Talk:Minor planet

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Solar System Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

• planet
• minor planet
• dwarf planet
• major planet
• planetoid
• planemo
• planetar

• planetessimal
• protoplanet

• planetid
• planetal

09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.170 (talk)

Your point being? 86.133.242.217 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposal to merge this with Asteroid. An asteroid is a subset of minor planet, so it is appropriate to have this separate. Having them on the same page proved confusing. If anything, it may be more appropriate to merge with small solar system bodies.—RJH (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides plutoid and dwarf planet have their own pages even though plutoids are merely a subset of 'dwarf planets'. -- Kheider (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article says that the numerous small objects beyond the orbit of Jupiter "may or may not be classified as asteroids". Are you disagreeing with the "may" possibility, or do you think that this statement is correct but, for the purposes of organising these articles, it's wiser to assume the "may not"? Currently things are not very consistent. In apparent contradiction to this article, Centaurs says that Centaurs are asteroids, and Asteroid, in its opening sentence, strongly implies that "asteroid" and "minor planet" are synonymous.* Matt 02:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.55.91 (talk)

* I just attempted a clarification there. Matt 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence other than speculation that asteroid is a subset of minor planet. That may be an emerging consensus but it is certainly not reflected in the scientific literature, which employ the terms interchangeably. Serendi^podous 08:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that minor planet includes TNOs and other groups of objects in the outer Solar System, while asteroid often does not. For an example, you may look at Binary Minor Planets, Derek C. Richardson and Kevin J. Walsh, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 (May 2006), pp. 47–81:

Binary asteroids and binary trans-Neptunian objects [collectively, binary minor planets (BMPs)] are a relatively recent discovery...We have elected to use the term binary minor planet (or BMP) to mean any mutually orbiting pair of minor planets in our Solar System, where we loosely define a minor planet as any substantial body orbiting the Sun that is not a major planet (Mercury through Neptune, and sometimes including Pluto) nor is bound to a major planet...The term BMP is meant to be fairly inclusive. It reflects the reality that binary objects have been found in various distinct Solar System populations. Thus a BMP that consists of two asteroids is a binary asteroid, a BMP that consists of two TNOs is a binary TNO, etc.

Clearly, asteroid and minor planet are not interchangeable here. Further examples can be found by searching for the phrase "asteroids and TNOs". For an explicit statement on the reduced scope of asteroid, you need look no further than the MSN Encarta article on asteroids, linked to from this article:

The term “asteroid” is sometimes extended to the small icy bodies found in the outer system beyond Jupiter. ... Closely related to comets, these solar system bodies are now generally called Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) or Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs).

Spacepotato (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The astronomical community has been trying to get the general public to use the term Minor Planet for ages but it has never caught on. I think it has reached the point of beating a dead horse. GraL (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to save others who might be looking for it too the search – anyone looking for what the article "Minor planet" looked like by March 2008 can find it here. For what it's worth, here's the article "Asteroid" at the same time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A minor planet is an astronomical object in direct orbit around the Sun that is neither a dominant planet nor a comet, and thus includes the dwarf planets"

If you read the 2006 definition of a planet - this statement is clearly false. Small Solar System Bodies includes asteroids (minor planets), comets, TNOs etc. At no point has the IAU changed the definition of minor planet. It is still a synonym for asteroid and does not include dwarf planets or comets or anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.33.194 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term minor planet was defined long before the IAU created the term dwarf planet. Centaurs and trojan asteroids are also minor planets and do not orbit within the confines of the Asteroid belt. Pluto was assigned a minor planet number when it was demoted. -- Kheider (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right - all asteroids are minor planets. True Pluto as well as the other dwarfs were include in the minor planet catalog - but yet they are not asteroids. Brian Marsden stated specifically that they were added to the catalog for tracking purposes - not a redefinition of "minor planet". Dwarf planets remain a separate category. Again I refer you to the IAU definition - which states quite clearly: "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.122.36 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the old designator, "planetoid"--meaning, planet-like, should be resurrected and used for Pluto and the other objects like it. We have "astroid" (meaning, "star-like") for the mass of objects between Mars and Jupiter. Why not have this old and easy designator for the planet-like, trans-Neptunians? It is easy to pronounce, contains the term "planet" (that most people like to keep for Pluto), but recognizes the fact that the trans-Neptunians are not exactly like the other 8 planets. The term "Dwarf planet", "Minor planet" and the like, are tortuous in their concept and in their use in the common speech. "Planetoid" invokes the idea of a body being like a planet, but smaller or missing some other important aspects (to humans, of course) that one "commonly" associates with planets. It will ultimately be the popular culture (sci-fi novels, movies etc.) that will christen the common name for these new category of orbital objects, not the IAU. "Planetoid" like "astroid" is an easy--and imaginative--term for the Plutoids/Dwarf planets/Minor planets. izadyIzady (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scattered Disk objects point mentions aphelia and perihelia without defining or linking to the terms. I was going to link them to Aphelion and Perihelion respectively, unfortunatly both redirect to Apsis where aphelion and perihelion are not mentioned till about line 14 (and not defined till even further down the page) and aphelia and perihelia are not mentioned at all. So I put an asterisk against aphelia and perihelia with a short explanation in brackets at the end of the paragraph, then a link to Apsis after that. Anyone got a more elegant way to fix this? GraL (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

Someone tagged this sentence 'A particular exception to this rule is 96747 Crespodasilva, which was named after its discoverer, Lucy d'Escoffier Crespo da Silva, because she died shortly after the discovery, at age 22' as dubious with people invited to discuss this on the talk page. However, there is no explanation here as to what they think is dubious.

I've had a look at the citation and it looks like that is a dead link. I get this error message:

'Error running Show Citation script

A serious error has occured in the Show Citation script.

The text of the error message is "This script can only be called by the MPES or from the list :of discovery circumstances of numbered minor planets."

If this error resulted from the use of an on-line form, please report it using this feedback :form, noting what you did to cause the error.

NOTE: Any use of our Computer Service scripts other than via our on-line forms, or as :documented on our Web site, is unsupported.'

I've found another source that confirms that this woman was a student at the university and did commit suicide: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/dasilva.html

That is a source at MIT, so hopefully it should be acceptable. However, that doesn't confirm that the asteroid was named after Crespo da Silva because she had died. I'm not sure what sort of improvement the tagger was after.

Actually, I've just checked the article for this asteroid and it cites the above link as well as this one: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=96747+Crespodasilva

I'm going to copy over both citations as that appears to be what the complain was about. If anyone wants to fix it, be my guest.Big Mac (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor planet can not include the new stablished category of "dwarf planet", because it was specifically designed to be a separated class of objects. In the own pages of the IAU you can find the answer:

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.

It's clear that a SSSB is not a dwarf planet, by definition. What could be assumed then, is that a minor planet is a celestial object not big enough to be round-shaped, and bigger than a meteoroid, wich is not a satellite (nor a comet, I suppose)

Greetings --3coma14 (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an historical approach for this article. Pluto never was a minor planet (was considered a planet), bur Ceres was, though now are both dwarf planets. The discussion about if a minor planet includes dwarf planets is a nonsense. Is like discussing if nowadays France can be considered Italia because it was a province of the Roman Empire ;) --3coma14 (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so they get numbers & names (sometimes). How are these determined? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following NASA web site has some definitions that differs from what is on this article:

Yeomans, Don, "NEO Groups", Near Earth Object Program, NASA, retrieved 2011-12-01

As the article entries are not cited, this appears to suggest the content may be somewhat in error. Comments? RJH (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silence? It's been 2 1/2 years since the question was poised. Were article entries cited or changed? I'll read further later. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Wikipedia was incorrectly treating Apohele asteroids as a subclass of Atens when they have different orbital definitions. Now the question is do we list them alphabetically or by semi-major axis: Amor, Apollo (most known), Aten, Apohele (fewest known). -- Kheider (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article section "Minor planet#Populations", there is an outline with at least 3 or 4 levels. That outline includes categories such as "Earth trojans" and "Apollo asteroids" (the latter listed under "Near-Earth asteroids").

I hope my questions are not duplicating something already discussed above, e.g. by

• RJH (talk),
• Charles Edwin Shipp (talk), and
• Kheider (talk),

in the "#Definition of NEO" section of this "Talk:" page.

My question is about minor planets such as 3753 Cruithne. That category does seem to include "Earth trojans" -- and I know that the article section about Minor planet # Populations does already mention Earth trojans (and, only one of them is now known).

However, 3753 Cruithne#Similar minor planets lists several more examples of minor planets "which exist in resonant orbits similar to Cruithne's". ...and it seems to be implying that the category of such 3753 Cruithne#Similar minor planets includes the one (so far) Earth trojan.

Question No. 1:
Is that category already listed in the outline in this article (in the section "Populations")?

Even if the answer to "Question No. 1" is "yes", then IMHO something still seems to be wrong, because the category that is the immediate "parent" [that is, one "level" UP] from Earth trojans (in the outline in this article) is the category "Asteroids" -- (and that is a top level category). But shouldn't there be a category of "minor planets which exist in resonant orbits similar to Cruithne's"... [also known as: "near-resonant near-Earth objects (NEOs)"] and shouldn't that category include "Earth trojan"?

(So, it seems to me, "Asteroids" should probably be more than one level UP, from Earth trojans in that outline!) The category that is appropriate to be the immediate "parent" [one "level" UP] from Earth trojan might be something less inclusive than "Asteroids". Maybe it should be, e.g., the category of "minor planets which exist in resonant orbits similar to Cruithne's".

Question No. 2:
(right?)

Any advice? or other comments? Thanks. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The various categories of near-Earth asteroids at Minor planet#Populations include all Earth-crossing asteroids, also resonant asteroids. However, they're not really the most natural categories. Objects in resonance with Earth are either Aten or Apollo asteroids (whether they are trojans, quasi-satellites, or horse-shoe orbiters), depending on their current semi-major axis, which just happens to be either a little larger or smaller than Earth's (which is really just arbitrary). --JorisvS (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us that have been around astronomy for more than 20+ years, it is well known that objects (generally centuars) that were originally discovered and classified as minor planets, but discovered later to be comets are dually listed as minor planets and comets. Objects that are first discoered as comets are not dually classified. -- Kheider (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minor planet. 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 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Centaurs are classed as Satellites? What Centaurs are Comets? What Trans Neptunion objects are classed as satellites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.61.178 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Centaurs were added to the diagram after this dicussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chariklo's ring particles. Chiron. Charon. (Just three examples.) Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "Objects are called dwarf planets if their own gravity is sufficient to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium and form an ellipsoidal shape." This definition would seem to include larger objects such as protoplanets and actual planets, which of course are not dwarf planets, so isn't this a false statement? Etr52 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of dwarf planets carries the important caveat that they fail to fulfill the orbital dominance critera. From the resolution on the definition of a planet: A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that ... has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit... Planets (or "major planets" I suppose), by their very nature, gravitationally dominate their orbital region and therefore can not be dwarf planets. Dwarf planets are, in essence, planetary objects which behave more like other minor planets.

For protoplanets such as Vesta and Psyche, their shapes deviate significantly from an equilibrium ellipsoidal shape (mostly due to large impact basins such as Rheasilvia and Veneia). There are objects which do conform to hydrostatic equilibrium (or at least come close), such as Hygiea and apparently 2002 UX25 too, according to Proudfoot's thesis] ( ... it requires that 2002 UX25 must have a remarkably spherical shape.). And indeed one would expect them to be classified as dwarf planets! However, it does appear that there is an additional informal caveat that a dwarf planet must be chemically evolved and self-differentiated like all eight planets and most rounded moons. Given that it remains uncertain if Hygiea, 2002 UX25, etc. are in equilibrium due to self-gravitation and differentiation or simply from impact and reaccretion (as we have sent no probes to such objects), they are largely excluded from astronomers' rosters of dwarf planets. ArkHyena (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the statement in the article IS false. It should include the additional criteria about not being able to clear out the neighborhood around it's orbit. The statement here is a necessary--but insufficient condition--for being a dwarf planet. Etr52 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]