Talk:Herschel (Mimantean crater)

"Disruption" of Mimas

Almost all info of the crater mentions that its formation "nearly destroyed" Mimas. However, impactor was on the order of 2-3 km across only. Are there any numerical studies which show that this impact was anywhere near destroying or disrupting Mimas? Because I doubt that that was the case.

Dear User:193.120.148.177, there is no need for a numerical study to justify a claim that a meteor nearly disrupted Mimas because it is not a numerical statement. If the Cassini probe crashes into Mimas it will come near to disrupting Mimas, just not as near as the body that caused Herschel crater. --Fartherred (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I'm just wondering why this article was moved from Herschel (crater on Mimas) to Herschel (Mimantean crater)? The former seems clear while the latter does not; I have never heard the term Mimantean, and it seems to be a neologism used only on Wikipedia and its mirrors: [1]. Worldtraveller 15:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been moved back: I think this is the most sensible location! Worldtraveller 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to rationalise the crater references on the "(lunar crater)" model; thus "(crater on Mars)" became "(Martian crater)", and so on. The Mimas article clearly states the correct (although obscure) adjective is « Mimantean », so...

Urhixidur 23:02, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

The Wikipedia (and its mirrors) is the only place on the whole of the web (according to Google) that uses that adjective. I think that it's far too obscure to use in an "encyclopedia", hence I tried to remove all references to the word. If there's a reputable source that says otherwise, ie. a popular/reputable book, I'd probably support putting it back in. It's just weird to create a word like that, it would be like replacing lunar with moonian. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now someone has added that there is no accepted adjective for it, but that one would expect Mimantean would be used. However, I still don't see it on any website out of the Wikipedia, so I still find it inappropriate to use. Mentioning it in the main article (as it is) is fine, but actually using it as such... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Mimas article was wrong on the point of the adjectival form - it might be considered correct by some but it's not merely obscure, it's a neologism, unused anywhere except Wikipedia, and most importantly, unused by astronomers, or the arbiters of astronomical nomenclature, the IAU. I feel that it is inappropriate to promote the use of a neologism in an encyclopaedia, which is supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and so I have removed the reference to the word. Worldtraveller 11:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term is now accepted by the Cassini Equinox Mission website at JPL. I'll restore the term, but won't object if people feel it's still too obscure. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the science writer of the Mimas page at NASA's Solar System Exploration site, which the JPL Cassini site is copied from, and she said that she didn't get "Mimantean" from Wikipedia, but that "I actually heard the term specifically from a Cassini scientist as it has become an acceptable use of the adjective." So. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an adjective exists does not mean it must be used. Use of: "crater of Mimas" was clear. I prefer it. --Fartherred (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Herschel Crater on Mimas of Saturn" was the headline of an article at THE FUTURE OF THINGS. This shows that the adjectival form of Mimas is not required to refer to craters on that moon.

This is a quote from WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia_does_not_document_the_usage_of_neologisms:

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

User:Kwamikagami has made over 110 edits in the article listing adjectival forms of the names of astronomical bodies since May 25th, so it is reasonable to suspect that Kwamikagami might not be completely impartial regarding the opportunity to use one of the adjectives that were listed with diligence. While I suppose that these adjectives are highly useful in some cases, I think the article about Herschel (crater on Mimas) is not one of these cases. Kwamikagami has documented the existence of Mimantean from a primary source that has coined many astronomical names, that is not the issue. --Fartherred (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In doing a web search for alternative forms I found 198 results for Mimantean, 44,900 results for on Mimas and 54,700 results for of Mimas. In many cases Mimantean could be substituted for on Mimas or of Mimas, such as "the natural Mimantean color" for "the natural color of Mimas" or "the Mimantean South Pole region" for "the South Pole region of Mimas." Mostly, this substitution has not been made. Mimantean is still a rare word. No matter much one knows about astronomy, that person can still understand [[Herschel (crater on Mimas)]] at least as well as [[Herschel (Mimantean crater)]]. The converse for those poorly informed about astronomy is not true. So, for the added convenience of the less well informed while causing no harm to the more well informed, I suggest changing the title of the article back to [[Herschel (crater on Mimas)]]. I count it no benefit to impress readers with the large vocabulary of our editors and the benefit of instructing readers in the adjectival form of Mimas can best come from the article [[Mimas (moon)]]. --Fartherred (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in the past couple of years that the adj. form has caught on. You're right, it continues to be rare, and work-arounds are frequent, though less so each year. However, people aren't likely to reach this article without passing through Mimas, or an article which discusses Mimas, so I don't think ignorance of the word should be too much of a hurdle. It's not so much a matter of showing off as of precision: using the right word at the right time. NASA and JPL have started using 'Mimantean' where appropriate. I don't think we need to use periphrastic constructions that people were forced to use because they lacked the proper word, now that we have that word. IMO we can certainly follow the example of NASA as they adopt new terminology.

There's also Herschel (crater on Mars), which is a redirect to Herschel (Martian crater). Likewise Herschel (crater on Moon) hasn't even been made a redirect to Herschel (lunar crater). — kwami (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kwami, for responding. I got to the Herschel (Mimantean crater) article by way of the Phobos article. It only discussed Mimas to the extent that it identified Herschel as Mimas's crater. I guess that that is sufficient. --Fartherred (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to bring this up at Wikiproject astronomy, but if you no longer object, I won't bother. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age

Do we have any idea when it was formed? Drutt 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Drutt, Herschel crater on Mimas was discovered by the Voyager space probe program, (http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/20th_far_voyagers.html) which photographed the crater. The Voyager 2 probe was last at Saturn in August of 1981,(http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/saturn_worldbook.html) so the Herschel crater must be older than 28 years. That is probably not a significant fact to put in the article. --Fartherred (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age can be estimated from amount of cratering on floor. Sure it's been done somewhere. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not spend too much time looking for age estimates for Herschel crater on Mimas because I have seen no images with sufficient resolution to do a meaningful crater count. There is a limit to the improvement in resolution that Cassini can get because as the craft gets closer to the moon, the image gets more blurred from the speed of passage. Cassini has limited fuel and may not be able to slow down enough to get images of the required resolution. If you find a crater count age estimate, post it. --Fartherred (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size

"It measures 139 km[1] across, almost 1/3 the diameter of the moon;"

According to other sources, the moon is 3,500KM in diameter. Something is wrong here.216.160.181.242 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]