Talk:Herschel (crater on Mimas)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] Age

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