Talk:Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

message: Can we include satellites discovered on the same date without repeating the date? Completely linked dates are formatted as per preferences, but partially linked or unlinked dates are shown in the format the contributor used.
Instead of
*January 13, 1986  - Desdemona
*January 13, 1986 - Rosalind
*January 13, 1986 - Belinda
*January 20, 1986 - Cordelia
*January 20, 1986 - Ophelia
which I see as (not linked)
*January 13, 1986 - Desdemona
*January 13, 1986 - Rosalind
*January 13, 1986 - Belinda
*January 20, 1986 - Cordelia
*January 20, 1986 - Ophelia
have
*January 13, 1986 — Desdemona, Rosalind, Belinda
*January 20, 1986 — Cordelia, Ophelia
which I see (using the yyyy-mm-dd format) as (not linked)
*1986-01-13 — Desdemona, Rosalind, Belinda
*1986-01-20 — Cordelia, Ophelia
and which people who use the USA format (mmmm d, yyyy) see as (not linked)
*January 13, 1986 — Desdemona, Rosalind, Belinda
*January 13, 1986 — Cordelia, Ophelia
and which people who use the normal format (d mmmm yyyy) see as (not linked)
*13 January 1986 — Desdemona, Rosalind, Belinda
*13 January 1986 — Cordelia, Ophelia
Note that the year has to be linked for the preference to kick in. - Jeandré, 2004-05-04t18:36z
:I would say just link all the dates, in every line.
:The usual rule of linking only the first occurrence of a term really just applies to ordinary articles, which are paragraph-oriented and intended to be read from start to finish.  For timeline pages or tabular data, where each line stands independently, we shouldn't compel the user to search backwards for the prior occurrence of the term to find a link. -- Curps 19:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoopsie. Sorry, I'm not sure what I was thinking with the date links. The new system works much better. --Patteroast 01:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Date headings?

message: Just read all about it, on NASA's site.. seems there may be a new moon jsut outside the F ring.. but it might just be a short-lived clump. Or it could be solid, and have crossed the ring, which would explain both sightings. Either way.. what do we put on the list? :) --Patteroast 21:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: S/2004 S3 and S4

message: When I overhauled the page way back when, I added the marking some moons with a * to indicate their discoveries were complicated, so people wouldn't be confused to possibly see a moon listed twice, or that the information might be moved innapropriately. Since we now have a much more complete system (showing the date of publication, etc.) I'm not sure if this still fits in. Just thought I'd bring it up, because according to how I'd been doing it, the 12 new moons of Saturn would all get an asterisk (for being announced in a different year than they were discovered). --Patteroast 22:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complicated Discoveries

message: Should 2003 UB313 included since Nasa called it a "planet"?
:Does NASA decide whether something is or is not a planet?   What does the IAU call it? 
:But anyway, see the discussion above: I think consensus if coalescing that so-called "mesoplanets" (and possibly the first of each class of asteroid) should be added and the article retitled.  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have more or less a consensus that this should be done. Now we just need somebody to go ahead and actually do it :) dab (ᛏ) 10:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 UB<sub>313</sub> 

message: First real news in a while! Two new moons of Pluto have been discovered, S/2005 P1 and P2. The date and discoverers aren't clear to me at the moment, but some rough diameters are mentioned in this Space.com article: 
Also, while looking for information about these moons, I ran into something unusual on the USGS Astrogeology site.. there are listings for 'Margaret (UXXIII, 2003 U3)' and 'Psamathe (NX, 2003 N1)'. What's even more unusual about this is that the previous named and numbered moons of Uranus and Neptune were UXXI and NVIII, which seems to indicate that there are other recently named moons. Anyone got any deeper info on this? --Patteroast 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto's moons and other news 

message: Should satellites that have been shown to be spurios be included in this list? If not, then why Themis is listed?--Jyril 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say I like the spurious ones. They really don't belong on this list. Also, I thought the color codes were perfectly understandable, since you never saw moons with that color before the planet was discovered and put in that color... do we really need to be told again at the beginning? --Patteroast 00:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say banish the spurious satellites to their own article. They're interesting in their own right, but withi this table they risk being simply misleading. The Singing Badger 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all happy about the spurious satellites, but I notice that the list has contained "Themis" for a very long time.  I like having the color code at the top because I always found it confusing without some sort of introduction. Especially when there's a long gap between the introduction of a planet and the introduction of its satellites. Objectively, of course, there's no reason for the colors at all -- since every satellite is labelled with its primary anyway -- but if the list is going to use this system, it might as well be explained. RandomCritic 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious satellites 

message: Why are comets not included in the article?
:This is not an article about comets. It was originally intended to be a list only of the planet's moons, but at some point the planets were added to it. The first five asteroids are included because at the time, they were considered planets. --Patteroast 04:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comets

message: Why are there asteroids in this table? And on what criteria have they been selected? I think (a) the article should be retitled or (b) the asteroids should be removed. Thoughts? The Singing Badger 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that they were added because at the time of their discoveries, they were considered planets, and all the planets were added for comparison, so.. yeah. I was fine with the first five, but somehow it expanded to fifteen... I like the idea of having the first few there for comparison, just as Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are in for comparison. But the focus of this article should remain on the moons. I still think we should return to the old title, 'Timeline of natural satellites'. --Patteroast 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see four ways of dealing with the asteroids, all of which seem perfectly reasonable to me:
* Leave them as they are
* Delete asteroids 5-15, leaving 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta
* Delete asteroids 2-15, leaving 1 Ceres
* Delete all asteroids.
The reason for the "fifteen" is that there was no separate classification of major vs. minor planets until the 16th asteroid was discovered, by which time it was recognized that the list of planets had become overburdened with asteroids.  For a while this list had asteroids 1-5 on it, which doesn't make a lot of sense, categorically or historically. RandomCritic 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK, I'm cool with that (I should have read the explanation at the top of the article). But by the way, according to these standards, 2003 UB313 doesn't belong in the table yet because it hasn't been officially declared a planet. So it should be removed until the IAU has made its ruling on the definition of a planet. Right? The Singing Badger 17:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but if they do call it a planet it'll just have to go back in again, so I suggest waiting until September to see what happens. If they do decide it's a non-planet, then Pluto might have to go too, and we will probably have a bit of a discussion about the status of "mesoplanets".  See the discussion of 2003 UB313 a few sections up. RandomCritic 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I was looking this up to check the order of Greek vs. Roman names, and was quite surprised not to find any asteroids on it - they were certainly considered planets at the time. Including one to four would make a lot of conceptual sense, from a historical point of view. Shimgray | talk | 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroids

message: I'm tempted to revert an edit by CFLeon regarding the name of Mercury's spurious moon.  No source was given, and I could find none at Google or NASA.  CFLeon wrote that the informal name is "Charley", which I suspect may be this user's first name, though I don't have any particular reason to distrust this user. --Spiffy sperry 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's based on contemporary newspaper reports with the fellow who actually made the 'discovery'. In an interview, he said that, if it was confirmed, he'd like to name it 'Charley' because he once had a dog named that and he always wanted to name something after the dog. I suspect he was joking, but it was published and became the only name given to the object. I can't find a reference online, but check AP newspaper filings in the time period (March 1974). Sometimes I can't finish things in one post. (And I have NEVER been called "Charley", since another relative was already.;)) CFLeon 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't sound like it's a name that was actually in use (or would ever have been used). I agree with removing the edit. RandomCritic 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury moon 

message: I'm really not comfortable with listing asteroid moons like Dactyl in this list.  Perhaps another list or another page could be developed for them; the list really ought to be limited to the planetary moons it was intended for.  Ida has never been considered a planet.
An asteroid moon list, though it would be short now, has the potential to become quite extensive; depending upon the decisions of the IAU this September, the moons of Pluto and 2003 UB313 might even end up on that list. RandomCritic 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Random, I hear what you're saying, and I would also be totally against adding random asteroid moons in. Same as for adding random asteroids or TNOs. My rationale for putting in  Dactyl (and only Dactyl) is that this is the first of a qualitatively different class of bodies, so it is useful as a reference. I figure that since the first 15 asteroids are in there despite the article title, and the moons of , then by the same logic the first asteroid moon is also fitting. No more, though. Deuar 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If need be, the page could split into more specific articles if it becomes ungainly. As it is, I could deal with removing some of the asteroids and don't think there should be any asteroid moons, even as an example... but I don't think anything that's classified as the natural satellite of a planet should be removed from this list, even if it is just a mile-wide rock. If we get to the point where they vastly outnumber larger bodies, the page could be split by time period. Or maybe there will eventually be a lower limit for what classifies as an official moon at some point... who knows? Anyway, other than the random things creeping into the list over time, I'm quite happy with the current state of it. --Patteroast 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by just the title of the page, all asteroids should be out,  also for now, Pluto we will see if the IAU ever makes its mind up, as well as removing the prehistory section since these objects were never really "discovered" in the usual sense of the word. Of course the prehistory section is kind of nice and may be good to keep. The irregular satellite plankton around the giant planets has a tendency to swamp everything else after 2000, but I think it's useful including it if only for giving a sense of perspective about moon discoveries. Finally what about the "Spurious satellites" section? If we were being consistent shouldn't all purported satellites be recorded here? Like (I shudder) various named objects seen during rign-plane crossings or flybys that were never recovered or turned out to be ring clumps? What about spurious planets like Vucan or good old Planet X? Deuar 13:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this sort of editing has to start somewhere, I've begun by removing the asteroids and the spurious satellites list, since there seems to be some agreement that they don't belong on the page.  I'm copying the removed text below, so they can be replaced in whole or part if this seems too drastic. RandomCritic 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: I've removed the 2003 UB313 material and Dactyl as well and copied the material below.  I note that this material is already covered in the articles Asteroid moon and List of asteroid moons. RandomCritic 08:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good move to me. Deuar 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid moons 

message: I notice that Perdita is listed twice, the second time with the annotation "Recovered by the Hubble Space Telescope", but no other body seems to get this special treatment, while I'm sure many others were also recovered only after an appreciable period. I suggest removing the second mention altogether. Deuar 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the treatment of Perdita like that of Janus, Epimetheus, Themisto, and Methone?  I note on review that the list is inconsistent in its use of asterisks (apparently referring to the "complicated discoveries" note at top). RandomCritic 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, after reading Perdita (moon) it makes sense. I thought it was a much more mundane case because the time period between discovery and rediscovery was small, and both are credited to the same person. Deuar 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted in the complicated discoveries note I left on this talk page, they seem to have wandered away from their original purpose. Originally, I put that note on any moon that was announced or confirmed in a year other than the one it was discovered... but I'd support only noting the special circumstances of moons like Janus, Epimetheus, Themisto, Methone, and Perdita, where at least a couple years goes by. --Patteroast 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perdita 

message: Why was the redirect linked above changed into an independent page?  What is the point? RandomCritic 02:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, I suspect this is a tacit POV fork.  TONS is identical to TODOSSPATNS except that all the planets have been taken out.  If that was an issue, I think it would have been better discussed here.  As it is, the new article seems redundant to me; it contains no information not in this list, and the ratio of planets to satellites in TODOSSPATNS is so low as not to make the satellite information difficult to access.  RandomCritic 02:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is bizzare. It appears to have been a redirect, then was made into a duplicate of the main article Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their natural satellites by User:Acom on 23 June 2006. Plus it has an uninformative name. I reckon that duplicate page should just be deleted. No need even for a redirect there. Deuar 15:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page was the original name the timeline went by, so I'd still suggest a redirect at its location. Still like the old title better, myself. :P But I agree, there's no reason to have two pages for this. --Patteroast 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been reverted to a redirect. RandomCritic 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timeline of natural satellites]] 

message: Two MPECs relevant to this page:
* S/2004 S19
* Eight New Satellites of Saturn
RandomCritic 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody seemed keen on making them some stubs, I went ahead and did it myself. Now someone just needs to go fact-check my stubs to make sure they're accurate. :) -Patteroast 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Moons of Saturn 

message: In the course of annotating the dates provided in the left-hand column, I found that I could not verify the dates given for the rediscovery of Janus (January 19, 1980) and Epimetheus (January 26, 1980).  These dates appear to be at variance with the information in the references. I think that perhaps they should be February 19, 1980 and February 26, 1980, but I would very much appreciate it if someone would doublecheck these facts for me before I make any changes.
I am also having trouble discerning the relevance of notes 56, 57, and 58 to the discovery of Adrastea -- they all mention 1979 J1 tangentially, but do not as far as I can tell provide useful information about its (earlier) discovery.  I was wondering if they had been misplaced.  Some explanation would be helpful.
RandomCritic 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad dates? 

message: This section has probably gone through more purely aesthetic changes than any other part of the page.  Since it seemed to have finally settled down to a shape that everyone could live with, I think it's probably wiser not to drastically change it.
There was some question about whether the section was actually needed; there is no record of any of the eight objects involved being "discovered", and some of them certainly never were discovered in any sense.  The Prehistory section does, however, have the important function of establishing the structure of the Copernican Solar system as it was understood on the eve of Galileo's discovery of the Galilean satellites.
It is not a chronological summary of the probable order of the discovery of the various planets, which would necessarily be conjectural.  The Sun and Moon have certainly been known to exist by humans since before they came to be humans.  Of the planets that appear starlike from Earth, we can guess that Venus was the first to be recognized as something different from the other stars, and Mercury and Saturn were among the last.  But none of this can be established with any certainty.
The only one of the "Prehistoric" planets whose discovery, in a sense, we can point to with any accuracy is the Earth -- which, while always known to exist, was not recognized as a planet until the publication of Copernicus' 1543 opus.  But it's not listed here because a theoretical change, no matter how revolutionary, does not satisfy our criteria for discovery of a planet or satellite.
The organization of the Prehistoric section cannot pretend to be chronological.  The alternative is a thematic grouping.  Currently, the organization can be justified this way:
It starts with the Sun, as the center of the Copernican system.  It is then followed by the planets, in order from the Sun outward.  The Moon in the Copernican system is no longer a planet, so it is listed apart from them; as also the first of the natural satellites to be known (and, in the Copernican system, the first to be recognized as a satellite distinct from a planet), it is suitably the last object mentioned before the historical list begins, leading off the list of the natural satellites.
If anyone has a better idea about how this section should be arranged, please discuss it here before making changes. RandomCritic 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on the Prehistory section 

message: I really like the fact that we're now labeling the different dates with i:, o:, p:, but now that this has been made more explicit a new ambiguity appears that should be sorted out and explained explicitly in the introduction: When giving the "i:" imaging date, how should precoveries be treated? The two most obvious choices to use are 
# The earliest precovery image by anyone
# The earliest image by the discoverers
I'm not sure which is preferable and/or more commonly used. Any ideas? Deuar 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  imaging date 

message: The discovery of Larissa (moon) seems to be a little more complicated than the table notes; it had been earlier observed as 1981 N1 and then lost.
I don't think the imaging dates are right for S/2002 N1, N2 and N3. RandomCritic 06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future reference 

message: Should we also add Ceres to the table?--Nixer 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be there. Deuar 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres 

message: I see that a user added asteroids 2-6 to the table again, but I believe we had a consensus that they should not be there, so I am going to take them out again. RandomCritic 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroids again 

message: I was browsing, and I notice we finally have a Neptune IX, as well as XI, XII, and XIII! Unfortunately, I am somewhat mystified by the dense formatting, and was only able to insert the names. (Halideme, Sao, Neso, and Laomedeia) Can someone with better table skills add in the following?
 Neptune IX = Halimede
 Neptune XI = Sao
 Neptune XII = Laomedeia
 Neptune XIII = Neso
Thanks! --Patteroast 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly named Neptunians 

message: hi, what does this mean? et al. //User:Frizabela
:Abbreviation of Latin for 'and others'. It's commonly used when there are several people to credit a paper to. The discoveries with et al. were announced in such a way. --Patteroast 18:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  et al. 

message: I've finally given up on ever figuring out how to edit that table without horribly breaking everything. Could someone please add the following info for newly named moons:
 S/2006 S 6 = Saturn L Jarnsaxa
 S/2006 S 4 = Saturn LI Greip
 S/2007 S 1 = Saturn LII Tarqeq
Articles in question have already been moved.
--Patteroast 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Jarnsaxa, but had problems with Greip and Tarqeq. Anyone else? --Ckatzchatspy 19:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some who can edit the table... 

message: :Image:Xenaandgabrielle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Xenaandgabrielle.jpg

message: There's a new dwarf planet!  Shouldn't this be included in the list now?  Werothegreat (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Makemake (dwarf planet)|Makemake]] 

message: Since Sedna is of principal interest: it is believed by at least some researchers to be an inner Oort cloud object and it it the first very massive such. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted Sedna. I tried to make it as similar to Makemake as possible, choosing a similar but not same color, but I might have missed the color logic, if such is present. I didn't choose to link to Dwarf planet candidates, since that is of less interest, instead I linked to detached object, the category to which Sedna is the most prominent object. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I also updated the legend accordingly, although that provides potential chaos to the previously nice legend structure. Instead there maybe should be a legend subsection "other principal SSSB:s", of which Sedna is one. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sedna missing

message: What mean an asterisk after the several names, e.g. Epimetheus? Please note this in the article. — Chesnok (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Asterisk is explained in the note at the beginning of the article. Ruslik (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisk after several names 

message: were considered planets for several decades so they should be listed here. Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pallas, Juno, and Vesta

message: Today's the four hundredth anniversary of Galileo's discovery of the Galilean satellites. RandomCritic (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anniversary

message: Although still an active issue, the discussion is now found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons/archive1. Urhixidur (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FLC delisting continued 

message: Since 2006 it has been clear that asteroids (other than "dwarf planets") and their moons, and "lost" or spurious moons would not be included on this list, as discussed already in the relevant Talk: sections above.  If there is a case to be made for reinstating them, it should be discussed here.  My own feeling is that a moon should actually exist in order to be listed; there have been any number of false discoveries of imagined or non-existent or irrecoverable moons, whose inclusion would diminish the list's utility.  And asteroid satellites, of which there are a very large number, are already discussed in the article Minor planet moon; if it's desirable to chronicle their discovery dates, then it should be in a separate table, either in that article or in a new one linked to it, which includes all of them.
 
This article is primarily about planetary moons.  The discoveries of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Eris, and Haumea are included because they are relatively sizable objects (planets or "dwarf planets") with satellite systems, and the discovery of the planet is, of course, a prerequisite for discovering their satellites. But Vesta, Hygiea, etc. are not known to have satellites and are considered too small to be "dwarf planets".  There is little utility in including them in this list; the discovery dates of asteroids are chronicled elsewhere, and the total number of asteroids is far too vast to be included in this list, whether they were ever considered planets or not.RandomCritic (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroids and spurious ("lost") moons

message: There is some confusion in the prehistory section. Obviously people have been looking up at the planets and noticing them forever, but it wasn't until historical times that anyone knew they were planets. I would say that if we were going to make this a historical list we would need to place the Sun and Moon in prehistory; the planets in antiquity (with Venus first, as it was the earliest planet whose motions have been recorded), and Earth in 17th century, which is when it was recognised as a planet. Serendipodous 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See comment above.RandomCritic (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: the Prehistory section

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* 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.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:2003 EL61.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The 1800s asteroids that were at the time considered planets, should all be listed here, not just only Ceres. They are documented to have been called "planets" at that time. If we're listing all the moons of the giant planets, I don't see why we wouldn't list these also. We might also list the discovery dates for the ring systems of the giants as well. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  The U.S. Naval Observatory, the first four asteroids were generally considered planets, while 5-onwards were less so, since there was a 40 year gap between #4 and #5's discoveries. This would be similar to the controversy first started by 1992 QB1, and then Eris, and the gap with Pluto. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroid planets

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. 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/20070921162818/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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. 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/20060513070412/http://wwwnt.unifi.it/biblio/libri_studio/indice.asp?flag=2&tipo=lib&id=8 to http://wwwnt.unifi.it/biblio/libri_studio/indice.asp?flag=2&tipo=lib&id=8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040813111237/http://ringmaster.arc.nasa.gov/galileo/vgr_data/2063053.html to http://ringmaster.arc.nasa.gov/galileo/vgr_data/2063053.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040812052041/http://icarus.cornell.edu/journal/ToC/1996/contents_9605.html to http://icarus.cornell.edu/journal/ToC/1996/contents_9605.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130716121048/http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Neptunes-Newest-Moon-215535121.html to http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Neptunes-Newest-Moon-215535121.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I love, love, love the tables in this article!! One question... in the "name" columns... what is the significance of roman vs. italic vs. bold type? I've been scanning the article for clues. Please pardon me if I've missed it.... PurpleChez (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From the first sentence of "Key": "In the following tables, planetary satellites are indicated in bold type (e.g. Moon) while planets and dwarf planets, which directly circle the Sun, are in italic type (e.g. Earth)." (The Sun is, of course, in roman type.) Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  text formatting in the tables 

message: There's so much valuable information inside these tables, I wonder if there's any way to add metadata to them, to allow the data to be used for visualisations, analysis, etc.
Flycatchr 19:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metadata 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Objects_formerly_considered_planets all objects that were once called planets to be added.
note that this list does include all that except for the first 3-4 or 14-15 asteroids , the first 3 were called planets for a long time and the 5-15 were called planets for 4 years.
ive wonder were the first few asteroids would be place in this page , of course we cant put all , but since the first so call 15 where called planets once , i was wondering if we could re add them. Joshoctober16 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the dwarf planets should really be in this list, as according to the IAU definition dwarf planets are not planets. True, not everyone accepts that. There is also the little problem about which objects are dwarf planets, exactly. If Haumea and Makemake are on the list, when we do not actually know that they are in HE, then it makes sense to include Quaoar and Orcus with their moons, say. Not that it makes much difference to the size of the list, which is basically determined just by the swarms of irregular satellites the outer planets have. Double sharp (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: it is to note that the moon , mercury Mars are not in HE as well , yet Ceres is HE , the whole HE is starting to get too messed up now , in some ways earth is in-between being not HE and being HE , there is also the question on some earth moons that were in orbit of earth but deorbited , i say we should add all the objects that are at least 900 KM in diameter (Orcus ,Salacia, Quaoar, Gonggong, Sedna) are the only objects over 900 KM not on this list with 2 being larger then ceres. --Joshoctober16 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support adding those objects as likely dwarf planets, yes. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (Thought about doing it and then became stuck because I can't find where Quaoar was actually first publicly announced. Maybe later.) Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Added Salacia, MS4, Varda, and AW197 as candidates. (Since Salacia I Actaea and Varda I Ilmarë are significant moons, larger than Saturn VII Hyperion.) Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Ixion, FY27, and AZ84. Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a little change. 

message: If the article has its current title, then Ceres, Pluto, Charon, etc. have to go, because dwarf planets are officially not planets.
However, their discoveries were important parts of our understanding of the Solar System. So the other alternative seems to be keeping them in the list, but changing the title to Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets, dwarf planets, and their moons (Oxford comma ad libitum).
Thoughts? Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could say that we mean geophysical planets. Double sharp (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion