aside from the upcoming vote about the definition of planet, doesn't the binary nature of this system mean that either (a) they are satellites of each other or (b) neither is a satellite of the other. In other words, if Charon is a satellite of Pluto, then isn't Pluto also a satellite of Charon? JackofOz 06:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, and one not so deep -- to add my two-cents to complicate things further (and don't you hate multiple-mixed-metaphors in the same, run-on sentence?) ... Pluto and Charon are, technically, part of a binary orbit. This is because their orbital baricenter is outside the physical body of the host (i.e., Pluto). To consider Pluto as a host and Charon as a ward may not be appropriate. When the barycenter remains within the body of one of the objects, then a clear host is established (at least "clear" as far as concerns our latest contemporary battle over subjective naming conventions). When the orbital barycenter is outside both bodies, the orbit becomes a binary orbit. Hence, Charon is not a satellite in the tightest, or at least binary-viewpoint, sense. My pesonal viewpoint is that Charon and Pluto are both planetoids (x-ref: minor planets, dwarf planet) sharing a binary orbit. Tesseract501 (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
While Pluto and Charon would appear to fit the concept of a double-dwarf-planet system, there is no official definition of such a system. As well, Charon is officially referred to as a satellite of Pluto. The IAU may well address this issue in the future (one can only hope), but until then we have to go with Charon-as-moon - not what we feel it should be. --Ckatzchatspy 05:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the barycenter approach is that it depends on the distance between the bodies as much as their relative masses, so that a small body in a distant orbit may be defined as a double, but a larger body in a close orbit would be a satellite. That seems a bit counter intuitive. At an eighth the mass of Pluto, Charon is kinda borderline as what people would think of as a double. Another possibility would be to consider whether they have co-synchronous rotation. Anyone know if that would be independent of barycenter placement, so that a large close body may be tidally locked, and thus as double, while a small distant one may not be, contrary to the location of the barycenter? kwami (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

IAU Streaming Video

The 2nd Session, at which the vote will take place, can be streamed here at 5 AM Pacific Time Thursday the 24th. Bustter 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


symbol??

Does Charon have a special symbol like the other planets have? If so, please add it to the article!--Sonjaaa 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the moons in our solar system (other than our own Moon) have official astronomical symbols, as far as I know (and I've looked for them). There's one person out there using the planetary symbol plus the roman numeral of the moon, but I can't tell how official that is. I came up with symbols of my own for the major moons last year, so my symbols are what you'll find on a google search for "charon symbol". However, these symbols are completely unofficial. I imagine the IAU will come up with symbols for Charon and (once it is named) 2003UB313 if the proposal passes. (Ceres already has a symbol from its first stint as a planet.) DenisMoskowitz 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonege! Dankon pro viaj simboloj!! Mi ne scias, kiun simbolon uzi por Urano, nek kial estas du... Hmmm. --Sonjaaa 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We should stick to English on a general talk page, but this is off topic anyway - I'll reply on your talk page. DenisMoskowitz 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Newly added section

The newly added section called "Pluto Flyby", is quite strange, firstly it seems to be mostly about Pluto, so I'm not sure what relevance it has to this article. Secondly it is often badly written in that it doesn't explain many of the things it's talking about, like what is "LORRI plus Ralph"? The section later mentions that it is talking about the New Horizons mission, but this is very unclear. It looks like this whole section has been copied verbatim from some other source, which would explain why it gives no context. Lastly the user who added this stuff, S035593, has only existed here for 1 day, and has only uploaded material ostensibly written by one Gopi Ravindran, whoever that is. In short I'm not sure this section belongs here, perhaps it would be better to be part of the New Horizons article, or something. What do the rest of you think? --Hibernian 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a cut-and-paste job from New Horizons. I've removed the text: the article refers to the flyby mission in the opening sentence - any interested in the details can go to the relevant page. Bluap 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I knew there was something not right about that section. --Hibernian 14:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


dwarf planet now

It's a dwarf planet now. Let's update the article and move it to Charon (dwarf planet).--Sonjaaa 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a cited source which says Charon is a dwarf planet? The IAU has officially announced only 3 dwarf planets, and Charon is not on that list. Derek Balsam 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I should clarify that the IAU may yet decide Charon is a dwarf planet. But they have not done so. Until they do, wikipedia needs to remain accurate.Derek Balsam 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5282440.stm says " 2003 UB313 will now join Pluto in the dwarf category, along with Pluto's major moon, Charon, and the biggest asteroid in the Solar System, Ceres." and has a diagram where it lists Charon as a dwarf planet alongside Pluto and the others. --Sonjaaa 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Egad. I think we need to wait for a primary scientific source. The BBC is neither primary nor scientific. Derek Balsam 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing about Charon being a dwarf planet on the IAU website yet. This is their article on the vote results. Dancter 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Key quote from the official vote results:The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.Derek Balsam 19:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Earlier today, the BBC had a pretty much identical image which didn't include Charon and which was attributed to the IAU ('International Astronomical Union' or whatever was written in the image itself). This current image which now includes Charon as a dwarf is just a modified version of that earlier image. The question is whether the IAU supplied a new one, or the BBC edited the earlier one after making the decision itself. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
(Replying to self) The article has had some edits recently arguing over whether Charon is a moon or a dwarf planet. The section on the 2006 controversy is a bit vague and might seem to be saying that Charon is definitely not a dwarf planet, but that can't be referenced to an authoritative decision. Would anyone object to it being updated to say some or all of the following:
  1. That while Charon was not explicitly named today (2006-08-24) as a dwarf planet, nor was an explicit decision made today that Charon was not a dwarf planet.
  2. Charon might be a dwarf planet under the new definition, but there has been no formal ruling either way on it yet.
  3. Charon will probably continue to be referred to as a moon by default until such a formal ruling.
  4. And that the final decision would be expected to be based on whether or not Charon fits a formal definition of 'satellite'.
If there are any problems with this list, could you explicitly name which of the above are acceptable/unacceptable because I believe some of these could be put into the article without much dissent, but I'm just testing the waters here. Of course, somebody else might have a better list of outstanding issues. I'm off now, apologies in advance for not replying promptly. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
1 and 2 seem perfectly fine to me. I'll have to defer to those more familiar with the situation for 3 and 4, at least until I have the time to read up on everything. The latter two seem a little like original research, though if you can cite sources for those, even that's not a problem. Dancter 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I updated the subsection on "moon or planet" to include the IAU satellite definition, and a link to it, and I included a summarized version of 1 and 2.--mclauss 5:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That IAU link which you just added seems to be out of date [7] - it describes Ceres as a planet. And it doesn't mention dwarves at all. The discussion of Pluto and Charon in it seems to be correct and it has the definition of satellite that I would expect, but some mightn't like it because it's out of date.
I think the article is pretty much correct as it is now as there's no doubt in my mind Charon is a dwarf planet, but it would be nice to get something more obviously up to date with the satellite definition. Also, I might just now add some more on the location of the barycentre. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 10:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


The German article has it as de:Charon (Zwergplanet)--Sonjaaa 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you thing that it is worth mentioning that Charon was the setting of the Marine training in the novel 'The Forever war'? There are some great descriptions of the moon being a very dangerous place to train on and taking many of the Marines lives.

Nah, not really. Doesn't need that section. The description of the moon in Forever War is science fiction as the novellist has never been to Charon. Also, we have to mention in each of other planets of when they were used in popular culture. Earth will have a huge list as well as Mars. :) Azn Clayjar 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Moon? Or Dwarf Planet? section

The newly named and rewritten section has the weasel words "it has been argued" a couple times, a phrasing which was not there before the rewrite. We need to clearly state who is doing the arguing, not simply that it has been argued. I'll try to rewrite later to make this explicit. Also, the new title does not conform to heading naming conventions (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) for Wording and Capitalization.Derek Balsam 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the pictures of Pluto and Charon will not be changed until the space probe sent to Pluto arrives there. Until then, we will have to guess what the two look like.

Terrible Illustration

That diagram of the formation of charon looks hideous. Is there any way it could be replaced? Joelholdsworth 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not until the probe (currently traveling at 52,000 mph) reaches the Pluto system in 2015. At present, I think the image on the page may be the best representaional images available. Same with the Pluto page. I believe that the best actual resolution is something like less than one pixel -- the Pluto family is way, way out there. The imgaging probably shows a best-bet interpretation of the plantary surface variiations. I guess the grid could be blended, but then the image resolution would be more blurred. Unless an artist's interpretation is used, the image on the page may be the best we have available to us at present. Tesseract501 8 March 2007


Surface Area may need to be Updated

The page indicates the surface area at 4.5 x 10(power 7). Given the radius indicated (603.5), I belive that the surface area would be about 4.58 x 10(power 6). To the power of 6, not 7. Tesseract501 8 March 2007

Thanks for catching that! Deuar 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New evidence of active geology on Charon

Evidence found for active geysers on Charon Serendipodous 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Charon: Pluto's Moon... or Pluto's Twin?

Pluto, the ninth planet from the sun. Okay, now. I do know all of you think that Pluto is a dwarf planet. I understand. NASA, BrainPop, even Wikipedia has switched to beleiving it is a dwarf planet. I, however, remain as stubborn as a rock.

Pluto's first identifed moon is Charon. Charon might of formed the same ways most people think Earth's moon formed. A body might of crashed into Pluto, throwing material into orbit. Pluto and Charon look very similar, so I am guessing that the crash theory is accurate for Charon's formation.

Charon is playing an impact on Pluto's spin, although Charon is only half of Pluto's size. This impact causes the two to orbit around each other about every six-and-a-half days. So you could think sometimes Pluto becomes Charon's moon! Sadly, that is wrong.

Because of Charon's impact on Pluto's spin, I think Pluto and Charon should be considered a double planet. I ask anyone else with a say in this discussion put their comments below the line below.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.103.166 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous commenter, as do many others. However, it is pointless to discuss the matter here - this article simply reflects the IAU's position (as the near-authoritative body on such matters). It is likely that the IAU will change Charon's classification in the near future (they have almost said as much http://www.iau.org/Q_A2.415.0.html). Md84419 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now Charon is the closest thing we have to a double (dwarf) planet. It's a much bigger issue with asteroids with moons vs. binary asteroids, but we don't know enough about them for this to be a problem -- yet. At some point the IAU might come up with a definition of "moon", as they did for "planet", but in the end it really is all just semantics. kwami 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-displaying comment on Charon's name

While making an edit, I came across the following non-displaying comment embedded in the text:

"Charon" first appears in print in March 1978: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1978IrAJ...13..198O&db_key=AST&link_type=ABSTRACT&high=45eb6e10af25715

There is something wrong with the reference, as March 1978 is 3 months before the discovery, and when bringing up the journal article, it makes a reference to "last August." Otherwise, the article may have some research value. — Eoghanacht talk 13:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor planet number

Does Charon have a minor planet number assigned, like Pluto has? --SJK (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Charon is currently considered only a moon of Pluto, the closest thing to a MPC number it has would be (134340) 1. -- Kheider (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now a plutoid?

The IAU has come up with a new definition, plutoid:

"Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the sun at a distance greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighborhood around their orbit."

This means Charon is also a "plutoid"? Does anyone know if the IAU decided whether or not we can call Charon a "double plutoid"? If not, I'm kind of disappointed in the IAU side-stepping the "double" issue.--Mclauss (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Charon isn't in orbit around the sun. As for the double issue, that's not an easy thing to define. A body can orbit a point outside its surface because a satellite has a distant orbit, but not be any more massive in comparison to its primary than other systems which do not have such an orbit. kwami (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually since Charon has an absolute magnitude of 1, it would be borderline in qualifying as a Plutoid. The category Plutoid was created to generate a group of spherical objects that are smaller than traditional planets but certainly larger than traditional asteroids. They choose absolute magnitude (H=1) so that there would be little doubt as to the large size of these objects. It takes a lot of observations and research to determine if an object in the 1000km range is in hydrostatic equilibrium (dwarf planet). -- Kheider (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-major axis vs barycenter

We had the semimajor axis at 19,571 ± 4 km. The current ref has 17,536. Since there's no way they could be off by 2000 km, I assume one involves a typo. Might wanna double check. kwami (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

19571 is measured relative to Pluto and 17536 is from the Pluto-Charon barycenter. That is a difference of 2035km. 2035 - 1195 (Pluto Radius) = 840km (Barycenter should be about 840km above the surface of Pluto.) -- Kheider (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I just assumed that a was always relative to the barycenter. kwami (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

number in name

"(134340) Pluto I": isn't the number prefix generally dropped from DPs, so wouldn't this be just "Pluto I"? — kwami (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dysnomia, Vanth, and Weywot still shows their numbers, yet Pluto's moons Hydra and Nix do not. (Keep in mind that when Pluto's moons were discovered Pluto did not have a MPC number.) The MPCs list of binary asteroids shows the designation including the number: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/minorsats.html -- Kheider (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that minor planet moons retain the number of their primary. However, I was under the impression that when a body is declared a DP, the number is dropped for most purposes. E.g., we move the DP articles to titles w/o the numbers, and I believe I've generally seen "Eris I", "Haumea II", etc. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the situation. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Even on the wiki Minor_planet_moon#Trans-Neptunian_objects we have a tendency to drop the MPC number as a style of shorthand. We also have List_of_TNOs#Moons_of_trans-Neptunian_objects. I guess it depends on how formal we want to be? -- Kheider (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
We should be formal in giving alt designations in the lede defining what the object is, so we should have the number if it's used for DP moons. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eclipses

"This occurs when the Pluto-Charon orbital plane is edge-on as seen from Earth". Eclipses occur when Sun is in Pluto-Charon orbital plane, it doesn't depend on Earth's position. --91.201.0.186 (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I added transits since they do depend on the Earth's position. As seen from distant Pluto, Earth and the Sun are almost in the same position and plane. -- Kheider (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative picture

This is designated as a "lok" (limit of knowledge) surface in Celestia, so this should be OK when the File:Charon plutoface.png can't be used. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, which is more accurate? If the answer is "we really don't know what the surface looks like," it seems to me that the photo above would be a better way of saying that than the image in the article currently, which looks like a disco ball. Neutron (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Both images are derived from the mapping work of Marc W. Buie. However we don't have problems with the picture I uploaded like we do for Charon plutoface.png. We are not sure what the surface looks like: I'll upload a map. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect Reference

I- believe a Popular Culture section should be added to mention the Mass Effect game reference. Check this link http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Charon_Relay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.124.48.232 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares to edit the pop culture reference, one does not go and discover "solar systems" since that term refers specifically to the planetary system which contains the star Sol. Which just happens to be ours. Planetary system may be more accurate? 138.163.128.42 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect in turn got the idea from a 1962 Galaxy article entitled "Pluto is Black!" written under the pseudonym George Peterson Field by Dr. Robert L. Forward. The article was republished in 1978 in the anthology Black Holes, edited by Jerry Pournelle ISBN 0-449-23962-4
Dr. Forward was speculating upon the (then wrong) mass estimates for Pluto combined with the estimated diameter (also wrong) which in-turn lead to an unreasonable density. He then went on to describe various ways to use gravity catapults. I apologize for the sloppy editing69.210.251.230 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

flyby and current events

Can someone add the current events to this just like Pluto and NH JSon94 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong timestamp on picture

The picture was taken on July 13th per http://apod.nasa.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vencaslac (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Two recent confusions over the hatnotes

The {{current event}} template does not require a hundred editors swarming down on this article. It allows for that as an unusual application. That is not a mandated requirement, and deleting the template because we're not in that unusual situation is pure incompetence. In the present situation, we have a bona fide current event, and yes, information is subject to rapid change, and we are providing a friendly heads-up to our readers about the status of the contents they find here.

WP:DABLINK spells out when to add a hatnote, and when not to. The basic rule is to help the likely reader who has come to the wrong article without realizing it. In the case of an explictly dabbed title, someone who gets to this article is in no way confused about expecting some other "Charon", so telling him the good news is only adding to his confusion, not helping. Choor monster (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The template says Information in this article may change rapidly, which won't happen. This is not a developing news story, we get new information about Charon in batches that are typically separated by a day or more. The part that says Initial news reports may be unreliable is also irrelevant here. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it will happen. NASA/APL releases new information, and information in this article will change rapidly. That's my take. If consensus is that "rapidly" here means information will likely change as you're reading, as opposed to change in rapid-fire bursts every so often, then I agree to its removal. I just don't see that though. I view the purpose of the tag is to contrast with articles about material for which the information and sources have been out there for quite some time, just nobody has bothered to write a full article yet.
However, I do not agree to its removal by people who think the special case of a crowded rush of editors, listed in the documentation, is required for the template. That's just a misreading of basic logic and English, and until now, that has been the only reason stated for its removal. Choor monster (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Njardarlogar that information is not going to change on Charon that fast. If there is an important discovery, then the tag can be re-applied. I believe press announcements will generally be made on Fridays. -- Kheider (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of including the tag? What purpose does it serve? I can see none. There is no current event (it has passed). The information will only gradually trickle into this article. --JorisvS (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Date on Charon image wrong?

Wasn't the picture of Charon taken during the flyby and released today? The wiki says July 15th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterfaceManager (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The date is apparently correct, see this source. A2soup (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
July 14th was the date of closest approach to Pluto, which doesn't mean all photos of the Plutonian system are taken on that day. Vencaslac (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Should they be heavily trimmed? Choor monster (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It's mostly out of date now. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

STOP using fake color images on wikpedia for the main image

This is ridiculous, first Pluto, now Charon, DON'T USE ANOTHER THING THAN NATURAL COLORS, this is an encyclopaedia not a fake color site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.153.1 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is of much higher resolution, showing many of its surface features far better, and hence should be included in the article, regardless of whether it is used in the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Despite the anonymous IP editor's frantic tone and COMPELLING USE OF ALL CAPS, I am inclined to second JorisvS' response. Eric talk 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between "false" color and "fake" color. Fake color is more an opinion than anything else. What we have here is "exaggerated" or "enhanced color" which is similar to pictures of raised relief maps where the vertical dimension is exaggerated. The pictures of Charon and Pluto have the right colors as would be seen by the naked eye, but the lightness is exaggerated. There is no green blue and purple in them as a false color picture would have. Because they have greater resolution than the previous ones, I honestly believe that they should remain.Rudy235 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I will improve this article

I have checked the page view statistics and it is a fairly popular article. However, it is still too short and it's just bad overall. There are tons of info from new horizons that should be added. I will expand this later at night. If anyone can help, that'd be great Huritisho 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just grabbed a nice cup of coffee - let's do it Huritisho 23:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I should stop for a while. I have too many edits in a row. I wish I could make more changes in a single edit but that is not as simple as you might think Huritisho 05:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "too many edits in a row". However, if you like, you can copy the article to your sandbox and edit it there. You can tag this page with {{under construction}} until you're done, so other people don't make edits that will get reverted when you copy back. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I take it back. If you can't do arithmetic on a calculator, then you shouldn't be editing the figures. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I have included the numbers for Surface Gravity and Escape velocity. This are derived from these formulas Surface gravity derived from the mass M, the gravitational constant G and the radius r: GM/r^2. and Escape velocity derived from the mass M, the gravitational constant G and the radius r: \sqrt{2GM/r}. Unfortunately I cant link this to the references or Notes as much as I tried. Perhaps someone can help here.Rudy235 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. We still need updated albedo and axial tilt, which Huritisho deleted because they think we're supposed to indicate false certainty. — kwami (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@kwami I think the Albedo should be given with it's source That info there has no source and it is also not with a 0 degree phase angle. The axial tilt also needs a reliable source.Rudy235 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

REFERENCE 27 needs to be fixed

Reference 27 has some issues. Can someone edit it please? I am not able to. This is what it looks like: Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

This is it looked like before: Cook; et al. (2007). "Near-Infrared Spectroscopy of Charon: Possible Evidence for Cryovolcanism on Kuiper Belt Objects". The Astrophysical Journal 663 (2): 1406–1419. Bibcode:2007ApJ...663.1406C. doi:10.1086/518222.Rudy235 (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot has fixed the ref for you. The ref doesn't have that content you mentioned, however.Huritisho 10:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In order to add that ref you mentioned, open visualeditor, click "Cite", and paste the doi (which is 10.1086/518222). It will automatically generate a ref for you. I ask you to do that, since I don't know exactly where the ref is supposed to be Huritisho 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
That reference 27 was there before as Cook et al. (2007) but I see that numbers move up and down. So Cook et al. (2007) is now reference 24 as a result of me consolidating some references Science 2015, Science 2015(a) and Science 2015(b) into one. I think things should be ok as they are. We shall see.Rudy235 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, stop adding the {{cn}} tag

You're not supposed to add a citation needed tag where there is no claim being made. Example:

The above is fine

This one is not

Now please stop adding the tag. Huritisho 02:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I found a way to include the ratio of Charon Volume to Earth Volume without the [citation needed] By the way Relative Volume = (R1/R2)^3Rudy235 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but that's not what I was referring to. The problem is adding the {{cn}} where there is no numerical value. Huritisho 03:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Understood Rudy235 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Huritisho, if you're not competent to edit the article, you shouldn't be editing it. See Wikipedia:Competence is required. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Kwami, speaking only to the "CN" issue here, do please stop. If data for a field is not known, leave the field blank. Do not use question marks or citation needed tags. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Huntster: He added a question mark once again. He also added unsourced data. Please revert that for me Huritisho 05:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Funny, after complaining about it, Huritisho is now adding 'cn' tags to info-box fields. He's also started blanking info from the boxes. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't notice the cn tag would return after reverting. It was an accident Huritisho 06:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with the changes

You're ruining the infobox. Do not add question marks in the fields. If the value is not known, just leave it blank so it will disappear from view. That's incompatible with how things are done in Wikipedia. Huritisho 05:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's quite hypocritical of you to revert people for following your instructions. You are incompetent, incapable of even simple arithmetic or understanding the sources of the article. You have no idea how things work here, and are gumming up the article for the rest of us. Go away and leave the "improvements" to someone who will actually improve the article. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
By the Way I wish someone would improve Ref 4 It should read something like this: The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons S.A. Stern et. al. October 16, 2015 Table 1
Right now it does link to the said Table 1 but I am not able to include the Reference Name.Rudy235 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Just fixed that for you Huritisho 16:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Rudy235 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
NO PROBLEM! Huritisho 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: both accounts are under investigation as socks of banned user Tetra quark. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Why on earth would I use two different accounts simultaneously? Huritisho 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
To make it look like others approve of your edits. It's been done before. But that's for the sock investigation to decide. You could be innocent, or you could be changing your ways. That's happened before too (vandals becoming productive editors). I don't really care, as long as your edits improve WP, as your most recent ones have. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hm I understand. But in this case, even if I were Rudy it would be pointless ask help to myself. I guess I would just make the edit, unless of course if I were willing to try really hard to make it seem like we're different persons. By the way, thanks for saying my edits are good. I thought you had a problem with me Huritisho 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
confirmed: This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Tetra quark (talk · contribs · logs), and it has been blocked indefinitely.

Flattening or Oblateness

The recent study DOI: 10.1126/science.aad1815 establishes and upper limit for the flattening of Charon. It estimates that the difference in Radii is less than 1%. This seems to me like a very conservative estimate if you consider that the Earth which has a 6 times faster rotation has a flatening of around 1/3 of 1%. However, we cannot insert our own opinion and the cited source will have to prevail until proven otherwise.--Rudy235 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a measurement. They can only measure what they can measure, and we can only report measurements that have been made. Where oblateness is perhaps most pertinent is if it demonstrates that a body is in hydrostatic equilibrium. That has not been demonstrated for Pluto, Charon or Ceres, and therefore it has not been demonstrated that they are dwarf planets. However, since the category of DP was created for Pluto, if it turns out that Pluto is not in HE, it's possible that the IAU will change the definition of DP accordingly. It's unlikely that Pluto is not in HE, given its size, but it is quite possible that Charon and Ceres are not, in which case the Plutonian system cannot be characterized as a double planet even by those like Stern who accept DPs as planets. But such speculation depends so heavily on how others interpret the definitions of the terms that we really cannot go there without sources. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charon (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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 17:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I performed a partial revert of this edit by InternetArchiveBot, as the links to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/03200/03241.html (IAU circular 3241) are not dead. —RP88 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Charon is the bigest moon and half the size of pluto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.172.191.2 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Geology of Charon

Can easily be covered by this article. MartinZ02 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles should be split when they become to large, not because they may become to large several years into the future. MartinZ02 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
But it is not a prerequisite for splitting (or rather, in this case, covered this topic on a new page), i.e. it is not necessary for a page to first be very large before a subtopic can have its own article. --JorisvS (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no meaning in having a child article if the parent article isn't to large. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It depends on where you draw the line. For me, it does make sense at the current sizes. --JorisvS (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:SIZERULE, articles with less then 40 kB readable prose size should not be split because of its size. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
After nine months of inactivity here, and no initial support, I believe it's safe to say the merger proposal should be closed. I will remove the article tags. Jusdafax 19:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charon (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:

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) 10:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Orbit

An oblique view of the Pluto–Charon system showing that Pluto orbits a point outside itself. Also visible is the mutual tidal locking between the two bodies.

This image in the article is misleading. As viewed from above Solar system Pluto's rotation is clockwise (see for example, in this book. And Charon is in retrograde motion around Pluto (see in this book) and hence Charon's motion is also clockwise when viewed from above. This should be pointed out in the article and image corrected. Illustr (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I see from your sources that Pluto's rotation is clockwise, and that Charon's orbit is also clockwise, which only makes sense if it is tidally locked with Pluto. The picture is not going to depict reality perfectly no matter what, because the reality (from your source) appears to be that Charon's orbit is inclined 118˚ to Pluto's orbit, making it technically clockwise but more sideways than anything. I agree, however, that the image would be better if reversed. I lack to skills to do this, and unfortunately the image's creator, StephHoover, appears to be inactive. Can anyone else reverse the image?
If no one can, I would still keep the image. It's quite informative as to how the Pluto-Charon system looks and is accurate from some real angle, even if it isn't the one dictated by convention (which is also mostly wrong in this case, since Charon is really sideways). A2soup (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to dump it into something like GIMP and then rotate the entire image set by 90 degrees one way or the other? I could probably do that, though IDK how to then upload the image and inline it in place of the current one. Or which way it needs to be turned. 51.7.16.171 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Pluto/Charon as Kuiper Belt Binary

Ladies, Gents, Wikipedians --

Charon is not a moon of Pluto -- they are binary objects orbiting a common barycenter that's outside of both objects. I think we need to focus the discussion to describe this, as well as make reference to the significant number of binary objects in the Kuiper Belt. Dioxinfreak (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That depends on one's definition of when something is a double "..." vs. a "..."–satellite system. There is no agreed-upon one. --JorisvS (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Satellites and Companions of Minor Planets, Charon is a Satellite of Pluto. Jupiter is still a planet even though the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is above the Suns surface.-- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The is no clear-cut definition of what distinguishes an object-moon system from a binary object system. In the absence of such a definition, we should follow the common understanding of any particular system. As fas as I can tell, NASA and other reputable organizations continue to refer to Charon as a moon of Pluto. Wikipedia is meant to document things as they are, not state the beliefs of its editors about how things should be. So to refer to the Pluto-Charon system as a binary system here due to our personal beliefs about what makes a moon, however reasonable those beliefs may be, would be a misuse of wikipedia. If a scientific consensus emerges or an authoritative organization makes a statement that distinguishes moon from binary in such a way that Charon falls into the latter category, then we can make the changes here. But that discussion is the job of the astronomers out there, not us lowly documenters here. A2soup (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
In fact, there are binary systems where the secondary is only slightly smaller than the primary. I've even seen those secondaries referred to as moons (i.e. that 'secondary' and 'moon' are simply synonyms). --JorisvS (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that it's more valid for Pluto-Charon because they are both very similar objects to each other, and if divorced would both be Dwarf Planets (or candidates) in their own right (similar to how Earth and the Moon would technically class as major planets, but our system barely scrapes the planet-moon distinction due to a just-about-internal barycentre), whereas the Sun and Jupiter are classified as two very different things, IE a star and a gas planet (notwithstanding the huge difference in size, whereas Charon is about half the diameter of Pluto). One is still clearly the "child" of the other, rather than a sibling. The bigger issue really is then how you classify them and how you calculate system mass and effective diameter, for placing in size/mass lists and the like, and how you determine the orbital distance of the smaller moons ... etc etc. So it would likely be best to wait for some official reclassification and word on how to handle those difficulties, should they ever actually come to pass, rather than trying to freestyle it. Otherwise you're operating much like some of the US states that have tried to legislate that Pluto is still a planet and all that... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Error in semi-major axis

Hi guys, I think there is a typo in the orbital characteristics of Charon: the semi-major axis of Charon should be 19571 km, not 19591 km as is written. Can someone confirm the value? --Allgaeuer (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ref #2 (JPL SSD) https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_elem#pluto uses a 2013 paper. Ref #3 (Buie2006) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/504422/fulltext/tb3.gif uses the epoch of JD 2452600.5 (2002 Nov 22). Different epochs will have different answers due to ongoing perturbations. Right now the infobox looks like a mix-and-match of sources. -- Kheider (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind all that - currently the figure given for Apoapsis is the same as the Periapsis! Ignoring the extreme unlikelihood of an absolutely perfectly circular orbit, this would seem to be strongly at odds with the claimed SMA. If we consider the SMA as a simple mean of the peri/apoapses, the latter should be more like 21646km than 17536km... Hopefully the same source that gives the SMA can confirm the inner/outer bounds as well as the mean? 51.7.16.171 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Corrected. Ruslik_Zero 16:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Just how bright is Charon as seen from Pluto?

We've all seen the magnificent images of Pluto and Charon, and it's easy for a layman to think that this is how bright they actually are at that range. (In reality, of course, they're long exposures and have been enhanced.) Assuming it were possible for somebody to stand on Pluto's surface and look at Charon, what would they see? Something like the Moon during a total eclipse, with features visible, a black disk that's only deduced by the fact that it occludes stars as it goes past, or something in-between? And, of course, the reverse: what would Pluto look like from Charon? I ask not just because I'd like to know, but because I think that it would improve the article, and help people understand just how little light there is out there, and how much our instruments can do with it. JDZeff (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not that dark. Noon on Pluto is about as bright as dusk on Earth. You should be able to see Charon looming overhead with visible features if you are on the right half of Pluto, and vice versa for Charon. Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Not to nitpick.. ^^ I assume that by 'dusk' you mean the period right after the sun sets (which is widely, if not entirely correctly called dusk). On earth, the period just after sunset and just before sunrise is called civic twilight, which you can roughly define as there being enough light to read by. This is about how bright it is on Pluto in (Plutonian) daylight. (also if anyone cares, dusk is the moment that the last bit of evening astronomical twilight turns to full darkness; dusk does not happen on moonlit nights when the moon is waxing or full) Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Travesty of mispronunciation

Charon is the ferryman of the dead who brings the souls of the dead to the underworld where Pluto reigns. It is pronounced KAYRON or KYRON. but, the wife of the guy who first observed the moon is called "Char" or "Sharon"...... SO, now we are told to mis-pronounce the name of the moon as "sharon" after her....!!! This is preposterous. What the hell Sharon the housewife got to do with the moon and mythology of Pluto beside providing bed-time service to the fellow who first observed the moon??? These things are to last for thousands of years. However, astronomy has become the "old boys" private club. They do what they want and get away with it. I am waiting for the "spaceship tampon" to be named after someone else's accessories.... NONE OF YOU SHOULD mispronounce Pluto's moon--KAYRON--as "sharon"!!! Total travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.184.225 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

... Uh huh. You do realize both the pronunciation of the mythological figure (hard c) and the portmanteau of Charon and Sharon are officially accepted, right? Same for the pronunciation of the mythological Dysnomia and the Dysnomia-Diane pronunciation. 134340Goat (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I visited this page just to know this - canonical pronunciation of the term. Well what is the consensus? It would be nice to have it expressed in the main text. Well, personally, I like "Sharon" in the sense written above though I am not opposed to the other. Thanks --Wordmasterexpress (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Have you checked the "Name and pronunciation" section? Major dictionaries give the one with initial [k], though among astronomers the one with initial [ʃ] ("Sharon") is common. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Her name was Charlene, not Sharon; she was always known as 'Char', and the 'on' was added because it sounded 'science-y'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.79.247 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But, I've always pronounced it Karlene. 81.103.232.20 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


The discoverer named it after his wife. get over yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4202:C7F0:90:C543:5A2E:6C96 (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wiki is always good for a laugh - if you don't like how the discoverer decided to name the object, go get a Ph.D. in astronomy, get a job at a major observatory, work long and hard pouring over data, discover a significant object, and name it....then you can have some snotty wiki-ite moan about the name you came up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Just because of this drama I feel like deliberately saying it as "Karen" from now on just to piss off everybody to an equal extent. 51.7.16.171 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You would think it would be pronounced Kyron, due to the fact Pluto is akin to its origin of being the master of the underworld right? MaximusEditor (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote or not?

I added a hatnote pointing readers to other uses of "Charon" and Double sharp reverted. Let me explain my rationale: going to the page Charon, I was surprised to find a dab page. I thought Charon (moon) would be the primary topic. However, after a quick search, it appears that the mythology figure sees roughly as much usage as the moon. Therefore a move request to grant the "Charon" title to the Pluto moon would not be appropriate. However, the mythology page has a hatnote pointing to other uses, and I thought the moon page should have the same, as a convenience for readers. Some other moons have a hatnote (Callisto (moon), Europa (moon), Ganymede (moon), Dione (moon)), some don't (Io (moon), Oberon (moon), Mimas (moon)); looks like a matter of editorial judgment. Would readers be better served with a hatnote? I say yes; what do my fellow editors think? — JFG talk 05:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think that by the time the reader gets to the article on the moon, s/he would already know from the disambiguation that it is about the moon, particularly if s/he clicked it from the disambiguation page. Where the hatnote would come in handy is for a case like Enceladus, where there is no clue from the title that we have a specific primary topic; but that is not what we have here. One could indeed argue that this is how it should be for more moons, but then it's not the hatnote that is at issue, but the primary topic. But of course, let's discuss it and see what consensus develops. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Double sharp on this one. MaximusEditor (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charon_(moon)/Archive_1&oldid=1181782544"