Talk:List of minor planets

Different sources give different names of several asteroids

• Asteroid 7214 1973 SM1, some sources give the name as Anticlus, while others give as Antielus.
• Asteroid 8932 1997 AR4, some sources give the name as Nagatomo, while others give as Nagamoto.
• Asteroid 11264 1979 UC4, some sources give the name as Claudiomaccone, while others give as Claudimaccone.
• Asteroid 14428 1991 VM12, some sources give the name as Laziridis, while others give as Lazaridis.
• Asteroid 20495 1999 PW4, some sources give the name as Rimanska Sobota, while others give as Rimavska Sobota.

Which ones are the correct names? -- Yaohua2000 04:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I did some additional research on asteroid 8932. JPL Horizons and [1] gives a name of Nagatomo, but [2] gives Nagamoto. I don't speak Japanese, but I can read some according to my Chinese knowledge. After some research on Google, I found the corresponding Japanese name of Nagatomo or Nagamoto is 長友信人[3], the asteroid was discoverred by 小林隆男. I googled the keyword "長友信人" "Nagatomo" and get 31 results, while "長友信人" "Nagamoto" get only 3 results. So I think the correct translation might be Nagatomo. -- Yaohua2000 05:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Once a while an asteroid may be renamed. The MPC link is always up to date.--Jyril 10:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Did these ever get resolved, after 14 years? I mean, the best way is to probably figure out who or what they were named for, and see if there's a consensus spelling for its/their name. Some of them are probably transcription errors between different alphabets and the like, mis-readings of unclear text, or just plain typos... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am unaware if they were resolved yet, but I assume the name differences could be mis translation or typo. I think the best course of action would be to put both names, such as: "Anticlus, also known as Antielus"

Let me know if that works, or if we can find an alternate solution --Caez (any pronouns c:) (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have just looked, no names are listed on this page, so this conversation is either out of date, irrelevant, or both. --Caez (any pronouns c:) (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The page seems to have been split from the very beginning, so that this was presumably being used as a centralised talk page. Regardless, the name issues are resolved: the MPC is the authority. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Dubious diameters and broken links

A lot of the diameters listed in the tables look dubious to me; some are wrong by 1-2 orders of magnitude. To give just one example, 470430 is given a diameter of 24 km, which at the absolute magnitude (H=16.83) given by JPL[4] would require an albedo of 0.0006 (which is unphysical). Where do these diameters come from, who calculated the ones that aren't direct measurements, and who is going to correct the 700,000 entries that would need to be checked?

Also, why do the MPC links[5] on all of these entries (created with Template:M+J) lead to a blank page when I click on them using Firefox, but they work okay with Chrome? Renerpho (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

In the case of 470430, the diameter was changed from 2.7 km to 24 km by the article creator Rfassbind (inactive since 2022) on 22 January 2019.[6] Renerpho (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. This is a very strange/rare case/mistake, and actually the only one I've ever seen on the LoMPs from Rfassbind, so I'd consider it a 1-off. Regardless, I'll be making my way down methodically from the 700k's with updated orbital & observational parameters, family memberships, discovery circumstances, etc. for the foreseeable future.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Thank you. Are you aware that the information about discovery date and site is incorrect for many asteroids? I'd estimate about 5% of all asteroids are affected by this. For example, compare List of minor planets: 269001–270000#632 (2011 AK34 - October 24, 2005 - Mauna Kea - A. Boattini) to what's said in [7] (2011 AK34 - Discovered at Kitt Peak on 2003-09-29 by Spacewatch). Renerpho (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. At least once per month, the MPC updates its records here. For example, see Errata & Corrected Discovery Information sections in the latest bulletin. These corrections slowly add up over time, which is why the LoMPs & MoMPs require periodic updating. Fun fact: even some of their errata have errata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks to discovery sites stopped @ 470k

List of minor planets: 469001–470000 is the highest list with linked discovery sites. I'm not sure why that practice stopped, but the precedence is clearly to link them in a manner similar to List of minor planets: 1–1000. If no one objects, I'll try to start doing that, starting with the next big batch (720k) & eventually work my way down.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. Renerpho (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Should the list be extended?

Currently, the last planet in the last list is 2023 GQ₅. I believe it should be extended as more minor planets have been discovered. HAt 10:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

720000 is the last numbered minor planet, as of the time of writing. It was numbered in the most recent batch of MPC's in on July 14 this year. You'll have to wait till the Minor Planet Center numbers more. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The list should be extended. . .and why am I getting reverted?

November 15

The MPC just numbered asteroids 740001 to 756999. The list should be extended now. And since it is already published, why should I get reverted? Elios Peredhel (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Elios Peredhel: I reinstated your edit. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elios Peredhel (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

this should be extended some day...

i don't know why but this is shocking that someone can edit for hours and get a BIG list of minor planets, i thank for your power and skills Nail123Real (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wrong discoverers

In List of minor planets: 541001–542000, who are the discoverers of asteroids 541465, 541592, 541671 and 541840? In particular, why does it claim that these were discovered at Mt. Lemmon Survey?

I would just correct these errors myself, but I'd rather find out what caused them, so we can eliminate other instances. The fact that there are four such erros in just one sub-list indicates there might be many more elsewhere. Renerpho (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking through the same sub-list some more, 541821 has a similar issue, with Catalina Sky Survey rather than Mt. Lemmon. Renerpho (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

561623 has a wrong discoverer as well, as does 564771. Renerpho (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

553529, 553831, 554642 and 566411 are wrongly stated to be discovered at Mount Lemmon. Renerpho (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

542281, 543406, 550662 and 591021 have a non-existent discovery site (should be "Mount Lemmon SkyCenter"). Renerpho (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, but this seems to be a widespread typo, and likely the result of some (semi-)automated editing. Renerpho (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The discovery sites for 562140, 562745, 564131, 564605 and 565741 are wrong. Renerpho (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The same problem affects 559197, 561581, 562026, 563593, 563865, 563974, 564309, 564420, 564906, 566674 and 576502. Renerpho (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

One more example, wrongly claiming a Catalina discovery, is 561826.

I have only looked through the sub-lists from 500000-600000, and among those, only at asteroids where the discovery site is claimed to be Catalina or Mount Lemmon. I do not know if the error occurs with different sites because I didn't look at them. I also don't know if it spans numbers outside of that region, for the same reason. Renerpho (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand where the issue comes from. In Special:Diff/1039975874, Rfassbind made a manual edit to List of minor planets: 561001–562000, with an edit summary correction per MPC batch 10 Aug 2021 of assigned discoverers previously published on numbering. He corrects the discoverers, but neglects to change the discovery sites accordingly.

While being a manual edit, this seems to be a systematic issue affecting all stations equally, and will not be limited to numbers between 500000 and 600000. As far as I can tell, the problem occurred every time Rfassbind implemented this kind of change, which will have happened with every new MPC batch. This means that nearly every sub-list starting at some point will have some wrongly defined discovery sites. Renerpho (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

While we're discussing problems with the lists: A reminder that nearly all instances of claimed 7:4 resonances with Jupiter (random example) are spurious (cases of WP:citogenesis originating on Wikipedia); compare Talk:Cybele_asteroids#Resonance? Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Notifying Double sharp and Tom.Reding, and -- in the hope that they'll magically return -- Rfassbind. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the MPC is very error-prone. Even their errata have errata. And sometimes it can take several updates for them to fix an entirely wrong line, so a discovery date might get fixed, but the discoverer isn't, sometimes the discovery site is fixed and the date isn't. I don't know if it's a staffing or an oversight issue. However, while errors are relatively regular, I think they're only in the 1% range, with the vast majority of data they provide being correct on first publishing. In the medium term, I have plans to update the LoMPs with the most recent data.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)