Talk:Mimas

First Comments

The article stated:

In Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, Herschel is the site of the monolith that transforms David Bowman.

This seems incorrect: 2001 was written in the 60s, Herschel was discovered by Voyager 1. Also, my (rusty) memory says that the monolith was at Iapetus. --- hike395 03:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

English pronunciation pretty universally [MY-muss].

---

Just wondering.. what would the adjective for Mimas be? The link to Herschel said Mimasian, I thought I heard 'Mimian' used once. Are there even official ones for moons? --Patteroast 21:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the web sites that have Mimasian seem to have gotten the term from Wikipedia. The Red Dwarf book series uses Mimian. As for what it should be, the -as is a declensional ending, and would normally be dropped. But you'd need to find the form of the Greek accusative or oblique case to know if the root is just mim-, or if there's more to it, like Ionian from Io, or Atlantean from Atlas. (For Venus, you don't just drop the -us: the s becomes r before a vowel, and the root is vener-, as in venereal.) I tried Liddell & Scott's Intermediate Greek Lexicon, but there was no entry for Mimas. A more advanced or complete volume might have it. (The OED does not.) kwami 07:57, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Hey, I found it! The unabridged 9th edition of Liddell & Scott gives the genitive as Μῑμάντος mīmántos. Thus the adjectival form of Mimas is Mimantean, completely parallel with Atlas / Atlantean. The Classics reference librarian at UC San Diego agrees this would be the most reasonable English form. By the way, he pronounced it mye-man'-tee-un. kwami 00:15, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Your picture does not show his 40 foot telescope but one of his smaller telescopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D401:F710:F16F:D378:79D4:1741 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Mimas looks a lot like the first Death Star.

Thats no moon! (Sorry, someone had to say it)

I'm half tempted to put that as the caption for the photo.

I did. It got deleted 2 minutes later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.175.174 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adjectival form

The word 'Mimantean' gets just 7 google hits [1], all of which are Wikipedia or its mirrors, and does not appear at all in the astronomical literature or in the gazetteer of solar system nomenclature. An encyclopaedia should report what is already known, and I don't think it's our place to try and introduce a neologism. The paragraph says 'we would expect the English adjective to be...' - if there's a source to say that that's what it should be, then we can report that, but otherwise this is original research. Therefore, I've removed that paragraph. Worldtraveller 10:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for saying this "does not appear at all in the astronomical literature"? Google isn't a very good test, as we all know.

"Mimantean" is the expected form according to the Classics reference librarian at the University of California. It's not an invention by a contributor to Wikipedia, and thus not original research. kwami 21:20, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

It might be the 'expected form', but nobody uses it - it's a neologism. The Astrophysics Data System is the place to go to search the astronomical literature, and the word mimantean does not appear at all, in any journal: [2], [3]. I do not think it's the function of an encyclopaedia to try to promote a neologism, and unless there is a published, reputable source that uses the word, I think we should not be including it. Worldtraveller 22:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither does "Europan" appear in that search engine, and I see that all over the place. Or "Atlantean", though that qualifies for the OED. So this doesn't appear to be a useful resource for this kind of question. (Especially not a title search!) Besides, Mimas isn't just an astronomical name, so we should also be searching the mythological literature. (Astronomers are notoriously clueless as to the names they use; they usually have no idea even how to pronounce them.)

As for it being unattested, I think that's pretty clear from the paragraph. Not like we're misleading anyone. And people have been wondering what word to use; this gives them another option, perhaps a bit more authoritative than the ad hoc solutions they will otherwise find with Google. That is something people come to an encyclopedia for, after all.

Also, if the word were "Hygiean" for the moon Hygiea, I doubt you'd object to that, or even notice it, even it had never been used before. kwami 23:11, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Actually ADS turns up a good lot of results for 'Europan'. ADS allows you to search the full text of literally all the articles ever published in the main journals, and has substantial (in many cases complete) coverage of hundreds of lesser journals, so to say it's not a useful resource for this kind of question is thoroughly mistaken. If ADS, google and the International Astronomical Union all give no uses of a word, it's very clear that word is not used in an astronomical context. As such, it should not be appearing in an article about an astronomical object. It's not the place of an encyclopaedia to conduct original research as to what a suitable word should be - if there's no source to back up the claim, then it can't possibly be any more authoritative than any other possibility.

Simply put, 'mimantean' is a neologism which is not used by astronomers or the general public, and not endorsed by any citable references. Therefore, it should not be mentioned in the article. Worldtraveller 23:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see the 'Europan' hits among all the results for 'Europe' and 'European'. However, the only hit for 'Atlantean' is from The Druid Bible, which is kind of an odd source for an astronomical data base. What this shows is that a standard English word will not be found in the astronomical literature. That's why we need to turn to Classical literature. The fact that "Atlantean" is unattested as the adjectival form of Atlas in the astr. lit. is irrelevant. kwami 23:51, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

I don't agree that Mimantean is a standard English word - no google hits seems to argue against that. More generally, it may be true that a common word in English is not used in astronomy - so, then why should that word appear in an article about astronomy? If classical literature can back up Mimantean, maybe that information should be in an article about the classical Mimas. Atlantean may well be common in general use, but is not used in astronomy, so shouldn't be used in our astronomical articles - its absence from the journals is very relevant. Worldtraveller 23:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Google is no kind of test to be used for this. It is included in the OED, and that's about as authoritative as you're going to get. As for its absence from the astr. lit., that could simply mean there's been no need for it, because Atlas is a small moon without known surface features. But Atlantean is the accepted adj. form of Atlas.

Could you tell me what the single hit for Mimantean means?

Databases queried: Astronomy/Planetary Instrumentation Physics/Geophysics arXiv e-prints General Science

Full text words: MIMANTEAN

kwami

I think the google test is useful for showing whether a word is in general use or not, although it isn't a perfect test, of course. Do you mean Atlantean is in the OED, or that Mimantean is? I think absence from the astronomical literature is a key point here - by all means, if classicists use the words, then include them in the relevant articles, but it is wrong to call Herschel a 'Mimantean crater' when that is not the terminology that astronomers use. Even if you think astronomers are clueless about words, it's not the place of an encyclopaedia to foist words upon them which are not in general usage.

As for the single hit for Mimantean, it's a bit of a quirk of the ADS search engine (which, incidentally, is extremely sophisticated and worthy of a more substantial article than we currently have on it) - see for example this search result: [4]. Worldtraveller 10:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's 'Atlantean' in the OED, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with you (I realize I'm on thin ice with Mimantean). As for only using words that astronomers use, that's like saying the article on Shakespeare has to be in Shakespearean English. As for astronomers being clueless, that's what several of the scientists at JPL and NASA told me when I asked them about these things, not a judgement on my part. (They basically said, we don't know how to pronounce any of this stuff, we just guess. I pronounce this name as X, but my colleague pronounces it Y.)

I thought the Mimantean hit might be a quirk. kwami 19:48, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

OK, this is the crux for me - if you know you are on thin ice with 'mimantean', why are you so keen to see it used in this encyclopaedia? It is simply not our place to create neologisms. I think you've drawn the wrong analogy with the Shakespeare - I would say the equivalent is saying the article on Shakespeare should use the terminology that Shakespearean scholars use, appropriately explained for the layman, just as I think astronomy articles should not use terminology favoured by linguists or sci-fi enthusiasts but should use astronomical terminology. I believe the word 'mimantean' should NOT be included here, because it is not used by astronomers, but more importantly, there is no source to prove it's a word that even exists in any case.

By the way, JPL and NASA might be clueless, but don't extrapolate from them to all astronomers! Personally, I find that most of my astronomical colleagues are much more knowledgeable about pronunciation and terminology than the general public. Worldtraveller 11:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My motivation was to answer people who were asking this question. People were debating which form to use. The two they found on the web were Mimian and Mimasian. They didn't know which to use, and both looked dubious to me etymologically, as if they had been made up ad hoc. While that would be fine if they were standard English (like Venusian for Venerian), I thought I'd research it. English adjectival forms of Classical names are regularly built upon the root, and so Mimantean would be expected rather than Mimian or Mimasian. This is not my personal judgement. Since this is something people were coming to Wikipedia to find out, I think a note to this effect is appropriate. kwami 19:44, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia must describe the way things are - in this case, you're deciding you don't like the status quo and using Wikipedia to change it, which is not the function of an encyclopaedia. As you've clearly said, 'mimantean' is the product of original research, and so it should not be here. If Mimian and Mimasian are already used, we must simply report that. If Mimantean becomes used in the future, we should report that, but it is just not acceptable to use Wikipedia to promote neologisms. If people are coming to Wikipedia to find out what adjectives are used to describe Mimas, you're doing them a disservice by claiming that the adjectival form is something it's not. Worldtraveller 20:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, Mimian and Mimasian also get negligible google hits - it seems there is no adjectival form and people simply use 'of Mimas'. Worldtraveller 20:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement as I made it was accurate. kwami 01:46, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion, I have added a sentence in the main article, suggesting that 'Mimantean' would be the correct adjectival form in Ancient Greek but that in practice other forms are used. This seems to summarise the state of affairs. The Singing Badger 20:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But how is this relevant to an article about a moon of Saturn? Worldtraveller 21:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it helps you write about the moon. When writing the article on Herschel (crater on Mimas) I found myself wanting to write something like "The other Mimasian craters are smaller". But 'Mimasian' sounded wrong to me. But I couldn't think of anything better. In the end I settled on 'craters on Mimas' instead, but sometimes one gets into grammatical situations where the adjectival form is preferable (to avoid repition, for example). I think it's therefore useful to other writers to provide suggestions on this matter (both the 'correct' form, and the ones that are actually used in practice). The Singing Badger 13:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow up: as noted elsewhere, the term "Mimantean" is now accepted by the Cassini science team, according to the science writer who used it when writing the Mimas blurb for the NASA Solar System Exploration and NASA/JPL Cassini websites. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Greek

I'm sorry if I'm being incredibly fussy about terminology in this article, but can't help wondering whether we really need the greek transliteration of the word. Why is it any more relevant than, say, a cyrillic transcription? The word may originally be greek, but I wouldn't expect to find a greek transliteration at 2 Pallas, Philosophy or Chlorophyll so I'm not sure why it is needed here. Worldtraveller 01:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The point's been made elsewhere. The main dispute over the pronunciation of astro bodies in English is whether to use a Latinate or more fully assimilated pronunciation. For example, Phocaea could be either [fo.'ka.ja] or [f@.'si.@]; Mimas either ['mi.mas] or ['maj.m@s]. When I started on these articles, there was a hodgepodge of both. What we've done since is to use spelling pronunciations for the assimilated pronunciations (people have added the IPA to some), and after that the Greek spelling to indicate the Latinate pronunciations, for those who are interested. We could of course transliterate the Greek into the Latin alphabet, but it looses something, and most people with a scientific bent are familiar with the Greek alphabet. So, yes, you would expect to find the Greek form of Pallas. Not of philosophy or chlorophyll, because those are fully assimilated words and no one argues about them. kwami 04:46, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Did Darth Vader live on Mimas? I seem to have seen that moon in a Star Wars movie or something, all duded up with guns and boxes and a big trench. 68.32.48.42 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's no moon...--Planetary 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a Space Station!--24.175.161.94 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• groans* Brutannica 06:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I haven't laughed that hard in weeks. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats no Space Station... It's a moon! --82.83.221.248 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG!! Now, THAT'S REALLY funny!!!!!!!!! HelviticaBold 07:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Discovery Date vs. Death Star Design

"although the Death Star's design was made before Mimas was discovered." I doubt the Death Star was designed before Mimas was discovered in 1789. Maybe this is poorly worded and should read "although the Death Star's design was made before Mimas was photographed." ?? Steneub 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article states that "Mimas closely resembles the Death Star in the Star Wars films. This is purely coincidental;the Death Star was designed and created long before the first photographs of Mimas were taken". The wording of this sounds a bit...odd. It makes it sound as though its referring to the death star in the movies (as in after the Battle of Yavin); rather than the concept (1977). Something like "Mimas closely resembles the Death Star in the Star Wars films. This is purely coincidental; the death star concept was created for the films in the 1970s, long before the first photographs of Mimas were taken" would sound better in my opinion.

--Logan Felipe 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", the film follows a group of freedom fighters known as the Rebel Alliance as they plot to destroy the powerful Death Star space station, a devastating weapon created by the evil Galactic Empire.

The Death Star was designed, built, destroyed, resurrected, and destroyed again over Endor millennia before Mimas was discovered; possibly before it was even formed. Some things in the universe are ancient. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Third Death Star?

Har-de-har-har. Look who's so witty and urbane. Can someone fix this? I would, but I don't know how. :D81.96.254.58 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fix'D! atomicthumbs 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Hey guys, I just noticed this looks like a Death Star (off Star Wars)! Am I the first to notice this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.14.196.193 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 April 2007 – Please sign your posts!

Just judging by the number of times "Death Star" is mentioned in posts above this one, I am going to go with no. 68.8.108.62 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.189.148 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, too.Zse4rdx (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also looks like a giant boob. Maybe we should mention that :P . BodvarBjarki (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia recording

I've just uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything. :-) --Mangst (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pac-Man moon?

I know that it's silly and a bit encyclopedia-ish, but doesn't this remind you of something?

[5]

[6]

Just want to make sure that Darth Vader's Death Star moon that also HAPPENS to get chased by ghosts and eats pac-dots be in the article. This is just too hilarious to pass up. 71.235.244.236 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit needed

"If there were a crater of an equivalent scale on Earth it would be over 4,000 kilometres (2,500 mi) in diameter, wider than Canada."

This is uncited and probably a synthesis but most certainly bollocks. Canada is well over 5,000km wide. A better comparison would be say to say that it is wider than Australia. Would someone with an acct pls fix? Thanks. 58.7.205.138 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

nvm, I can edit it myself now. 203.206.54.122 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, only the largest craters are more than 25 miles wide. I question whether most or the majority would be. Maybe the wording can be improved on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.75.201.73 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Mimas Cassini.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mimas Cassini.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-09-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Saturn's moon Mimas, as imaged by the Cassini spacecraft. It was discovered on 17 September 1789 by English astronomer William Herschel, and was named after Mimas, a son of Gaia in Greek mythology, by Herschel's son John. The large Herschel Crater is the dominating feature of the moon. With a diameter of 396 km (246 mi), it is the smallest astronomical body that is known to be rounded due to self-gravitation.Photo: NASA/JPL/SSI

Subterranean sea

A new model based on observations, suggests that the moon may have a subterranean liquid sea:

• http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6207/322
• http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29613671

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060927042133/http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/saturn/mimas.html to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/saturn/mimas.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113070818/http://laplaza.org/~tom/People/Herschel.htm to http://laplaza.org/~tom/People/Herschel.htm

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) 07:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In Popular Smegging Culture

Where is the Red Dwarf reference? I would put one in if I had time. Grassynoel (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Mimas Co-Orbital?

Some astronomy books from the mid 1980s, such as Patrick Moore's Guinness Book of Astronomy and the 1984 Guinness Book of Records make mention of a Mimas co-orbital. What was the story there? Does it actually exist or not? (While we're at it, ditto a second Dione co-orbital besides Helene (moon) mentioned in both the above books.) Romomusicfan (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Romomusicfan: There is a second Dione co-orbital: Polydeuces. Only discovered in 2004, though. So far, no news of a Mimas co-orbital. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp:If I can dig out my copy of Moore's book I can see whom he cited as discoverer of the Mimas co-orbital and second Dione co-orbital. Offhand, I recall he gave the discover dates for both as 1982. I think he quoted radii (tiny) for both too. There may or may not be a connection between the 1982 Dione co-orbital report and Polydeuces.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Romomusicfan: This is wild speculation, but I wonder if the Mimas coorbital could actually be Pallene. It was in 1981 Voyager images but only identified later. It is not really a coorbital, but it does orbit between Mimas and Enceladus. Call it a hypothesis for now. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Apparently the "Mimas coorbital" was reported in 1982 by Stephen P. Synnott and Richard J. Terrile and had an average diameter of 10km. The "second Dione co-orbital" was spotted by Synott alone and had an average diameter of approximately 15km. Any other data cited by Moore was inferred from their co-orbital status.

Perhaps later I might add some of the second Dione co-orbital information to the Polydeuces page (a previous observation of a satellite at Dione's trailing Lagrangian point would be relevant), citing Moore's Guinness book as source.14:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Romomusicfan: Okay, those names really help narrow things down looking at the list of new satellites reported to the IAU. Now time to hunt for some documents! Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Here's the list of stuff on there reported by Synott around that period for Saturn. Presumably the Terrile one is the Mimas co-orbital signting.

S/1981 S 6 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 not distinct object IAUC 3651 (Synnott et ali)

S/1981 S 7 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 IAUC 3656 (Synnott et ali)

S/1981 S 8 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 not distinct object IAUC 3656 (Synnott et ali)

S/1981 S 9 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 not distinct object IAUC 3656 (Synnott et ali)

S/1981 S10 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 IAUC 3660 (Synnott et ali)

S/1981 S11 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 IAUC 3660 (Synnott et ali)

S/1981 S12 1981 Voyager Science Team/VOYAGER 2 not distinct object IAUC 3660 (Synnott, Terrile et ali)

- Romomusicfan (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Okay, I've added the Synott report to the Polydeuces article.Romomusicfan (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Romomusicfan: Here's the documents: IAUC 3651, 3656, 3660 (seems to be the reported Mimas coorbital), 6162 (also possibly the Mimas coorbital, S/1981 S 16 or 18). Apparently the Dione coorbital (3656) was leading, not trailing. So perhaps the sentence you added is not right after all unfortunately. :( Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Only 12 degrees from Helene (moon)? Wouldn't it potentially bump into Helene at that short distance? I was givent o understand that was the relevance of the 60 degree angle for Trojans. Okay, I'll moved the co-orbital data from Polydeuces to Dione.Romomusicfan (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Have done so and added the Mimas co-orbital to this page.Romomusicfan (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"However, Mimas is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium for its current rotation. "

"However, Mimas is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium for its current rotation. " What is this supposed to mean? This doesn't make sense in my head. Limitlez1 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New evidence suggests liquid subsurface.n

Somebody should write that. 199.119.235.224 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Herschel crater

The article says that Mimas has "the second largest crater on any moon in the Solar System", measuring 139 km. This information is linked to the article List of largest craters in the Solar System, that shows that many satellites have craters bigger than Herschel; considering only the moons of Saturn, Herschel is the 10th! Could someone inform what was the criterion for this information, or just correct it? In the chapter Physical characteristics, the diameter was said to be 130 km, but this information I corrected myself. Claudio M Souza (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

---

• Mimas (moon) → Mimas
• Mimas → Mimas (disambiguation)

– According to the pageview statistics the moon is clearly the primary topic. Please move this per Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. The pageview statistics can be viewed here: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Mimas_(moon)%7CMimas_(Giant)%7CMimas_(Aeneid)%7CMimas_(moth)%7CMimas_(data_centre)%7CKaraburun%7CShield_of_Heracles SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support per nominator. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 10:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fix surface gravity

I have never edited Wikipedia before, so I can't figure out the infobox, but it says the surface gravity is 0m/s^2. Somehow, that doesn't seem right... 206.83.99.83 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)