Talk:List of exceptional asteroids

message: <Jun-Dai 07:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  torino 

message: Should Europa be further down the size list? Listed as 289km on its own page. kwami 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. 'Course, the question with that list is how to sort them? e.g. check out the size of Hektor Deuar 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably by volume. Yes, Hector's odd. My question on Europa was more one of which figure was more reliable. kwami 21:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to be all over the place from 278km (occultation) to 312km ("the nine planets"). The IRAS diameter was 302.5km, so that's probably where the value in the list comes from. This paper gives axis rations a/b=1.15 b/c=1.3, but claims a diameter of 310km (unrferenced, naturally!). Using these axes, and the IRAS diameter we would have 360×315×240 km. Overall the 300km value seems more reliable, I think Deuar 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europa 

message: I'm thinking of nominating this as a featured list. However, I know that it won't pass as a candidate without references. Have some of the external links here been used as references? If so, they should be in a section headed as such. If they haven't been used as references, then what has? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the lion's share of the information there comes directly from the individual asteroid pages.  Deuar 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The article says eight of these are known, but lists only six. What are the other two? RandomCritic 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And is it still eight, in fact? Deuar 22:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrograde asteroids 

message: The first table "largest known asteroids" includes the largest ones, and then a motley but not exhaustive assemblage of part of the large ones. It'd be good to define 
# a cutoff point (how about 200 km geometric mean diameter, although this would include another 10 or so)
# an ordering (by geometric mean diameter, or by longest dimension? (as currently) )
Any comments, suggestions? Deuar 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of asteroids by size appears to be a copy of this article since it was just created on June 3rd. I think it should be a re-direct to this article.-- Kheider (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  criteria for list of  largest asteroids 

message: What about those asteroids studied by radar astronomy?--Pharos 14:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 'notable' asteroids 

message: Is there cause to add an entry for the unusual 279 Thule? Thoughts? MURGH disc. 15:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement. Had a go. MURGH disc. 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding 279 Thule

message: When the page was moved from "List of notable asteroids" on August 28th, I did not really think it was a great idea, but I just shrugged my shoulders.  Some of the objects this page are not part of the main belt: Jupiter Trojans like 624 Hektor, retrograde asteroids like 20461 Dioretsa and (65407) 2002 RP120, unstable centaurs like 2060 Chiron and 60558 Echeclus. -- Kheider (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I don't understand why the list of largest asteroids (and other lists) only includes cis-Jovian objects. It makes sense not to include TNOs because they would completely dominate the list (also, they are listed elsewhere). But IMO this list should include all "cis-Neptunian" asteroids (meaning: all asteroids which are closer to the Sun than Neptune on average). Can someone knowledgeable update the list accordingly? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we go with cis-Neptunian, only centaur (asteroid) 10199 Chariklo would be big enough to be added to the list.  TNOs should not be added to the list because their diameters are poorly known and they would not be listed in the proper order. -- Kheider (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so I will add Chariklo (and change the header accordingly) if noone disagrees.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Chariklo still not listed? The recent revelation about its rings http://www.nature.com/news/asteroids-can-have-rings-too-1.14937 certainly makes it one of the most notable asteroids in recent memory, and according to this comment chain, it should have been on this list since 2008! 23.240.57.111 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not an asteroid, it's a centaur. Asteroids = minor planets within and up to the orbit of Jupiter. If this is moved to "List of notable minor planets", then it must be included. --JorisvS (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The header of the article currently says "For the purposes of this article, "asteroid" refers to minor planets out to the orbit of Neptune, and includes the dwarf planet 1 Ceres, the Jupiter trojans and the centaurs, but not trans-Neptunian objects". It really seems like Chariklo should be here. Nog642 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only "cis-Jovian" objects included? 

message: 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 :List of notable asteroids'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 "Pitjeva05":
From 3 Juno: 
 
From Asteroid: 
From 15 Eunomia: : Eunomia 0.164E-11 solar masses; asteroid belt 15E-11 solar masses → 1.1%.
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⚡ 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:List of notable asteroids]] 

message: I've deleted the 'rank' column from the list of largest asteroids. Since it orders the same as diameter, it doesn't add anything. It's rather silly to assert that Hebe, at 186 km, is larger than Psyche, also at 186 km, esp. since they're both probably off by 10's of km. After the first 4 (and even between 2 & 3), we can have no confidence in the order of the table: look how Europa jumped up to #6 recently. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Rank' is largely meaningless 

message: Chrisrus, is debating that List of minor planets should be deleted and merged with List of notable asteroids. See: Talk:List of minor planets#Delete?. -- Kheider (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:List of minor planets#Delete? 

message: :
Is there ever a reason to describe inclination as more than 180°? —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. But I think someone comes a long and changes that every year or so. -- Kheider (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  extremes of inclination 

message: The smallest asteroid is the one that measures exactly 1 meter in diameter because anything smaller is a meteoroid. And since size is a function of albedo, the estimated sizes are generally only accurate to within a factor of ~2 for asteroids less than ~200 meters in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest asteroid 

message: Ceres is a massive asteroid. Indeed, it is more massive than the total of the 2nd to nth. Obvious question in there (n?), which should be answered by the list of most massive asteroids. But Ceres scores 939.3, and the total of the others is 928.656: just too small to answer the question. Adding one or two more asteroids to that table should make the question answerable. Please could somebody with access to reliable data consider doing so? JDAWiseman (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most massive: please add one or two asteroids 

message: Plutinos are not normally considered to be asteroids. I recommend removing them from this article. Who's with me? Ordinary Person (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Article says “For the purposes of this article "asteroid" means minor planet up to the orbit of Jupiter”, which seems to exclude Plutinos. Which Plutinos have crept in? JDAWiseman (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 2001 KX76 was in there at the time I made this edit, but has since been removed.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave out the Plutinos 

message: My quick search shows that there's 2015 BN509, 2006 DP14, 1999 JD6, 4179 Toutatis, Itokawa, and 32-A Hector elucidated by Hawaii's Keck Telescope which is a peanut-shaped asteroid with a moon. And according to Dr. Al Grauer with Travelers in the Night at http://www.prx.org/pieces/114760-32-a-peanut-shaped-asteroid-with-a-moon/floating_piece data from the Goldstone Solar System Radar telescope and the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico suggests that of near-earth travelers larger than 650 feet in diameter, more than 10% of these asteroids have a peanut shape. So I'd guess that if we started a table of Peanut-shaped asteroids, even just with the few above, editors over time would populate it. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a "Peanut-shaped listing" could be added 

message: Hi,
It is now clear that ‘ASPECT RATIO’
Is vital to understanding objects found in space.
The recent 1l/2017u1 vleRly is not a normal object.
It’s brightness was listed as varying by 10 to 1
This was taken to mean it’s aspect ratio.
It’s so unlikely to have formed by natural means that I think. Let catagory clarification is needed.
Also this asteroid appears to be the first extra solar body detected.
It’s pbviously headed on a right angle trajectory from our sun for a telescopic mission to map the galaxy.
Or a very interesting space rock.
Info @ the ubie  . Com
72.94.230.198 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASPECT RATIO and  incoming and put going coordinators and Through angle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of exceptional asteroids. 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/20040703204537/http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/SBNast/archive/DISCOVER/discnote.tab to http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/SBNast/archive/DISCOVER/discnote.tab
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402051239/http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/sbnhtml/index.html to http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/sbnhtml/index.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) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Ceres is the largest and most massive asteroid and the only one that is a dwarf planet." This is wrongly written. Either it's an asteroid or a dwarf planet. Ceres is a dwarf planet, isn't it? --212.186.7.98 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both. Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image description 

message: In the quick facts column ,the new images of 2 Pallas from a recent (2020) observation must be added . Ayush pushpkar (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick facts 

message: Why is Ceres listed as the "most highly inclined known minor planet from January 1, 1801, to March 28, 1802." on the inclination list. Technically this is true but it's not exactly helpful information. Ceres was the only asteroid discovered at that time so it had to be the most inclined. It's like saying you're the oldest human in the world if you're the only human in the world, not technically wrong but not helpful or useful either. Healpa12 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclination List and Ceres