Talk:List of minor planets

Different sources give different names of several asteroids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have just looked, no names are listed on this page, so this conversation is either out of date, irrelevant, or both.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

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

@Double sharp and Tom.Reding: Just leaving this here: The Italian Wikipedia is maintaining a list of name changes, at it:Progetto:Astronomia/Coordinamento/Asteroidi. Maybe we can profit from their work? Renerpho (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds excellent! Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wrong discoverers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tom.Reding: Can you help me understand how the error worked then? In Rfassbind's edit summary I cited above, in which he points to the MPC batch of 10 August 2021, he's referring to this, right? Where in that document do the changes that he makes come from? For instance, the first asteroid changed was (561117) 2015 PW310. But "561117" does not appear anywhere in that MPC batch. Neither does that batch have an "errata" section. And the new discovery site for that asteroid, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, is only mentioned once (in an unrelated context). The latest WGSBN Bulletin by the time of that edit has no errata either.[4]

If the error is with one of the MPC's errata then where is it? Renerpho (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just had a look at 561117, and I've also found that the MPC and JPL give conflicting discovery information. JPL gives June 4, 2003 by Spacewatch at Kitt Peak, while the MPC gives September 26, 2000 by SDSS at Apache Point, although judging from the MPC link, seems like MPC might have the correct information. Probably an oversight from JPL, but thought I'd mention it. Procyon117 (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Procyon117: We are trying to find out why so many asteroids in the Lists of minor planets have wrong discovery information. I hope that you may be able to shed light on this issue.

In this edit, you corrected the discovery information for some asteroids, per https://www.wgsbn-iau.org/files/Bulletins/V004/WGSBNBull_V004_009.pdf according to your edit summary. In particular, the discoverer of 281973 was changed from Mount Lemmon Mount Lemmon Survey to Kitt Peak Spacewatch. That's despite the fact that the WGBSN bulletin gives Mount Lemmon Mount Lemmon Survey, which agrees with the MPC database.

Do you have any idea what may have led to this error? Are you using any automated tools that might be malfunctioning? Renerpho (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No. I'm doing this all manually. Procyon117 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Which is why it can sometimes take days for me between edits. Although looking at the other stuff above, there seems to be other issues at play. So sometimes mistakes made by me can slip through. I can stop editing though until any issues are solved, if that will help. Procyon117 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Procyon117: I don't think you need to stop. I'm curious about the process though: Is this a case of copy/pasting a wrong line? What exactly are you doing when you make those edits? Renerpho (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I go to each wgsbn bulletin from their website, go to the errata section, and just one by one manually replace the date, discoverer and discovery location (if applicable for each one). I think they started putting out errata with each bulletin from the middle of last year, so it doesn't go back all the way to 2021 or whatever. Usually I Ctrl+F the last four numbers so that I'm sure that I'm on the right one when making an edit to a minor body entry. When there's hundreds, probably thousands that I look through and edit, a couple might slip through the cracks. But that's basically what I do when I go through them. Procyon117 (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this can't be (semi)automated, using the JSON files [5]? It should be less prone to error, and less time consuming. I'm not the person to ask how to script this, but it's probably not difficult... Renerpho (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I actually did ask Tom.Reding something like that a while ago (in October), and he said it (theoretically) was doable, but tedious and slow even with automated tools (AWB in that case). Didn't know those JSON files existed though. Maybe he could give some insight in that regard. Procyon117 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like it's currently tedious and slow done manually, so "tedious and slow with tools" would be an improvement. Renerpho (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely true. Considering he's said further up that In the medium term, I have plans to update the LoMPs with the most recent data., I will probably stop updating the corrections here, since if he does go ahead with that, it will all be updated at some point anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered that I was in the middle of a bulletin before this, so I'll finish that off, and then I'll stop there for the time being. Procyon117 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this work. Renerpho (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I just like trying to keep things up to date if I can. Procyon117 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Compound names

I remember lerning from a talk or article by/about Claes-Ingvar Lagerkvist that when was entitled to name a number of asteroids he disovered, his choice of a name like Bill och Bull (after two iconic fictional cats in a series of children's books by author Gösta Knutsson) was prevented by an IAU rule that requires each body name to consist of a single word only (a sensible rule; in my mind), and he thus resorted to the compound name "Billochbull" ("och" is Swedish for "and"), does anyone know where this rule can be found and if so, does such a factoid deserve mention in connection with the list, or the individual objects such as {q|Q426016}en:8537 Billochbull. I accessed the IAU Website, but I'm not familiar enough with their publications to figure out where the rules for naming minor bodies are.SM5POR (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@SM5POR: Rules and Guidelines for Naming Non-Cometary Small Solar-System Bodies, rule 2.13: If full names of people are used as names, the various parts of the name must be concatenated, with spaces, hyphens, apostrophes and embedded capitalization removed. E.g., "Ewen McTeagle" would become "Ewenmcteagle". Renerpho (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Names that were assigned before that rule was implemented are grandfathered in, and of course the IAU can decide to make exceptions at their own discretion. Renerpho (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This should help. Procyon117 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Typos in JPL SBDB?

The list entry for asteroid 6781 listed its name as Sheikhumarrkhan. I corrected this to Sheikumarkahn, which is the spelling that appears on the MPC website. However, JPL has the former, apparently incorrect spelling. The original naming citation has the current MPC spelling, and the referenced WGSBN Bulletin only corrects its discovery information, so it seems the JPL spelling has never been officially used. What's going on here? Does the JPL database have other typos? SevenSpheres (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: I am not aware of any. Did you contact JPL? Renerpho (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I've contacted them, hopefully the error gets corrected. Renerpho (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: I got a reply from Davide Farnocchia. This was more than a simple typo, quote:

The reason why JPL had a different name is that the MPC published this erratum in 2021: [6] However, it looks like the original name was the correct one, so we fixed this and we will report this problem to the MPC.

That erratum changed the name of the asteroid itself, but also the citation. JPL wasn't just spelling the name of the asteroid differently, but also had a citation that started "Sheik Humarr Kahn (1975-2014) ..."[7] rather than "Sheik Umar Kahn (1975-2014) ..."[8]

One thing is really odd though: On 27 September 2019,[9] Rfassbind added a paragraph about the asteroid to our article Sheik Umar Khan, with a hidden note to expect an erratum: In 2019, asteroid [[6781 Sheikumarkahn]]<!--expect correction of spelling by the next MPC publication-->, discovered by American astronomer [[Henry E. Holt]] at [[Palomar Observatory]] in 1990, was named in his memory. Rfassbind himself removed that note on 2 May 2021,[10] with the edit summary "correction per MPC batch 25 March 2021". So, Rfassbind knew that the correction was coming, and had said so all the way back in 2019, and yet the correction is wrong? Note that the infobox for the Wikipedia article has been spelling his name "Sheik Humarr Khan" all this time.

I asked a follow-up question how that is possible. I'll let you know. Renerpho (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, that's interesting. ...and just now I notice there's also an inconsistency in the spelling of his last name, is it Kahn (as in the MPC naming citation) or Khan (as in JPL and his Wikipedia biography)?

I wonder what other things like this are buried in the list of minor planets... SevenSpheres (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss.

Davide: Note that the Humarr version of the name can be found online: [11] At this point I am not really sure which of the two names is the correct one. I'll see what the MPC says.

The inconsistency in the last name was introduced by the 2021 erratum, so there definitely was something wrong with it. I tend to believe that the erratum was correct as intended, but incomplete, that it didn't make it into the MPC database for some reason, and that JPL had it correct until a few hours ago. But we'll see.

We have a word in German that comes to mind: verschlimmbessern. To make something worse, with the intention of making it better. Renerpho (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation spelling on JPL is fixed (changed to Khan). That may or may not be correct, but it's up to the MPC now to resolve the issue. Renerpho (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Note that JPL and MPC are once again in disagreement about the name: Sheikumarkahn (MPC) vs. Sheikumarkhan (JPL) Renerpho (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: Davide writes: The IAU WGSBN confirmed that the correct name is Sheikhumarrkhan. I changed it back accordingly. The MPC has been informed that they have the wrong name. The IAU WGSBN will issue a correction to the citation on Monday, and we'll pick it up then.

I think the best course of action is to wait for the erratum on Monday, and then edit both Sheik Umar Khan and the LoMP with a proper reference (and maybe a hidden note to explain the back and forth). Renerpho (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: The latest issue of the WGSBN Bulletin [12] contains an erratum for this asteroid: MPC 115893 –41 For Kahn read Khan [(6781) citation] So, the correct name is Sheikumarkhan. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The name now shown on the MPC website is Sheikhumarrkhan, the same as what JPL had originally. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, now I got confused! 😵‍ Sheikhumarrkhan is correct. Renerpho (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The only thing left to correct on the MPC page is the citation, which is what today's erratum was about. Right now, it still says "Sheik Umar Kahn". Renerpho (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Missing entries

Asteroid 795646 is missing from the list. I could add it, but I'm not sure what albedo is assumed to calculate diameters (it seems to be different for different asteroids?) and if asteroids are being missed the maintainer (Tom.Reding) should be aware of it. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

795646 was, and still is, malformed on the MPC website in an apparent buffer-overflow sort of way. I suppose I can write in a specific exception for it, but I'll wait until the next major update with new numbered MPs to do that. Ping me if I forget.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox chart

Mapa1212 has labelled the infobox chart c:File:Minor_planet_count.svg as outdated. It stops in 2019, and I agree that an update would be welcome. The latest numbers in the chart are 794,832 known minor planets, 541,128 numbered minor planets and 21,922 numbered named minor planets. As of today, those numbers stand at 1,457,773 known (+83%), 847,427 numbered (+57%), and 25,586 named (+17%).

However, the inactivity is not because the chart has been abandoned. It hasn't, and the current version is from 2023. Rather, it is because the MPC Archive Statistics, the source we are using, has not been updated since May 2019. We either need a new source for this (and I am not aware of any other place where these numbers are neatly presented), or we have to accept that the Minor Planet Center has abandoned the necessary statistics page. Alternatively, it is possible to compile some of this data manually (statistics for numbered and named minor planets are relatively easy to reconstruct; total minor planets known is more challenging, and exact numbers for the last six years may not be publicly available). For numbered and named MPs, all that is required is a considerable amount of work sifting through some large files. Even that would border on WP:Original Research.

That is, unless one of you knows an easier way? Renerpho (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

renaming column found in sublists

one of the columns is misnamed for how it is currently used

if you click on, for example, 184275 Laffra, the 3rd column displays 'Laffra', and the underlying link is Meanings_of_minor-planet_names:_184001–185000#275. as far as i can see, that is the only use of that column. yet the name of the column header is 'Citation'. and even that takes us to Meanings_of_minor_planet_names. nary a citation in sight. so could we maybe change the displayed wording to something like 'named after'? — kwami (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The column named "This minor planet was named for..." in the Meanings of minor planet names sub pages does sometimes give the citation in full, but more often it just gives a brief summary. I think we can leave that as it is, but we should change the column name in List of minor planets: 184001–185000 and the other sub pages to "Named after". Renerpho (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Tom.Reding: Is this something you can automate? Renerpho (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The header for all LoMPs can be changed @ Template:List of minor planets/header2.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Bolded entry

I removed the bold on the entry for 363116 and this was reverted as inconsistent. I see no explanation for having an entry in bold. Neither the article introduction nor the background colour key gives any reason for a bolded entry. Why would a entry be bolded? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine: In bold are entries that have their own articles -- see (363116) 2001 GQ2. Compare the "early" (low numbered) lists like List of minor planets: 1001–2000, where this is much more common than in the later ones. This is explained in the section #Description of partial lists, quote: In the first column of the table, an existing stand-alone article is linked in boldface. Renerpho (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

So it is bold because it has a link? This is not explained in the key above the tables. Even so, it is not an appropriate use of bold. All articles should contain links to other articles and it would not be reasonable to bold all of those millions of links. Likewise it is not reasonable to bold links in these lists — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

For reference: Changing these links to boldface was task T24 on Rfassbind's task list, a task that was finished in November 2017 (example diff). The description I quoted earlier was changed accordingly about a year later, in November 2018 (diff).

To quote the justification given for T24 on the task list: Numbered minor-planet articles are linked from the partial lists of minor planets (LOMP). They are now displayed in boldface to emphasize the existence of a dedicated article. While this is hardly helpful for the first few partial lists (as all/most of these minor planets have an article), it is, however, an improvement for the remaining 500+ lists. In these lists, linked articles are sparse and not easily discernible from unlinked entries as they are often displayed by a single number (piped link if the body is unnamed) and/or on a non-white background. For example, in List of minor planets: 50001–51000, the only linked entry is {{mpf|(50719) 2000 EG|140}}, displayed as 50719.

@GhostInTheMachine: Of course we can decide to revert this, but I think we should have a good reason that doesn't simply ignore the original concern (making linked entries more easily discernible); and there is WP:IAR to justify any "improper" use of boldface if it is considered useful enough. And as you correctly noted in your edit summary, it would be a lot of work. Adding these was done semi-automatically using [13], which sadly is largely non-functional now. The user responsible for it, Rfassbind, is no longer active. Someone would have to come up with an alternative, if you don't want to do it manually (and risk being reverted because someone found the boldface useful after all). Renerpho (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Another naming oddity

The entry for 100456 Chichen Itza was edited to remove diacritics from its name. The MPC entry indeed lists the name without diacritics, but the second mention of the name misspells it Chichn Itza. JPL lists that same misspelling as the primary name, but then under "Discovery Circumstances" the name is spelled correctly and written with diacritics (Chichén Itzá). The original naming citation has the misspelling, so it must have been corrected somewhere else but not fully reflected in databases. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: See the errata in M.P.C. 110641 (correcting both the name and the citation). That's why I like https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:Astronomia/Coordinamento/Asteroidi so much. Renerpho (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Let the MPC know about it so they can correct the error in their database: https://mpc-service.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portals. I've contacted JPL already. Renerpho (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: JPL is fixed. Renerpho (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

lomp# & momp# redirects for easier navigation

FYI a full set of lowercase redirects from lomp to lomp887 are available for easier navigation. momp to momp887 too. They're quite handy.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, quite nice -- thanks! Renerpho (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

What about having both redirects to the first 1000 minor planets be "lomp0" and "momp0", as "lomp" redirecting to the first 1000 MPs and not the main index just doesn't make sense to me. Mapa1212 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, that would be better. Renerpho (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The 887 in lomp887 refers to the 887 in List of minor planets: 887001–888000. The thousands position for List of minor planets: 1–1000 is null (does not exist), therefore lomp, but I don't have a problem creating lomp0/momp0.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"Null" and "0" are the same thing, sometimes (it's true in German, and I think it's true here).

What do you think about making lomp a redirect to the main List of minor planets? Same goes for momp redirecting to Meanings of minor-planet names. I think that would be more consistent. Renerpho (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think null == 0, then it makes sense that you would also want lomp to point to List of minor planets.

However, null != 0. The code if (null == 0) then ... will never be executed, because it is equivalent to if (false) then .... Ask google if null == 0. Ask an AI if null == 0. Ask Jeeves if null == 0.

I'm happy with lomp & lomp0 pointing to List of minor planets: 1–1000, and LoMP & LOMP pointing to List of minor planets#Main index.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

[14] is good enough for me. ;) I know the story of Null Island though. Renerpho (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

And now I'm lost in the depth of Null Island. Oh well... Renerpho (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean this is sort of what I suggested but there's still the issue of "lomp" redirecting to the first 1000 MPs and not the whole index. Mapa1212 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mapa1212: I've now changed lomp and momp accordingly (not to the index but to the beginning of the page; there is no shortcut yet for that, as far as I know). Renerpho (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

And Tom.Reding has reverted both. Tom, you seem to be the only one here who doesn't want "lomp" and "momp" to go to the main lists. Could you at least provide a reason why you believe it should be that way? Renerpho (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think my reverts were clear:

lowercase lomp targets the 1-1000 list, while uppercase LOMP targets the master list-of-lists

lowercase momp targets the 1-1000 list, while uppercase MOMP targets the master list-of-lists

And my above comments.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This, again, seems unnecessary because "lomp0" also redirects to the first 1000 MPs, "lomp" and "momp" should redirect to the main index like the capitalised versions. Mapa1212 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having multiple #Rs to the same target, and that's actually a frequent occurance. "lomp" and "momp" should redirect to the the 1-1000 lists, and the capitalized versions "LOMP" & "MOMP" should point to the main index.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

' to ʹ for non-contractions

See also: Talk:2922 Dikanʹka § Dikan'ka or Dikanʹka?

@Kwamikagami: based on our discussion above, I found a few more that could need similar treatment:

1. 591763 Orishut'591763 Orishut' → 591763 Orishutʹ591763 Orishutʹ (Orishutʹ should be the 'main', and Orishut' should be a do-not-cat)
2. 2387 Xi'an2387 Xi'an → 2387 Xiʹan
3. 2693 Yan'an2693 Yan'an → 2693 Yanʹan
4. 11842 Kap'bos11842 Kap'bos → 11842 Kapʹbos
5. 207717 Sa'a207717 Sa'a → 207717 Saʹa
6. 369423 Quintegr'al369423 Quintegr'al → 369423 Quintegrʹal
7. 4047 Chang'E4047 Chang'E → 4047 ChangʹE or no change?

Only #7 seems iffy. What do you think?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Correct for Orishutʹ. Done. Thanks for catching that.

The pinyin names have actual apostrophes that separate syllables. It's punctuation, so Xi'an, Yan'an and Chang'E are correct as they are. (The latter could have been Chang E, but spaces aren't allowed in astro names.) I think Sa'a belongs here as well -- that is, that it's two syllables, "Sa-a".

I'm not sure about Kap'bos and Quintegr'al, but assume those are punctuation as well, as would be normal for Dutch and French.

Anyway, the prime is used specifically to mark palatalization in the transliterations of Cyrillic, like the 'ь' in Russian Оришуть (Orishutʹ). Hawaiian names use an ʻokina (6 shape), for example, and Gǃòʼé ǃHú is the opposite (a 9 shape) -- in both cases, those "apostrophes" are consonants, not syllable separators. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Should "lomp" and "momp" redirect to the first thousand minor planets or the entire index of minor planets?

Tom Reding suggests that "lomp" and "momp" should redirect to the first thousand, yet in the discussion above, me and Renerpho suggested that it should be what it was before, a redirect to the entire index.

I would personally like more opinions from others because Tom seems insistent on it redirecting to the first thousand. Mapa1212 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

To be explicit:

1. LOMP (uppercase/major/master/primary) should target List of minor planets#Main index
2. lomp (lowercase/minor/slave/secondary) should target List of minor planets: 1–1000

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)