The dispute over Xena's a fine illustration of the silliness of fixating on classification and nomenclature of astronomical objects.

When you get right down to it, everything in the universe, except the universe itself, is a satellite of another object. That's all ya got: Satellites that play primary to other satellites.

I think these size-based categories don't convey much information. I get more from locational terms like KBO, Jovian satellite, inner planet, etc., than from "planet, except when it's orbiting another planet, in which case it's a moon; unless it was declared a planet before we changed our minds recently; and what about those small-bodies, whoooo-hoooo!"

We're talking real estate, and the three most important factors in real estate are location, location, location. Which is to say, you're going to find a fairly even distribution of sizes within a gravitational zone, due to the balance gravitational forces that captures or ejects objects of various sizes. So Titan is an object of a size that's not surprising for a massive primary. Tell me again why I should give a rat's pattootie where it ranks on the Solar System Weigh-in scale?

You programming geeks will appreciate how forgetting about size categories and focusing on location simplifies the whole naming challenge: It's a matter of namespaces and scoping. If you can resolve namespaces, who cares if satellites of different primaries have the same name? Discover a new moon around Saturn and stumped for a name? Call it "Luna". No problem:

www.habitablezone.co.luna.earth.sol
www.habitablezone.co.luna.saturn.sol

are two unique names. Problem solved.

You're welcome.