Talk:Asteroid/Archive 1

The meaning of Asteroid

Deuar at 25 August has re-written the heading, and defined asteroids as rocky bodies, to be distinguished from the icy bodies further out. While this may be a sensible classification, I do not believe that it has been followed in astronomical literature: i.e. "minor planets" and "asteroids" (and "planetoids") have been used as synonyms, even if the Wikipedia makes a distinction. Burned out comets, the Centaurs, and I think TNO's have been called minor planets or even asteroids. Also if we restrict "asteroid" to the rockies, then we lack a generic name for the icicles. Obviously the IAU has more work to do, but the expose by Deuar seems premature. Waddayathink? Tom Peters 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rmhermen argued under "Merge Asteroids, Minor Planets" that we should make a distinction. I agree that we should, but the fact is that the use of nomenclature up to now does NOT make a distinction between rocky, inner solar system, and icy, outer solar system objects: even within the new size-based class "SSSB" there is no sub-division between inner and outer bodies (although the icy outer DWARF PLANETS do get their own class: Plutonians; while Ceres and other round inner planetoids do not).

I asked Brian G. Marsden, head of the IAU's Minor Planet Center, and he wrote me this (personal communication, quoting explicitly allowed): " The term "minor planet" continues to exist. It is precisely synonymous with "asteroid" and "planetoid"."

And also, when asked whether Ceres still is and Pluto now also is, an asteroid, he wrote: " Given now the definition "dwarf planet" (for want of a better term), clearly applicable to Ceres and Pluto, I don't think we should continue to speak of these objects as "minor planets" (or "asteroids" or "planetoids"), even though they (will) all appear in a single catalogue, as regards their orbits, astrometric observations and names."

So I maintain that the distinction in the Wikipedia between "Minor planets" and "Asteroids", as exemplified by having two lemmata, is an invention of the Wiki authors: and that the two pages should be merged.

Tom Peters 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no Plutonians. Rmhermen 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution 6A: "Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects." [1] ; 6B "This category is to be called "plutonian objects." " wasn't approved, but the important point is that a distinct category is recognised and will get a name; I called it "plutonian" for lack of an official name.

Tom Peters 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Asteroids, Minor Planets?

Why are there two articles on Asteroids and Minor planets? The articles say that asteroids are a subclass of minor planets, but I do not believe that such a distinction is consistently made in old or current astronomical literature; besides, there is much overlap between the two articles. I propose to merge these, possibly under Small solar system body. Tom Peters 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet to SSSB, yes, but probably best to keep "asteroid" seperate - the term is going to stay in use, and if nothing else Ceres is still going to be grouped with them. Shimgray | talk | 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A clear distinction still exists between asteroids and comets, both types of minor planets or, as they are now called, small solar system bodies. Less certain is the classification of Centaurs. Not to mention the large difference between asteroids and small TNOs (now also called SSSBs). Rmhermen 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a large physical difference between (small) TNO's and proper rocky astroids: but all have been numbered as minor planets and I have not seen asteroids defined as a subclass of minor planets in literature: rather they are synonymous. Tom Peters 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if TNO are not numbered separately - comets are, and so are some Centaurs. So we cannot simply say that they are the same. Rmhermen 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response under "The meaning of Asteroid". Tom Peters 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't surprise me that the IAU doesn't have a definition of "asteroid" etc. - they've only now gotten around to defining "planet"! However, this doesn't change the simple fact that there are these two large, important, groupings of physically distinct bodies that get called Asteroids and Trans-Neptunian Objects in Wikipedia, as well as a few less prominent groups as well such as Centaurs and others. Then there's also Comets, and I wonder whether the IAU has gotten around to defining them? I suspect it's a grey area as well, especially given the so-called main-belt comets. All these groupings certainly need their own articles - as evidence, let me just point out that over 32K has been written about the asteroids alone! The curent division in Wikipedia presumably comes about because it the most widely held view among people interested in solar system bodies.

In principle, I'm OK with renaming the "asteroid" article to something else like "rocky minor planet" or some such, although I have to say this seems like a pretty cumbersome and distasteful way to do deal with the issue. Perhaps a better way would be to keep the current division we have in Wikipedia, but somewhere in the introductory part of "asteroid", "TNO", etc mention that these are not official or universally accepted definitions. Finally, "minor planet" or "small solar system body", or whatever that article gets renamed to, should be an umbrella grouping that points out the different categories of small bodies without going far into their individual details − that should be left for their individual articles. Deuar 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuar, I find your attitude very disturbing. You justify the current status with "The curent division in Wikipedia presumably comes about because it the most widely held view among people interested in solar system bodies". I hold that someone started an article on minor planets and someone else started an article on asteroids, and that the two evolved and cross-pollinated along the way. However, this is not a matter of opinion that requires a NPOV and fair representation of majority and minority opinions. This is about classification and the technical terms used for them. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that its purpose is to describe and explain the meaning of the lemmata as they are used in the real world. In this case, it is the actual use by (professional) astronomers that should be decisive, not some opinion among Wikipedians. Bradler could not be more explicit: "minor planet" and "asteroid" are full synonyms. So we may not have two articles with different content under these two terms. Yes, now that "planet" is (re-)defined, the IAU should come up with a clearer definition of "minor planet" (the preferred term over "asteroid"). Yes, this term indicates several very different types of objects, not all of which have a proper definition or even a proper name. There is a good reason: these objects are discovered by the thousands, and get a designation. What their nature and proper classification is, is usually unknown. In any case, the definition that you wrote on this page that an asteroid is a rocky body and a sub-class of minor planets, is your own invention. It is not a fair representation of current use in astronomy. It is wrong and should be reformulated.

I do agree however on your practical proposals that the various objects deserve their own pages, if only because the current pages get too big. Unfortunately then we'll have to make up some cumbersome title just because there is no generally accepted proper term. But that appears to be just the sad current state of affairs. Tom Peters 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I hope I didn't disturb you too much! :-)

As for the introduction, please feel free to improve it - I won't complain (probably). I had put it in as mostly a stopgap measure, and to do some compacting. You might remember that before we had "An asteroid is a predominantly rocky body that orbits around its star", which did not exclude e.g. the Earth or rocky planets around other stars. This seemed to be glaring and prompted me to do my likely amateurish edits. I personally don't care very much about the actual naming, being more interested in the physical properties of all these bodies, and that the groups do get their own articles whatever the names. Lastly, yeah, of course I agree that professional use takes complete precedence over wikipedia use, but I had the impression that professional use was pretty sloppy itself. I've mostly read journal articles on main-belt asteroids, and there they are predominantly called such (not minor planets); as for the other groups of numbered bodies I'm not familiar enough to say anything useful. Deuar 11:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In my wording minor planet is just a very small planet, which happens to fit well with the largest asteroids, 1-4. Asteroid however, for me signifies a member of the asteroid belt or a body that has a chemical composition, like the majority of objects in the asteroid belt. This means a "minor planet" is a "minor" "planet", and an asteroid a stony minor planet or less. Minor planet is not the same thing as asteroids, IAU can say whatever they want, but terms are not chosen by random. Rursus 09:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Trojans

There also Mars Trojans

And there is even an Earth "trojan." Discovered just recently, named Cruithne. I think that the term "Trojan" only applies to Jupiter's L5 and L4 asteroids, though, so check that before adding it to the entry.

As I understand it, a Trojan must be in [Langrangian point], but Cruithne is not, or is it? Also found some references to Mars Trojans in the internet. See, for a list of Trojans:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Trojans.html

joao

Earth-Asteroid collisions

How about the possibility of a collision of an asteroid with the Earth? User:Ed Poor

That would probably be a bad idea. :-O --maveric149

-Well, ask any one about this and they would throw this idea as just another myth and a HIGH impossibility.

Asteroid naming conventions

I am rethinking my previous comments in support of naming asteroids using just the most common name first and then sorting out naming conflicts later. As it is, many articles and redirects will be directed to the most common name if an article is made with that name. Then when the inevitable renaming comes, all those links will be either broken or linked to the wrong article - what an unnecessary mess. How about we establish some kind of naming convention for asteroids? I suggest either following the type of naming convention found in the planets articles (e.g. Eros (asteroid)) or we use catalogue numbers (e.g. 433 Eros). I personally prefer using the second method since it is more precise and easier to link to in another article. Then the Eros article can be about the god - which makes sense, since all other uses of the word "Eros" are derived from the name of the god. A couple of links at the bottom of that article can then be added to the other uses of the word. Any other suggestions? --maveric149

I'm not wedded to any particular method, but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. As long as the "common name" articles either disambiguate or redirect directly to the fancy technical name, there shouldn't be a problem; it'll still be easy to link to asteroids without having to always look up the technical name for [[433 Eros|Eros]]ing. Bryan Derksen

I am convinced that the number preceeding the name of an asteroid needs to be between parentheses. This is the naming convention in the Dictionary of Minor Planet Names by Lutz D. Schmadel and on the website of the Minor Planet Center (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/Ephemerides/Bright/2003/00021.html). Does anyone have information that proves the contrary ? If not, this should be changed, but I am not active on the English wikipedia. - Tom. 81.240.23.198 18:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right, the formal naming convention does require the parentheses. Dropping them lightens the text (they are kept for asteroids numbered but unnamed, because otherwise the name doesn't parse correctly). I have nothing against retrofitting them in, but the task would be immense.

Urhixidur 18:31, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Photo

Which asteroid is the picture of? --rmhermen

Please give the photograph a proper label, or delete it. Sheesh. —Steven G. Johnson

Quaoar

If Quaoar is a minor planet (in the Kuiper Belt), shouldn't it be listed above Ceres in the table of largest asteroids? -- hike395 04:37 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Its all semantics, some say Quaoar is a planet, others say its a planetesimal, others say its a comet core, others say its a Kuiper belt object, and others say its an asteroid - i say we redirect them all to space debris Pizza Puzzle

I would dispute any such move and merge. Whether you think the categories are meaningful or not, they are nonetheless used by astronomers worldwide. Semantics are meaningful. Bryan

Try adjusting your sarcasm filter; its clearly broken. Pizza Puzzle

So, bringing the discussion back to the topic: should Quaoar be listed as the largest asteroid or not? If asteroid is a standalone concept (say, an undifferentiated body orbiting a star) and if Quaoar fits the definition, then we should put it first. But, it asteroid is a relative concept (like hill is to mountain), then we don't have lists of the tallest hills in the world, so the whole table of largest asteroids is kind of silly.

I can see the argument both ways -- hike395

I've only heard Quaoar described as a Kuiper belt object. Also asteroids are often distinguished from other sub-planetary bodies by being rocky but most of the time an asteroid is called an asteroid if any part of its orbit is within the orbit of Jupiter and it is not a comet, moon (or meteoroid - not sure where the cut off is though - it may be a mountain/hill thing). Comets are composed of a very large percentage of volatiles. However, to complicate the picture there are burned out comets which have lost most of their volatiles that are now called asteroids (it still doesn't break the definition). Kuiper belt objects are so named because of their position and not really based on their composition (although due to their distance from the sun and the fact that so much damn water and other volatiles were created from our proto-planetary disk, it is thought that these objects have a high percentage of volatiles - but I haven't heard about any spectral studies to back this up though). That knowledge is from my Geology of the Planets class I took a few years back and the class textbook Moons and Planets, Fourth Edition, William K. Hartmann, (Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1999) ISBN 0-534-54630-7 pages 159-161. IIRC many of the non-comet objects in between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune have a messed up and uncertain classification (although comets at that distance won't have tails so it is kind of hard to distinguish them from more rocky bodies, again IIRC). --mav 06:44 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

OK, so last night I thought: the IAU should have figured this all out, right? Nope. There is no official IAU definition for a planet! People are still quibbling about it. So, some people same Quaoar is a planet, some say an asteroid, and some say a KBO (Kuiper Belt Object). What a mess. This is probably what Pizza Puzzle was alluding to, above.

This definitional mess certainly casts doubt on the table of largest asteroids. I've got an idea: I'll change the header to say "Table of Largest Asteroids inside the orbit of Jupiter" and then it will be correct. -- hike395

Actually, the IAU does have a definition for what planets are, at least within the solar system; planets are any of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. There's a lot of debate over how to classify extrasolar planets, especially with brown dwarf stars in the picture, but they're a recent discovery so confusion is understandable.

As for renaming the table, I object. When I first created it I used a list of "biggest asteroids" from an astronomy book that did not give their orbital diameters, and I think a few others may have been added from other sources since then as well. Do you know for a fact whether all of those asteroids really are within the orbit of Jupiter? And even if they are, Jupiter's orbit is not part of any definition of asteroid that I'm aware of. What if we discover a big asteroid between Jupiter and Saturn? Bryan

Ah but the IAU isnt a definitive source either, some respectable sources now say that Pluto isn't a planet, but rather it is a Kuipter Belt object. There isn't a definitive definition, but certainly the spirit of the list is to refer to those relatively small rocky things that lie mostly between mars and jupiter. Pizza Puzzle

Bryan -- The IAU has an enumerated list of solar planets, but that's not what I would call a definition. The lack of definition definitely affects the status of Quaoar, and hence the table: should Quaoar be in it or not? See [2][3] for some of the controversy.

If Quaoar is not a planet, it might not still be an asteroid; Kuiper belt objects seem to be considered a class of their own based on what I've read. For now, perhaps a similar table to the "biggest asteroids" one covering the "biggest KBOs" could be put over in the KBO article. I'll start putting one together, in fact. If they ever end up being merged, it should be fairly straightforward to do so. Bryan

And, yes, I do know that the entire list in within Jupiter. I knew it from the discovery dates, but if you'd like to check my source for the additional data, please see [4].

Thanks, I can accept the caveat now that I know it is indeed true. :) Bryan

I think the updated table nicely sidesteps the controversy, which can be worked out by the IAU definition wonks and then we can put it in Wikipedia. -- hike395

Oh, and don't worry about discovering a huge asteroid between Jupiter and Saturn: any asteroid > 200 km there would have already been detected by now. It's the Kuiper Belt objects that I'm worried about, and they are much much further away. -- hike395

And then there's 2060 Chiron. It's large (upper estimate= 208km diameter), it's orbit is beyond Saturn. It has an appreciable coma. It's probably a KBO that was kicked into a lower orbit [5]. Is it an asteroid? Should it be listed? This is the sort of mess I'm trying to avoid by restricting the table to list only those asteroids within Jupiter's orbit. I'm not claiming that is the definition of all asteroids, just the definition for this particular, unambiguous, NPOV Wikipedia table. -- hike395

Fortunately, Chiron's size is below the smallest asteroid currently on the table, so that particular mess is very easy to ignore for the immediate future. Perhaps Pizza Puzzle's at-the-time sarcastic suggestion of a space debris article could be useful as a sort of "disambiguation page" which lists asteroids, KBOs, Oort cloud objects, etc. with brief descriptions of how they're distinguished in Wikipedia. Bryan

Oh, just noticed while building that page; Chiron's classified as a Centaur, which appears to fill in the definitional region between the asteroids and Kuiper belt. That also helps remove Chiron from immediate classification messes. Bryan

Check this out: Crazy Names: The Solar System's Nomenclature Wars --mav

Earths 2nd Coorbital [6] my personal fav [7] my site [8]

Number of asteroids

I changed the number of asteroids to a much larger and much vaguer number. We had listed 9000 discovered which is far too low. The Minor Planet Center mentioned almost 15,000 numbered asteroids in 1999 before most of the computerized searches hit ful swing. NEAT claims over 5,000 new designations and LINEAR over 198,000! But they don't specify what kind of objects are being designated. I presume mostly asteroids. The committee to investigate a replacement for Spaceguard estimates half a million near earth asteroids over 50 meters. Asteroids are first designated, than numbered, than named as they meet better criteria. Can anyone find a recent number of numbered asteroids? Rmhermen 16:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

[9] goes until 79084. andy 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Rmhermen 16:30, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Definition

Removed from article: Other issues include location and composition. Among the planetoids, the most narrow (and least controversial) definition of "asteriod" uses different terms based on orbit:

• Asteroids are those minor planets with stable orbit between Mars and Jupiter
• Centaurs are minor planets between Jupiter and Saturn
• Trans-Neptunian objects are minor planets past Neptune
• Comets are objects that have highly ellipical orbits that cross inside the orbit of Neptune

Of these objects, all but the asteroids are predominantly made of ice.

Not only is this not the least controversial, I don't think these definitions are correct. Under this defintion there are no Trojan asteroids, no near earth asteroids, etc. Not all object with highly elliptical orbits that cross within Neptune are comets and some short-period comets don't cross Neptune's orbit. Rmhermen 21:36, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Definition of Centaurs is wrong also as Chiron has a perihelion between Saturn and Neptune. Rmhermen 21:39, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think they all should be called "asteroids" (or minor planets) unless they exhibit cometary activity. Jyril 10:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About asteroid stub articles

Since almost nothing is known about individual asteroids, I think that a complete article needs only

• data table
• mention about its location (Main belt etc.) and group/family
• discoverer and discovery date
• origin of the name <-- I need help on this

The Dictionary of Minor Planet Names by Lutz D. Schmadel gives this infomation. It's expensive and I don't have a copy. For a few historical asteroids the origin of the name has been lost. -- Curps 11:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If these are the only things known about a particular asteroid, I'd suggest that it doesn't even warrant a stub article; the big tables of asteroids could just be expanded to hold this data instead. Bryan 15:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And if possible,

• composition and color
• known stellar occultations
• shape models
• pecularities of lightcurve
• radar observations
• suspected/known satellites

Naturally spacecraft-visited and other notable asteroids should have much more than that. Jyril 09:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When did they figure out it was a belt?

The section on asteroid discovery was very interesting to me, and is the reason I came to this article. I wish someone would add information about when the accumulating data on asteroids clearly indicated the existence of the "asteroid belt." Jdavidb 19:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the term "asteroid belt" was first coined in SF, not astronomy, as early as 1931. A search of the NASA ADS Abstracts database finds the first use of "Asteroid Belt" in an abstract in Frank J. Kerr and Fred L. Whipple, Possible explanations of the secular acceleration of PHOBOS and Jupiter V, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5 p. 131 (Oct 1951). Their use of the term seems casual, however, so it was clearly in use before that date (this is more a reflection on the ADS Abstracts database incompleteness than anything else).

Urhixidur 23:39, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Asteroid article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Asteroid}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

French article, please merge

Please merge the information from the semi-poorly translated French article at Asteroid/French. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? It looks like it is mainly a translation of this page to begin with. Rmhermen 13:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rmhermen: everything in the French article is already in here (there is more detail here), except for the fact that Vesta is visible to the naked eye: not sure where to fit that in. -- hike395 15:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed the paragraph about the discovery of Ceres -- I'll fit that in. -- hike395

Looks like I am late but here is my detailed look responding to AllyUnion's message on my talk page:

"One of the things I noticed that was missing from the English article is a notable asteroid section."

No, because we have separated out the List of noteworthy asteroids in our Solar System as well as having the List of asteroids, List of asteroids named after important people, List of asteroids named after places as well as Meanings of asteroid names and Pronunciation of asteroid names.

There should be an article link or a summary none the less. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is, and always has been, a link to these articles. Rmhermen 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

"The other are the images, which are not present."

We have fewer pictures, perhaps that should change. The 3 pictures which differ are already present on the pages of the individual asteroids in better resolution or description. They could be added to the asteroid article. The animated piture is certainly nice.

"If you notice, the information may be the same, it is just that the French article is slightly more detailed." "If you look closely, their section of "The discovery of the first asteroids" is more detailed than the English history section, with minor information missing."

• Starting from the bottom, the 3 nav bars are directly copied from us. Our links section has the same link and more and we have a see also section that the French version lacks completely. We have a long "Asteroids in fiction and film" that the French article lacks completely also.
• Our noteworthy asteroids is a separate article. Our spectral classification section is superior in detail and the additional details in the French are treated in separate articles such as the arbitrary addition of only 3 of the 11 additional classes or the class details.
• Our denomination section needs a little work and probably moved earlier in the article but is more detailed. I see the French article has these details in the Modern methods section.
• What the French article has under principal groupings we have in the separate article Minor Planets - which subject the French article fails to mention at all. The French article also misidentifies cubewanos and promotes Trojans to an odd level of importance. But perhaps a less detailed description than that found on minor planets could be added to the asteroid article for some of the major groups. Not sure it is necessary though.
• The French article has no unmannned exploration section, nor any mention of von Zach or Wolf. It does go into more detail about the discovery of 1 Ceres although we have more detail in our Ceres article. Is it useful to expand this on the asteroid article?

"My suggestion of merging was that I see the French article is a Featured article and the English article is not. The objections that may be raised is the layout of the article, and being too brief in certain areas where the French article is not."

It is clear that the standards for featured article are not the same between encyclopedias. I know that the French version would not qualify through our process, especially the "how-to" observation section and no footnotes or references sections. Also I don't believe that our article has ever been proposed for featured status.

This line from the French article is not in our description of asteroid naming. Is it a useful addition? "The appearance receives a designation, made up of the year of discovery, a code of two letters representing the week of discovery, and of a number so more than the one discovered one took place in this week (example: 1998 FJ74). When the orbit of an asteroid is confirmed, it receives a permanent number (example: (26308) 1998 SM165), then, later, a name (example: 1 Ceres)." Rmhermen 15:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I factored in the Ceres discovery already --- seemed short enough and relevant. The material in the paragraph immediately above is well-described at provisional designation: I should check to see if we link to that article in a prominent way. -- hike395 15:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My apologize to those who have already worked on this article so much. I do feel that the article could be nominated for a Featured Article status, but it does seem lacking in pictures, and I was attempting to discover what made the French article a Feature Article and what made the English one not one... aside from it not being nominated. However I feel that looking at the French article and seeing the differences between the two is important. Their NPOV and our NPOV are different, and we can learn from something by looking at their article version. After all, if we can make improvements to the English article simply by looking at the French version, why not? -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't beleive NPOV has anything to do with it. And asking us to merge in information that we have already purposely removed to separate articles dosesn't seem productive. I don't believe that the French article would have made it through our Featured article process. It seems very incomplete and unbalanced, lacks a strong lead, and in a couple places is actually incorrect. Rmhermen 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just moved the article to Talk:Asteroid/French, since it's a "working" document that shouldn't be part of the article namespace. Bryan 22:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, in a similar issue, I've noticed several astronomy related pages using "<<" and ">>" for quotation marks, as used in the French language. Could this have been a relic of bad translation?--Mtnerd 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

References

It would be nice to have some references from books and such for Wikipedia:Cite sources in order to be nominated as a featured article. At least include a further reading section. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggest reference 17, ^ MIT News Office: Lucy Crespo da Silva, 22, a senior, dies in fall. Retrieved on 2006-06-05. be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.59.199 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia-specific self-references

Wikipedia drops the parentheses for named asteroids because it makes the text somewhat easier to read, because this convention is already quite common elsewhere, and because, frankly, it would be too much work to convert the existing pages to the formal format... (for unnamed asteroids, Wikipedia does use the parentheses because the risk of confusion is much too great otherwise).

Updating asteroid information

I noticed that some of the information in

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroid&action=edit&section=2

was not correct and I corrected it. However, I noticed that my correction of "the last numbered and named minor planet was 95959 Covadonga." to "the last numbered and named minor planet was 99905 Jeffgrossman." was immediately reversed and called "vandalism". Here is the reference to my correction:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/NumberedMPs95001.html

Perhaps my "vandalism" could be undone?

68.145.140.118

Someone was too careless checking your edit. No harm was done, looks like you fixed it by yourself. I really recommend you to register, because anonymous editors are often suspicious. And it also gives better anonymity. Now everyone can see your IP address.--Jyril 13:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Listing asteroids by spectral class

I was minding my own business when I came upon D-type asteroid. Instead of linking to a list of D-type asteroids, this page points the reader to Whatlinkshere. IMO, that's a remarkably bad way of doing things. I wanted to start a list or a category or something, but then I found List of asteroids and List of notable asteroids. One of these should probably be updated to include spectral class data. --Smack (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree: Whatlinkshere is Wikipedia:Self-reference, a bad thing. I would suggest using categories, which maintain themselves like Whatlinkshere, but is exportable away from Wikipedia. So, we would need Category:D-type asteroids, etc. -- hike395 04:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Whence Minor Planets?

According to NASA ADS:

• First occurrence of "kleinen planeten" is http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1849AN.....28..161O&db_key=AST&link_type=ABSTRACT&high=42c888df4622018, Astronomische Nachrichten, volume 28, p. 161, 1849.
• First occurrence (in the title) of "minor planet" is http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1853MNRAS..13..136.&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42c888df4609591, Catalogue of the Minor Planets, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 13, p. 136, February 1853.

Urhixidur 13:31, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

"Earth's Solar system"?

Isn't this phrase redundant? The name of our sun is Sol; the Solar system is Sol's planetary system. No need for "Earth's". kwami 07:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to reserve the phrase Solar System (with capital Ss) as the proper noun for Earth's planetary system, or the planetary system of Sol.Alan R. Fisher 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with spectral classification?

It is claimed that "This has led to great confusion though in that an asteroid's type is not indicative of its composition". That sounds too categorical to me. As far as I know, in most cases the spectrum is quite indicative of composition (but maybe someone has evidence otherwise?). Rather, the confusion (but was it a "great" confusion?) has been because different scientists have used different bits of the spectrum to classify the asteroids. This led to several classification schemes which are not directly comparable and which disagree for many asteroids. Still, by eye about 2/3 asteroids are classified consistently, so the present classification clearly is of some use. Accordingly, i've toned down tha paragraph in the article. Deuar 12:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

INCOMMING !

Found out that there is one that may hit this planet. See this link: Asteroid to HIT this planet in 30 years Also go to the Fortean Times website to see this Article Title:Apohosis to collide with Earth in 2036. Click on this to see the whole thing, in case the provided link is malfunctioning, or nonfunctioning.Martial Law 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Old news, see 99942 Apophis. For a little while back when the asteroid was first discovered (almost a full year ago now) the estimated probability of an impact was 1 in 37, but now it's at 1 in over 5000 due to refinements in measurements. Practically no chance. Bryan 07:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Iron mines?

The recent edit suggesting mining asteroids for iron is bizzare. I can understand asteroid mines for some kind of rare mineral (yet to be proposed), but we're not likely to run out of iron any time soon. It's one of the most common elements! Deuar 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be bizarre if you needed iron in orbit. It might be cheaper than lifting it out of Earth's gravity well. kwami 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. Guess it didn't ooccur to me that that's what was meant. Duh! Special pleading on my part: maybe it was unclear what was meant? Deuar 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting the SF part

The part refering to fictional refrences to asteroids was terrible jumble, with all kinds of items having no logical connection other than all mentioning asteroids, in no logical order - and very many important SF refrences were missing altogther. I have reordered the existing items, by theme rahter than date, and added what I felt needed to be added (quite a bit). I hope the result pleases people who were involved with this article longer than me. Adam Keller 13:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

I like what you've done, but I think you need to include the names of some the major books or films as examples for what you're saying; in other words, if you're making claims about the changing representation of asteroids, you need evidence to back up your claims. Have a look at the 'Mars in Fiction' section of the Mars article to see an example of what I mean (it's not perfect itself, but it makes the basic point). The Singing Badger 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify what's happened, Adam wrote a super detailed "asteroids in fiction" section, that was great. The problem, I thought, it was far too long. So, I summarized it and put all of the detail in Asteroids in fiction. We should really go back and put references to primary sources (the original books). -- hike395 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

More references?

Looking back at the FA candidacy for this article, it looked like it failed due to lack of references. I've just added 16 of them.. Does anyone want to add more (and perhaps resubmit to FAC) ? -- hike395 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Total mass of asteroid belt

There seem to be two widely differing mass estimates for the whole belt going around:

• Low: ~2.3&times10²¹ kg. This appears to have come from the NASA fact sheets [10], and was in use in Wikipedia for a while. I don't know how it was obtained. Anyone have a better reference?
• High: ~3.2&times10²¹ kg. This comes from some research by E.V. Pitjeva where she fitted aberrations in the motion of planets (ref #4 in the article, or e.g. [11], and some other papers). This was used in the article at one stage, and is now back.

There was some previous discussion of this at Talk:1 Ceres#Mass Reference. Whichever we choose, there's a pile of articles which say "asteroid 123 Foo comprises x% of the mass in the belt..." etc. that should be standardised.

Any ideas on which to pick, which is more reliable, etc? Deuar 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion at Talk:1 Ceres#Mass Reference.

support for claim for caption for gif?

Something streaks across the field of view in the animated gif (Image:Asteroid 2004 FH.gif). The caption says that this is a meteor, but it doesn't say that on the NASA site. I can't imagine the asteroid is traveling at an apparent velocity anything like a meteor, so isn't it more likely that the streak is a satellite in high orbit? kwami 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The asteroid is the object dead center moving much slower than the meteor. I don't understand the question. Rmhermen 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do we think it's a meteor? I don't buy it: It appears to be moving much too slowly. If it were a meteor, I wouldn't expect it to appear on more than one frame, but it appears on several. kwami 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct. You could try asking User:JDG who uploaded it. Rmhermen 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The same question struck me just now, when reading the article. The streak across the image is very obviously a satellite, not a meteor. A meteor streak would be much too fast to process across several time-lapse images. After a quick search, the following web page confirms that the time-lapse is at 15-second intervals, and agrees that the streak is a satellite. http://aida.astronomie.info/displayimage.php?album=lastupby&cat=0&pos=96&uid=32 I will update the image caption appropriately. Arcman 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Asteroid Names

I have paper copies of the Minor Planet Circulars from 1978 to the mid-1990s, with the actual citations for all asteroids named during this time span. As such, they are the 'definitive' citations. I've been adding and correcting some of the entries here and in other sections. How do I prove that I'm using the original sources if they are not accessible with links, because I'm not going to spend a bunch of my time doing this work and then have others question if the citations are correct?

Lowe4091 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:Cite for directions on citing material. (Or just check how some Featured Articles use citations and copy their style.) Rmhermen 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The citations will gradually appear at this URL: http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/~cgi/ShowCitation.COM?num=1234 (they are working backwards from the most recent namings). This will eventually allow a direct link to be put in. For now, I suggest using the style <small>[MPC 1234]</small>. Footnotes or endnotes are not desirable because the pages are already unwieldy. Please also try to sum up who or what the asteroid was named for. For example, simply stating that 4002 Shinagawa is named for "Seishi Shinagawa" is unhelpful. He was presumably described in the MPC, no?

Urhixidur 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued (if need be) on Talk:Meanings of asteroid names. Urhixidur 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Marshmallow hitting the Earth at the speed of light

Is it true that it would leave a crater? Hardee67 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was hitting the Earth at the speed of light, it would have infinite mass. So, before hitting Earth it would swallow the Universe by an infinite gravitation force. But speaking about hard-to-test experiments, has anyone got the answer of how to make Saturn not fall apart, when immersing it into a Huge Ocean, in order to demonstrate Saturn's low density? Rursus 09:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to answer your question: No! It would leave no Earth, wherein craters can form. All atoms would be ripped apart, all nucleons would be ripped apart into quarks, and the space-time would disrupt. It would be a smash like nothing else! Rursus 09:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary symbols for asteroids

According to [12] there are other minor planet planetary symbols around, we should probably add it into the text (but not infobox) of the various asteroids concerned. 132.205.93.19 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

We'll need to adjust references accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree: the site also says:

Q: Is the term “minor planet” still to be used?

A: The term “minor planet” may still be used. But generally the term “small solar system body” will be preferred.

More significantly, dwarf planets Pluto and Eris recently got minor planet numbers, which obviously (also) makes them minor planets. By inference, Ceres is still minor planet 1 .

Tom Peters 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The IAU's dispatch on the numbering of Pluto and Eris infers that they were added to the minor planets catalogue not because they were considered to be minor planets (now "small solar system bodies"), but instead because Ceres was already on the list - i.e. for consistency. Minor planets are now SSSBs, but dwarf planets are a separate category from SSSBs, so dwarf planets aren't minor planets, I would think. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"The largest asteroid in the inner solar system is 1 Ceres, with a diameter of 900-1000 km." The question is: does asteroid = small solar system body? There needs to be some edits. Hopquick 03:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ckatz, this is false reasoning. The IAU has said nowhere that (all) minor planets are now SSSBs. The IAU defined the terms "planet" and "dwarf planet". Also they now call SSSB anything that is not a planet, dwarf planet, or meteorite, and it includes comets next to minor planets. Thusfar the IAU hasn't made a closer definition of the older terms minor planet = asteroid = planetoid. For now, minor planet and SSSB are overlapping, not hierarchical categories. But just because Ceres, and now Pluto and Eris, have minor planet numbers, the intention obviously is to classify them as minor planets - which makes sense, since they are planets, be it of the dwarf variety, which is somehwat bigger and rounder than your average minor planet. It also makes sense from observational methodology: a new speck of light is discovered, and it gets a minor planet number. Only after closer investigation it can be classified as a dwarf planet or SSSB (maybe even a distant comet). Tom Peters 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As Ceres is no longer an asteroid, it can't be the largest of them, even if it is still a minor planet. 132.205.44.128 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My perception is that the preference of the editors is to keep this subject on hold, pending some sort of clarification from the IAU. While the website is an official IAU publication, and other IAU web pages have expressed a similar intent, their wording is vague enough to warrant caution before incorporating such a significant change into the astronomy articles. Temporary solutions have included using text such as "largest object in the asteroid belt" instead of "largest asteroid". Hope this helps! --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Asteroid origin

IMHO we need something in this article on theories of asteroid origin. As I understand it, the popular theory that the asteroids were formerly a planet which broke up no longer has any serious credence in the astronomical community. I wanted to cite this article as a source on this, but the info isn't here. -- 201.51.215.102 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. What's certainly discarded is the theory of the asteroids being just one planet that was broken apart. But fragmentation theories are still valid, f.ex. the Vesta class of asteroids. Rursus 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exponential

The article says the number of asteroids increases exponentially as the size declines. What does this mean? If it means anything at all it probably isn't true: a power law is more likely. If it is true it needs a reference.

Very good point. I can't think of any reference for the power law, so I've just changed it to "rapidly" for now. Deuar 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the text was intended to mean that there are many, many more small asteroids than there are larger ones. much as there are many grains of sand on a beach, and relatively few boulders. If so, it should be rewritten accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

asteroid colonization

i am curreently doing research on colonizing asteroids and so far i have come up with a huge amount of money that will be needed to get there. and i am not even finished caculated the costs,i am talking hundereds of millions of dollars. if anyone has any i deas what woould happen if we did colonize an asteroid. please feel free to add any comment

Creating asteroids

The article does not mention any novels or short stories that propose destroying planets to creat asteroids. L. Neil Smith proposed this in his The Venus Belt, 1985. E. E. Smith had an instance in one of his series of planets being tossed through space warps at one another as the ultimate way to destroy a planet.

2036 Asteroid Collision Impact w/ Earth?

Should this information be included within the asteroid article:

"http://www.space.com/news/051103_asteroid_apophis.html" 74.96.186.207 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a separate page for the asteroid 99942 Apophis. The contents of the space.com article you mention (dated 3 November 2005) appear to be already covered there. However, if you think it adds additional information, you might consider adding it to the list of three space.com links that appear in the "Older articles" part of the "External links" section at 99942 Apophis. —RP88 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Time line

(feel free to add to it):

• From 1801 (Ceres) until 1906 (588 Achilles) all known asteroids were clearly within the asteroid belt (a<4.3 AU). 279 Thule has a semi-major axis (a) of 4.27 AU.
• Trojan asteroid 588 Achilles (a=5.1 AU) at aphelion does get further out than Jupiter (a=5.2 AU).
• 944 Hidalgo (a=5.7 AU) discovered in 1920 was treated as an asteroid even though its aphelion is as far as Saturn (a=9.5 AU).
• The first centaur 2060 Chiron (a=13.7 AU) was not discovered until 1977.
• Chiron was often referred to as an asteroid since back then it did not show a coma and was not large enough to be a true planet.
• The second centaur was not discovered until January 1992 when 5145 Pholus was discovered.
• In August 1992, Trans-Neptunian object 1992 QB1 (a=43 AU) was discovered and everything changed forever. :-)

-- Kheider (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No change

These articles told me what I wanted to know. The "minor planets" are not all asteroids, and should not be in that article. Asteroids could go under "minor planets" but organization would feel clunky. Real people who are not astronomers are unlikely a priori to know terms such as "small solar system body". I believe these articles serve their current purpose as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthe600 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That distinction isn't fixed. There are many examples of people referring to "Kuiper belt asteroids". Yes it does appear that the term "asteroid" is gradually becoming distinct from "minor planet" in that "asteroid" is used primarily to describe rocky as opposed to icy bodies, but that is far from established. Serendi^podous 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about merging with dwarf planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.98.226 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the same thing. All dwarf planets are minor planets, but not all minor planets are dwarf planets. Serendi^podous 05:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Morphology

An interesting story that would be appropriate for this page:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2794&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I just couldn't find an appropriate section for this. There's nothing on morphologies or physical properties that I could see, other than classification.—RJH (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

USGS's definition

[13] they say that only a part of the asteroids constitute the Main belt. What is left out? Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Asteroids that are not in the belt. Near-Earth asteroids, for example.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not IAU but still interesting Nergaal (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge or reorganization proposed

See Talk:Minor planet. -- Beland (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceres IS a minor planet! But some people argue that it may not be an asteroid. I believe that Ceres has dual classifications. But until there is a resolution on this matter I think it is good to have a separate article on minor planets for historical purposes since some people seem to believe not all minor planets are asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is this a different "Merge or reorganization" proposal to the one immediately above? What actually is being proposed? Talk:Minor planet does not explain anything. Matt 02:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.195 (talk)

• I'll reiterate here that I object to the proposal to merge asteroid and minor planet. The template was inserted by Serendipodous on May 19, 2008, but I haven't seen an argument in favor presented by that user.—RJH (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet seen an official definition of "minor planet" that makes a clear separation from "asteroid". Most definitions appear to be colloquial or notional, rather than specific or official. The Kuiper belt is often described as comprising asteroids. Serendi^podous 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that, however minor planets are defined, they include asteroids, and therefore form a superset. Thus the logical direction would seem to be to merge asteroid into minor planet. However, I don't think that is a good idea. Most people understand the term "asteroid", whereas "minor planet" is pretty esoteric.—RJH (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So keep the title "asteroid" but redirect "Minor planet" to it. The minor planet article is mostly a joke anyway. This article already mentions the other minor planet groups. Some elaboration on other minor planet classifications (such as classical vs resonant KBOs) may be necessary. Serendi^podous 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point I'm leaning in favor of merging minor planet into the small solar system body article. The latter has the potential to be an ideal top-level summary article for all of the so-called minor planets, comets, and so forth. The use of the term "minor planet" can be prominently mentioned in the article's lead and in sections on terminology and historical usage. Does that sound somewhat reasonable? The IAU states a preference for using SSSB rather than minor planet, so that is probably the best approach to use. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea as, despite being officially endorsed by the IAU, the term small solar system body is rarely used. Spacepotato (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we have a page called List of Solar System objects, and the string "Solar system objects" gets a ton of ghits (including 5,480 Scholar ghits). As an alternative, what does everybody think about a summary-style article called Solar System objects that would cover the entire subject?—RJH (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Initial proposals:

I Nothing changes (Asteroid is an article, Minor planet is a different article)

II Asteroid becomes main article, Minor planet is a redirect to it

III Minor planet becomes main article, Asteroid is a redirect to it

IV Asteroid is a disambiguation page, Minor planet remains an article and absorbs most of the material from current Asteroid article

V Asteroid is a disambiguation page, Minor planet remains an article and current Asteroid article is renamed

I don't know enough about the scientific uses of these terms to weigh in on any of the options myself (yet) but I do see that a merge has been proposed in the past but no real consensus has been reached, and I find the current state of affairs confusing (so I guess I at least know I don't support option I.) --Sapphic 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of distinct varieties of minor planet (small solar system body is another synonymous term), such as "asteroid"s, comets, trans-neptunian objects, centaurs, near-earth objects, and each group needs its own article that describes those things unique to it. Then there should be a general article that gives the things common to all these small bodies, and some sort of classification of them. At the moment it's true that the information is spread over a number of articles in a haphazard way. Part of the problem in the past was that "asteroid" turns out to be poorly defined — it is sometimes used as a name for any small object that is not a comet ("small solar system body", with a few exceptions, then), other times refers only to the rocky small bodies that orbit closer to the sun than Jupiter. From what I've seen the second meaning is what is mostly used among astronomers, so asteroid should talk about only these rocky bodies. As for an overall article, a reasonable solution, I think, would be to keep only one of small solar system body and minor planet. Any things in those that refer specifically to "asteroids" or other groups would then be moved out into their appropriate more restricted articles.

In short, I would say that the articles should be kept (except perhaps for deleting one of small solar system body or minor planet), but sizeable portions of text should be shifted around, (e.g. out of minor planet). I'm not all that optimistic about a resolution of this though ;-( — cleanups have been suggested several times already. Deuar 08:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as I've been looking into this more I've been finding out just how loosely and inconsistently these terms have been used throughout their history, so I'm not surprised that previous cleanup attempts have met with problems. There's the added complication that common usage doesn't necessarily follow technical usage (which is why several of my initial suggestions involve using Asteroid for disambiguation rather than the more technically correct Minor planet.) I don't think this is a hopeless cause however, nor should it really require that much (human) effort. I think a central page explaining the nomenclature issues (including the vagueness and historical inconsistencies and changes) could be linked to from the top of each of the related articles, and that would serve to tie them together and let them all act as disambiguation pages for each other, in a way. I'd say the differences between Minor planet and Asteroid that are most relevant to each article are those differences themselves (and not the things both have in common) and so highlighting the terminology in the intro makes sense. Once that framework is in place, I think it should be easier to move material between the articles in a way that makes sense, and which can be done gradually over time. --Sapphic 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. Deuar 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me that people would seriously entertain the idea of merging asteroid and minor planet! Ask anyone on the street, "What killed the dinosaurs?" Are they are likely to tell you, "A minor planet"? Of course not! How utterly pedantic to think that, because asteroids are minor planets, or vice versa, there must be just one article. Shall we eliminate the article on Africa because it is a continent? Or, more to the point, shall we eliminate the article on "house", because it is just a common, vulgar, term for the much more correct "domicile"? This reminds me of the tiresome argument over the use of the term "organic", as in "organic food" versus "organic chemistry"--the nerds always claim some imagined, exclusive right to the word; "...it must be a hydrocarbon...!", but the term "organic farming" has its own right to existence independent of the narrow limits such people would impose on it. English would be a dreary language indeed if the minor planet exclusivists had their way! And I have nothing against minor planets--it is term with meaning and usefulness. Is there overlap? Of course! Anyone making elimination of overlapping information their top priority should be banned from Wikipedia, in my opinion. I propose that the merge template should removed, and I may do it myself sometime soon.Taquito1 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the 2006 definition, "minor planet" has effectively become a historical term. The new three-tiered division which recognises planets, dwarf planets and small solar system bodies eliminates the need for minor planets altogether. "Minor planet" is not synonymous with "small solar system body"; the term encompasses dwarf planets, whereas SSSB does not. Therefore, I think the tidiest idea would be to merge minor planet with asteroid, and keep asteroid as the main article. Serendi^podous 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From a [IAU press release:

Q: Is the term “minor planet” still to be used?

A: The term “minor planet” may still be used. But generally the term “small solar system body” will be preferred.
Q: Are there additional “dwarf planet” candidates currently being considered?

A: Yes. Some of the largest asteroids may be candidates for “dwarf planet” status and some additional “dwarf planet” candidates beyond Neptune will soon be considered. The total number of dwarf planets to be found in the coming months and years could reach to over 100.

Seems to imply that asteroid is favored by IAU to the minor planet term, perhaps due to the confusion due to the minor planet term.

Does this mean that List of minor planets should be renamed as Listo of asteroids? Hello dear asteroid Pluto! Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a tricky one because the terminology is such a muddle. Whichever way we do it, I think we must keep Asteroid as a contentful article, and not make it a redirect to some relatively obscure term. Joe Public has heard of asteroids, and he's going to expect to find an article about them on Wikipedia. Matt 02:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.195 (talk)

IAU is now using the clunky (my opinion) term Small Solar System body to cover a variety of entities that would have fallen under minor planet mantle. Not all SSSBs are asteroids. The icy bodies in the outer solar system which are more cometary in composition, but their orbits will not let them display a coma. This group of minor planets is subject to a redefinition that would mean they are no longer asteroids. Keeping a limited article discussing the out-of-date term and doubling as disambiguation page. There was a prior discussion of what the minor planet article should be. I think minor planet, as it stands, fills its role nicely. I think this arrangement can withstand future IAU definitions. I don't see the need for change. As an alternative, create a section in Asteroid discussing the term "minor planet" and how it relates to "asteroid". Minor planet would redirect to that section. Novangelis (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at this some more, it seems to me that we need to decide whether the terms "asteroid" and "minor planet" are or are not synonymous. The very first sentence of Asteroid says in big letters that they are, in which case there is no need for two articles, and, I suggest, Minor planet should be merged to Asteroid#Terminology (which already covers similar ground). However, Minor planet implies that there is a difference. It says that centaurs are minor planets but not asteroids, even though Centaur itself says "The centaurs are a class of icy planetoids (or asteroids)". Minor planet also says that TNOs are minor planets but not asteroids. If the consensus is that "minor planet" is different from "asteroid" then the two articles should remain separate -- but the Asteroid article needs to stop claiming that they are the same thing. Matt 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.10.82 (talk)

This debate looks dead, and I'm removing the tag. My 2¢: Pluto is minor planet #134340. It is not an asteroid in anyone's definition. kwami (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section -- cleanup

It's great to see that someone has added a new chunk of text at the start of this section, better explaining some of the terminology issues ("The term "asteroid" is somewhat ill-defined..." up to "...this article will restrict itself for the most part to the classical asteroids: objects of the main asteroid belt, Jupiter trojans, and near-Earth objects.")

Unfortunately, it has just been spliced onto what was already there, resulting in the impression that the section starts again at "The term "asteroid" is used to describe any of a diverse group of small celestial bodies..." and then proceeds to explain pretty much the same material again in a different way.

These two explanations need to be properly integrated, with material from the second part being merged with the first part where appropriate, or deleted where it is essentially just repeating what has already been said. Matt 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.242.239 (talk)

Definitely. But every time I look at it, I lose all motivation to fix it up. kwami (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at merging the text, but some further cleanup may still be needed. I'm not sure that so much detail is needed for the outer Solar System objects in this context.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, RJH. I think this section now reads much better than it did before. Matt 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.130.231 (talk)

Some general resources for asteroid information

I have added the [JPL small bodies database JPL small bodies table of orbital elements, for the over 207000 bodies now having numbers, to the reference list, and given the University of Pisa tables (even more extensive) a little more prominence in the list of external links. It is my opinion that objects that have substantially more information available than can be gleaned from such tables, may deserved separate (stub, probably) articles, but I hope the numbers will not be so large as to clog Wiki's machinery. Wwheaton (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen List of asteroids? Rmhermen (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A discussion has been underway for 10 months or more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#main belt asteroids re various compromises between creating thousands of articles on individual asteroids and constructing a table format with more physical information. No resolution has yet occurred, but I hope for progress and invite other editors to join in. Please spread the word. Wwheaton (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

how do i use my telescope

so asteroids are metalic objects ive wanted to see one whith my own eyes but i dont now how to work my telescope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.194.138 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First thing is, you gotta learn the sky and the constellations. Use binoculars if you have any. Then Sky and Telscope and Astronomy magazines are popular sources of such information. I know S&T has a good web site, and probably Astronomy does too. The "Heavens-Above" web site is excellent and has a list of asteroids that are bright enough to see with binoculars at any given time, and finders' charts as well I think. There must be many other web resources, try Goggle if you get desperate. Good luck! Wwheaton (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Asteroid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Link 2 in the references section is dead.

I'm concerned about a lack of references throughout the article. I put a template in "Terminology" section but many more could be added. I also see a template that has been on the article since July 2008. The "Discovery" section has 6 in-line citations for over 1,200 words of text, that isn't enough, the Historical methods sub section has no in-line citations. The "Naming", "Exploration" and "In fiction" sections have no in-line citations either. Where there are citations they are sometimes minimal for the amount of information in the section and oddly placed so that it isn't clear if they are meant to cover the entire section. Case in point is the "Orbit groups and families" sub section, which has one in-line citation but it isn't clear if this link is to cover all the information in the subsection (by the way the next sub section; "Quasi-satellites and horseshoe objects" is unreferenced). Another example is "Manual methods of the 1900s and modern reporting" where ref [29] is at the end of the first paragraph. Is this meant to cover the entire sub section?

The lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article, bringing up all the points in the article. The lead for an article of this length should be a solid three paragraphs.

The images are excellent, the writing is good, there are (IMO) to many See Also and External links but I wouldn't ding the article for that. The primary issues are the references and lead. I will hold the article for a week pending fixes. If anyone has questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point the article has been on hold for a week with no substantive work done. As such I will delist the article as it does not meet the GA Criteria for MOS compliance due to an inadequate lead and a lack of references. H1nkles (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Size statistics?

Is there a "size statistics" for asteroids available somewhere, i.e. how many asteroids (or minor planets) are larger than (say) 100 km/ 10km / 1km in diameter? This would be an interesting addition to the article IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there are guesses/projections, but AFAIK our size estimates are generally too crude to be of much use. Most papers give magnitude distributions, as here,[14] and don't try to infer sizes. There's probably s.o. that does, though. — kwami (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I found one, though I have to measure off a log graph with CrossHair. S.o. might want to check my figures. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's from SDSS (2001) figures, which show only 0.75M over 1km, lower than expected with a survey of 100x more asteroids than all previous surveys together. However, the ESA released IDAS (2002) figs of 1-2M, which is where modeling from 1999 put it. I'd like to see more recent figures. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JPL

For IMB+MB+OMB asteroids, JPL Small-Body Database Search Engine shows 27 as diameter >= 200 (km), 211 diameter >= 100 (km), 627 diameter >= 50 (km), and 1124 diameter >= 30 (km). Keep in mind that I did not count the unstable Mars crossers and NEAs since only 132 Aethra and 1036 Ganymed would qualify. The only asteroids outside the core of the main belt larger than 200km are the Cybele asteroids: 87 Sylvia, 65 Cybele, 107 Camilla, and 121 Hermione. Below 30km I suspect there is a lot of room for improved diameter estimates. -- Kheider (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted, but kept at one sig fig. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery section

The discovery section of this article is effectively the same as a "History" section, and the convention is to put these near the beginning as they provide the context in which further information is to be understood. For example it provides supporting context for why the problem of the definition of small bodies exists in the first place i.e it was a catch-all description of anything discovered that observationally looked like a star but obviously wasn't.

As this is a developed article I don't want to tread on any toes in case there was a reason the discovery section is where it is, so are there any objections to me moving the section? And where would the preference be, before or after the "Terminology" section? ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Naw, I think it's just a matter of a lot of cut & paste edits & mergers, a lot of them my fault. Edit away! — kwami (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, a number of the sections could be rearranged to make the article flow a bit more logically. I'll edit and see what people think. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Human Exploration Studies

A NASA proposed asteroid mission

USA

A Manned Flyby Mission to [433] Eros (1966) info

Science Exploration Opportunities for Manned Missions to the Moon, Mars, Phobos, and an Asteroid (1989)

The Role of Near-Earth Asteroids in the Space Exploration Initiative (1990)

The Next Giant Leap: Human Exploration and Utilization of Near-Earth Objects (2002)

A Piloted Orion Flight to a Near-Earth Object: A Feasibility Study (2007)

Into the Beyond: A Crewed Mission to a Near-Earth Object (2007)

--Craigboy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline of computerized discoveries

I removed this line from theo article: "The rate of discovery peaked in 2000, when 38,679 minor planets were numbered, and has gone down steadily since then (719 minor planets were numbered in 2007)."

Although it may well be true, I don't think the reference allows us to reach that conclusion. Notice first that the current data are over 43,000 discoveries for 2000 and almost 6,000 for 2007. These numbers will continually increase as single observations of objects are correlated with new observation to compute orbits allowing the "numbering" of an object. This process may take many years. It looks possible at least that 2001 might equal 2000. Rmhermen (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

References

File:571423main pia14316-full full Vesta.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:571423main pia14316-full full Vesta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Asteroid

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Asteroid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "olivine":

• From Mars: Oze, C.; Sharma, M. (2005). "Have olivine, will gas: Serpentinization and the abiogenic production of methane on Mars". Geophysical Research Letters. 32 (10): L10203. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3210203O. doi:10.1029/2005GL022691.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Asteroid belt: Than, Ker (2007). "Strange Asteroids Baffle Scientists". space.com. Retrieved 2007-10-14.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Discovery and recovery rates

I surmize that the various robots usually discover hundreds or perhaps thousands of asteroids per month, but does some Web site keep a running count or graph of this number, and of the percentage that ought by various criteria to be called Lost asteroids or of how many are definitely not lost? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is One metre the new minimum size for an Asteroid?

Rubin & Grossman (2010) [15] proposed that a meteoroid is <1 metre to 10 microns, an asteroid is >1 metre. Also, asteroid 2008 TC3 was only 4.1 ± 0.3 metres wide (Jenniskens, et al. 2009. The impact and recovery of asteroid 2008 TC3. Nature 458(7237), 485–488.) [16]. --Diamonddavej (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor Planet / Dwarf Planet Ambiguity

This article appears to be saying something different than the Small Solar System Body article. According to that article, there is a distinction between Minor Planets and Dwarf Planets. But on this page it seems that Minor Planet and Dwarf Planet are taken to mean the same thing. The ambiguity is a little confusing, particularly since the two articles are saying different things. Thank you for your time! Sir Ian (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This is corroborated by the minor planet and dwarf planet pages. Sir Ian (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it might have been the word "or" that gave that impression. Changed to "and". Does that read better? — kwami (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

lead image

Nice image of Eros in the lead, but isn't the file size a bit large for slow internet connections? — kwami (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's too big, but I'd rather get it replaced by a still image anyway because the field of view is so narrow that it is difficult to get an idea of what that asteroid is supposed to look like. Reatlas (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparent page vandalism?

Attn Editors: There is an instance of apparent page vandalism here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid, directly below the section "Naming" and the photo of "2013 EC", and directly above the section "Symbols", where the words "EAT IT" appear in all capitals within a blue box. This insertion makes no sense in its context, and thus is likely intentional vandalism which has escaped notice thus far. Hope this notice helps. -- Lorin (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Rmhermen (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope captures shattering asteroid

Headine-1: Hubble Space Telescope captures shattering asteroid, at least 10 pieces seen in photos.

• http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/07/hubble-captures-shattering-asteroid/?intcmp=features

QUOTE: “ The Hubble Space Telescope has captured the first pictures of a disintegrating asteroid. Asteroid P/2013 R3 was detected in September in the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It appeared as a fuzzy object. Further observations by ground telescopes revealed three bodies. The Hubble telescope uncovered 10 objects, each with dusty tails. The four largest fragments are up to 656 feet across. Scientists say the asteroid began coming apart early last year. They theorize sunlight is slowing pulling the asteroid apart by increasing its rotation. A planetary scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, David Jewitt, led the investigation. He says seeing the rock fall apart before our eyes is pretty amazing.The pictures were released Thursday.” — [Amazing picture], FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Seems to be in the article here already; nicely done; great series of pictures. (Search for P/2013). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Added image of the number of asteroids for each size

I created and added an image in order to visualize the relation between the size of the asteroids, the total number of them in the Solar System and the cumulative volume of each group. --Clmb.marco (talk|contribs) 17:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph is a mess

I'm having a hard time trying to unscramble what the lead paragraph is attempting to say. It seems to switch topic right in the middle, making it very ambiguous.

Asteroids are minor planets, especially those of the inner Solar System. The larger ones have also been called planetoids. These terms have historically been applied to any astronomical object orbiting the Sun that did not show the disc of a planet and was not observed to have the characteristics of an active comet, but as minor planets in the outer Solar System were discovered, they were often distinguished from traditional asteroids. Their [the outer Solar System objects?] volatile-based surfaces were found to resemble comets. They [the outer Solar System objects that aren't outer bodies? huh?] are grouped with the outer bodies—centaurs, Neptune trojans, and trans-Neptunian objects—as minor planets, which is the term preferred in astronomical circles. In this article the term "asteroid" refers to the minor planets of the inner Solar System.

The italicized text appears to be talking about non-asteroids. Is that correct? I'd say the paragraph needs a complete re-write. Praemonitus (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I did some rewording. Is that better? - Fartherred (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder the earliest writer on asteroids ?

I am not authorized to edit this semi-protected page, so perhaps someone who is authorized would care to add the fact at the start of 2. Discovery, that one of, if not the earliest known reference to asteroids, occurs in Book 2 chapter of Pliny the Elder's Natural History ? Here's the reference - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny2.html#chap58. Norwikian (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if one believed it were true, it is about a predicting a meteorite fall, not discovering an orbiting asteroid. Rmhermen (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also requires a secondary source. Merely interpreting an ancient document is original research (OR). Geogene (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Predicting a meteorite fall would be no small achievement if true ! In 1675 Pliny's Latin account was translated into English as 'a large stone', while ' Recent data released by NASA reveals that the Earth is struck by a small asteroid, one meter or larger, on an average of every two weeks'.( Source: World Asteroid Day page). I suggest you both actually read the paragraph cited in its entirety before hastily dismissing, paying particular attention to the words 'as bigge as a waine (wagon) load, carrying a burnt and adust colour, at what time as a comet or blazing starre also burned in those nights'. Pliny also dates it as being in the 2nd year of the 78th Olympiad which might assist in identifying this astronomical event. - Its a common failing by 'Moderns' to dismiss the science of antiquity. Norwikian (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We need a reliable secondary source. Geogene (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't the earliest writer - and this material belong at Meteorite and meteorite fall. See [[17]] which discusses several known meteorites earlier than Pliny. Rmhermen (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015

Please add section about 'Asteroid Day' which is being inaugurated on the 30th June 2015. "Asteroid Day is an annual global awareness movement that brings people from around the world together to learn about asteroids and what we can do to protect our planet, our families, communities, and future generations." Links: Kristytsois (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I put Asteroid Day in the See also section. Not really sure how it fits in this article past that... feel free to suggest specific language for the article if you think it needs to be more prominent. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 14:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Just as a note, I think there's a lot of recent odd activity related to the Asteroid Day article that looks like a burst of paid/COI promotionalism. I suggest denying any future requests like this one unless it is particularly well sourced. Geogene (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid 2005 BS1

Asteroid 2005 BS1 has a diameter of 52 feet and a 0 sigma impact with odds of impact 1 in 100,000. Will it hit the Earth on January 14, 2016? Bsmath1 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

2005 BS1 has a pathetic 3 day observation arc. At roughly 12 meters (39 ft) in diameter, it is NOT a serious threat. The odds of impact for this small object are only 1 in 12,000 on 2016-01-14. If it impacted over an ocean it is likely only infrasound detectors would notice. -- Kheider (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming in block capitals

I have a general question about the naming of asteroids (I'm not an astronomer).

The name of "8210 NANTEN" is written like that, in block capitals. But this is obviously a confusion: in Japanese it is very normal to use only capitals for anything written in lower-case letters, for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is the descender problem. Also many Japanese writers appear not to know the general rule of italicising foreign words, and seem to think that BLOCK CAPITALS have the same effect (at least for Japanese words). This Nanten is ultimately named after the Japanese for "southern sky" (南天), but apparently through an intermediate telescope, also called (by the same confusion) "NANTEN" [18]. I see no reason why the erroneous capitalization should be preserved, and I honestly doubt whether anyone doing the original copying even thought carefully about why it was in block capitals; but I ask in case this has been thrashed out somewhere, and a decision made that discoverers have not only the right to name the celestial body, but also to insist on anomalous capitalisation. (I found a number of other names in block capitals, but they are all valid acronyms.) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is Olbers omitted?

The article on Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers states that he discovered Pallas and Vesta, so I find it strange that he isn't even mentioned in the list of asteroid hunters. OlavN (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and put him in! A2soup (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asteroid/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 10:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Will review this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My notes:

• I think the lead needs some work. Given the importance of the topic, it should be as comprehensible as possible. Stringency could be improved, and terms like "volatiles" should at least be linked. The last two paragraphs of the lead seem to specific, consider to shorten them. Furthermore, the lead should state the difference of asteroids to both comets and meteroids.

• I'm not sure if its the best idea to start with naming conventions. Best start with an overview, or definition/terminology.

• After reading the section "Naming", I had unanswered questions. For example: Who names asteroids, and which names are chosen, are there conventions, or is an astronomer allowed to chose any name he wants? A lot of names seem to stem from greek mythology? The list of symbols might be a bit to much, as this should be an overview article. The list in astronomical symbols might be enough?

• First paragraph of the discovery section: I'm wondering about the note system. Note 1 reads "Ceres is the largest asteroid and is now classified as a dwarf planet. All other asteroids are now classified as small Solar System bodies along with comets, centaurs, and the smaller trans-Neptunian objects." This seems superfluous, as the reader can easily access this information in the article on Ceres. On the other hand, the paragraph ends with an lengthy quotation to stress a single point: "for example, the Annual of Scientific Discovery for 1871, page 316, reads "Professor J. Watson has been awarded by the Paris Academy of Sciences, the astronomical prize, Lalande foundation, for the discovery of eight new asteroids in one year. The planet Lydia (No. 110), discovered by M. Borelly at the Marseilles Observatory [...] M. Borelly had previously discovered two planets bearing the numbers 91 and 99 in the system of asteroids revolving between Mars and Jupiter"." This seems to much for an overview article, and for this quotation, a Note might make sense.

• One main aspect of the topic, the impact events, is lacking completely.

• Many parts lack citations. Verifiability is prerequisite for reaching GA status according to the criteria.

Closing note: Thanks to suggest such an important topic. However, I do not think this article currently meets the GA criteria, as points 2 and 3 are not fulfilled yet. Therefore I will close the nomination now, in the hope that the problems will be solved and that an much-improved version of the article will reappear at GAN soon. Please contact me if there are any questions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asteroid. 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/20090103110110/http://curious.astro.cornell.edu:80/question.php?number=601 to http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=601
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703074335/http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/EPM2004.pdf to http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/EPM2004.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Impact events

Eventually I would like to take this back to GA. Several things are still needed (a good copy edit - I will send it to the GOCE in due course, improving citations, etc) but I also want to put in an "impact event" section, per Jens Lallensack in the last GA review. If anyone wants to help out, or has any suggestions, please feel free to jump on in! -Pax Verbum 02:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asteroid. 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/20080604092056/http://www.hyperdictionary.com:80/dict-e/p-44.html to http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dict-e/p-44.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512060350/http://spaceguard.iasf-roma.inaf.it/tumblingstone/issues/current/eng/ast-day.htm to http://spaceguard.iasf-roma.inaf.it/tumblingstone/issues/current/eng/ast-day.htm

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the two changes to IAbot, with the following results:

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

• http://spaceguard.iasf-roma.inaf.it/tumblingstone/issues/current/eng/ast-day.htm (this site appears to be dead, it was appropriate to replace it with an archive link)

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

• http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dict-e/p-44.html (this link works fine for me, so I reverted the edit by IABot that changed it into an archive link).

—RP88 ^(talk) 03:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting and Information

The sizes of the images inserted could be adjusted to improve upon the consistency of the formatting. The information could be made clearer and more concise on some parts to improve readability. Information could also be expanded upon under other parts such as Trojans, for example.
Hniclarsen (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

last asteroid hit?

Does anyone here know when the last time and asteroid hit the earth? Akuma809 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Covered in Impact_event#21st-century_impacts (and 20th-century). Rmhermen (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asteroid. 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/20070927034056/http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0602/index.html to http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0602/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811073647/http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/people/conrad/research/pub/d511.pdf to http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/people/conrad/research/pub/d511.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msUtFmJu?url=http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/minorplanets.php to http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/minorplanets.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asteroid. 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/20140901143955/http://had.aas.org/meetings/2013bAbstracts.html to http://had.aas.org/meetings/2013bAbstracts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925014037/http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov///Sect19/Sect19_22.html to http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128200223/http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/~crovisier/biblio/preprint/bar02_icarus.pdf to http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/~crovisier/biblio/preprint/bar02_icarus.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asteroid. 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/20110720111753/http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/ivezic/Astr598/lecture4.pdf to http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/ivezic/Astr598/lecture4.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

American English

With proper deference to titles and quotes. The majority of the article uses American English.User-duck (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Portal template

I am tired of the Portal template messing up the "See also" columns. I placed it in the list. Looks fine to me and it works well in narrow windows.User-duck (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Image gallery

I put four images of asteroids into a gallery, nice and big like the thumbs. The images crowded the text in narrow windows. I am rather pleased how it turned out, I may move others.User-duck (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asteroid. 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/20120406222551/http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/minor-planets/ to http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/minor-planets

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Organization

Seems like an order for the sections like this would be an improvement:

1. Terminology
2. Distribution
3. Formation
4. Characteristics
5. Classification
6. Discovery
7. Naming
8. Impacts
9. Exploration
10. Fiction

Note the addition of Impacts, per the GA review. Perhaps I'll try to work on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanchazo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

= military interest =
you can chemically disarm an explosive before it explodes I'm sure the military is not interested in disarming but when we examine the composition of an asteroid it can be fragmented, fractured and weekend over time.

Page Display

Wbm1058 I am again pinging you here for the same theme as I am discussing at Talk:Tesla Model S#Page Display. Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)