Talk:Triton (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Triton (moon) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Triton (moon) is part of the "Solar System" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Astronomy WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Astronomical objects WikiProject Astronomical Objects
WikiProject Solar System WikiProject Solar System

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week.
Currently we are working on NGC 1333, please help us to improve it.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Sections needed

Magnetosphere, and interaction with Neptune's magnetosphere

interior

Serendipodous 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Link #16: "TRITON, PLUTO, CENTAURS" isn't working for me. -- Kheider (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Serendipodous 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these two articles should be included: [1] and [2]. Ruslik (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Added. I hope I'm reading them right. Seriously, I think I'm losing my touch with these things. Serendipodous 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think so? Ruslik (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geologically active moons

In the intro it states: "Triton is one of a number of geologically active moons in the Solar System." Should this be "Triton is one of the FEW moons KNOWN to be geologically active in the Solar System." Or should it simply say "Triton is one of a number of MOONS SUSPECTED TO BE geologically active in the Solar System." I think "FEW moons KNOWN" reads most accurate. The current lead makes it sound like a lot of moons are known to be recently active. -- Kheider (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be stretching the definition of suspected it say that Io is suspected of geological activity, so I would say known. Serendipodous 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capture image

If someone could create a free-to-use duplicate of this image from Nature, I think it would greatly benefit this article. Serendipodous 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

It is a good article and furfills all the requirements. Here are some suggestions if you are thinking for a future FA:

  • I would add a short explanation after retrograde orbit, especially since it is in the second sentence.done
  • the crust statement in teh intro should be referenced Triton consists of a crust of frozen nitrogen over an icy mantle believed to cover a substantial core of rock (probably containing metal). done
  • the word tenous in the last sentence of the intro is very vague.
Why is it vague?
How tenous? Compare it to something or give the exact pressure.Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
done
  • retrograde motion as proof of capturing of a Kuiper belt object.latter scenario is the least likely with Triton and it is therefore .. is confusing. why is it least likely? (mass?)
Can't read the source. Need someone with full access to the site (university computer)
done
  • would be useful if image captions would include year and mission that took those pictures.
There has only ever been one mission to Triton; Voyager 2 in 1989. All the pictures on this page are from that mission.
There are no pictures taken from Hubble or anything else? Seems strange since it is one of the biggest moons. Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's this. Not sure if it adds much though. Serendipodous 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Triton in popular culture section? (or maybe it is not the case)
Popular culture sections are being annihilated across Wikipedia. No point in introducing another one.
  • The article might be underlinked. I added a few links myself.
  • There is a lot of technical information about the presence of water, but there is no statement about the significance of this presence. Anybody thought as using it for a base, or something like it?
Well, in general, the presence of liquid water suggests the possibility, however remote, of life. Serendipodous 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Life ref added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As an overall impression: the article is very technical, which is very good. But the article might not be engaging enough for an FA. For GA is more than enough.

Hope it helped. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd wording

This theory has several notable advantages,... - weird. Wouldn't word it that way but I am stumped to think of an alternative. I know what you mean though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

replaced with this hypothesis is supported by several lines of evidence. Serendipodous 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calculated from other parameters

To improve the article, all the "Calculated from other parameters" cites could be updated to notes which give the exact calculation so that they could be confirmed by anyone else. For example, see Andromeda Galaxy Notes. WilliamKF (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

done. I think. Serendipodous 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, how about this one too? It is also more massive than all the Solar System's 159 known smaller moons combined. WilliamKF (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Serendipodous 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the "more massive than 159 smaller moons" is a strange and pointless statistic. If it was more massive than ALL other moons combined then you'd have something worth mentioning, but otherwise this is just begging to be misread. 7th most massive is plenty. So says this random guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.118.74 (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translated Portuguese FA article

Here is a Google link to the Portuguese FA translated:

Triton from Portuguese

Maybe we can benefit from this version of the article to improve this one? WilliamKF (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This article already had much translated material from the Portuguese article in it. I spent over a week cleaning it up. None of the material was sourced, and some was apparently unsourceable. I've tried to contact the person who I believe wrote most of the Portuguese article to determine his sources, but he hasn't responded. Serendipodous 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of volcanos appear contradictory

First the article states:

This volcanic activity is thought to be driven by seasonal heating from the Sun, unlike the tidal heating responsible for the volcanoes of Io.[27]

But later it seems to contradict:

This volcanic activity could be related to tidal heating from when Triton was captured by Neptune, similar to the way in which volcanoes on Io are powered today.[35]

This needs to be looked into and the apparent contradiction resolved.

WilliamKF (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote it -may have been me, I don't remember :0) - misread the source. I located the original source quoted in the ref and it didn't mention tidal heating. Serendipodous 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite pages

I just noticed that recent changes did things like this:

165-166 to instead be 165–66 (also changes a - to be –)

Just want to make sure this is intentional and if so what is the rule, why not instead 165–6?

WilliamKF (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pronunciation to talk page

(pronounced /ˈtraɪtən/ trye'-tən, or as Greek Τρίτων),[citation needed]

Note: dictionary.reference.com gives /ˈtraɪtɒn/ for the IPA pronunciation, which (superficially at least) appears different from this (to a non-IPA-expert like me). It'd be good to have a reference citation.—RJH (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That pronunciation refers to a subatomic particle related to Tritium. All subatomic particles are pronounced with the "-on" strongly enunciated (viz. "Proton" "neutron"). The mythological pronunciation, which is the one we're after, is below the advertising, and uses " /ˈtraɪtn/", with the second syllable clipped. However, dictionary.com uses a different IPA than standard, which employs a distinct letter, ə, to represent the schwa, rather than omitting a letter, as dictionary.com does. Serendipodous 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you check dictionary.com, you'll get both. It's common for unstressed English vowels to be reduced, and in this case I've never heard it not reduced. kwami (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Then I'll use dictionary.com as a source, but keep the schwa. Serendipodous 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. How does this help? If it doesn't match then the reference is just specious, and somebody is liable to come along, catch the difference and then correct it.—RJH (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OK fine. Schwa dropped. Though now it just looks weird. Serendipodous 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And now it disagrees with the help key that it is linked to. kwami (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I missed the FAC

Just noticed today. I still think this needs a ce (eek!).

That the orbital properties were nearly completely known in the 19th century doesn't really jibe with discovering a retrograde orbit in 1930. Marskell (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what was determined in 1930 wasn't the orbit of Triton, which was already known, but the direction of rotation of Neptune. I haven't been able to locate a source that goes into this in any detail though. Serendipodous 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, although it jangles.
That Voyager only imaged 40% of the surface definitely needs to be moved up; indeed, I think it could be mentioned in the lead. You wouldn't have to do it at every mention, but "surface imaged so far" or similar could be subsituted for "surface" in handful of places to remind the reader. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't think it needs to be in the lead, but it should be mentioned in the first para of "Surface features". Serendipodous 08:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cryovolcanism and Geysers

I am currently working on Geyser and i would like to know whether inclusion on the so - called geysers on Triton should be included in the Geyser article. There is already one section on it. I wanted to know whether it is appropriate or not. Reply awaited. Thank you. Indianescence (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't know the mechanism, we can't say how similar they are to geysers on Earth. But then we call Titan a moon, even though it isn't the Moon, and doesn't even resemble it. These names are just a matter of convention. I'm not sure they'd be cryovolcanos either, so then where do we put them? kwami (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that if they weren't geysers, then they would be cryovolcanoes. Serendipodous 08:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So ultimately what is the discussion. These cryovolcanoes are geysers or not? I think they will suit the article Cryovolcano than geyser. Any opinions? Indianescence (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IN GEOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY-
GEYSER is defined as a hot spring characterized by intermittent discharge of water ejected turbulently and accomplished by a vapor phase.
since the geyser LIKE structures on triton erupts nitrogen and not water it no longer remains a geyser technically. geyser is completely based upon the concept of hydraulic circulation due to geothermal energy. i would like to suggest that the term geyser should be replaced by geyser like structures in this very article and the section on geysers on triton on geyser page needs to be discussed. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a terrestrial definition with no consideration given to anything elso. The question is how similar two phenomena have to be to be included under one label. If you have the same mechanism involving a different fluid, would that not also be a geyser? kwami (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say, if we are dealing with an eruption of cryomagma, (ie if the material ejected from the crust is identical with the fluid within the mantle), then it is a cryovolcano. If the fluid is simply a pool of liquid within the crust that is heated by magma below and then erupts, it is a geyser. Triton is mostly water and rock, so its cryomantle is probably made of water. Nitrogen is far more volatile than water and so needs to be a lot colder to stay liquid. Given that, I'd say they are geysers. Serendipodous 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow this link please they have termed those mounds as nitrogen geysers. if you guys want the section on geysers on triton then please use this as your source. and please term it as nitrogen geyser and not just geyser. the concept of the plumbing system and the intense heat source of the geysers have been considered in the article though water itself plays a vital component. anyway i think i have made my justification. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but among these technical talk, i failed to locate the final decision. Lets have a voting here. Geysers on Triton should be included in the article or not? Indianescence (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Cryovolcanism would be the most general term that doesn't necessarily imply any mechanism for creation, unlike geyser. Another possibility would be Plumes on Triton, which is again general. Volcanopele (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
i would say, have Nitrogen geysers on triton as the subsection in place of geysers of triton. geysers on triton follow the general mechanism of geyser but don't have water as its component. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Cryovulcanism, though perhaps general, has connotations of water lava. I prefer geyser, and of course nitrogen geyser at least the first time to disambiguate, though not necessarily in the section header. kwami (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nitrogen geysers, I guess, maybe, but again that implies processes that aren't known at this point (same argument goes for why the word geyser shouldn't be used to for the Enceladus plume(s)). Cryovolcanism doesn't imply water lava, it can involve both explosive (which is the case here), intrusive, or effusive (cryolava if you will) processes and can involve water, nitrogen, methane, etc. The problem I point out is that new studies by Schenk et al., which suggest that Triton's surface is very young (< 5 million years old) indicating that the plumes might be related to internal volcanic processes. So I would call the section Cryovolcanism and refer to the features as Plumes. Volcanopele (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't claim that cryovolcanism could only involve water. I suggested that it most likely involved water on Triton, since Triton's interior is mostly water/rock. Since nitrogen is far more volatile than water, it seemed more likely to me that nitrogen plumes would be geysers, rather than volcanoes in the classical sense, otherwise Triton's cryomantle would be composed of liquid nitrogen. Serendipodous 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)