Talk:List of minor planets named after people

message: I propose name change from "List of asteroids named after important people" to List of asteroids named after people. Firstly because Wikipedia:Lists says not to use words like 'famous', 'notable', 'important', in titles, and secondly to be consistent with the eponymous lists as listed in eponym. Jay 22:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are a few thousand asteroids named after people, so if you include everybody, you end up reproducing a lot of what's listed in List of asteroids.  Although that list doesn't have a "named after" column with links to articles about people. In any case, I don't object. -- Curps 22:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern is valid. However lists with lots of red links are discouraged and contents of a list are supposed to have a wikipedia article on it/him. So after all you do end having an implicit list of 'important' people in a list concerning people. You're right about the partial duplication too. A relational list (A:B) is neither a subset, superset or duplicate of a stand-alone list (A), as it is simply meant to relate two kinds of data together. So until Wikipedia software comes up with some way to relate different data together and create lists dynamically, we got to create them manually. "Categories" is a good start but I don't know yet how to use them. Jay 23:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Name change done. Jay 15:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename proposal

message: here  are lots of additional asteroid names. claims to be based on « Dictionary of Minor Planet Names » (ed. 1997, Lutz D. Schmadel)-- ExpImptalkcon 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more names 

message: I started editing this page because I've been going through the biogs on Wikipedia and ensuring that there's a reference to his/her asteroid for everyone who's been honoured with a minor planet.
When that's the case, I've also checked that there's an entry on this page - as discussed above, anyone who's "important" enough to have a biog is "important" enough to appear here.
But what should we do about "Children of astronomers" and "Discoverers' relatives"? 
I've already broadened the first to "Relatives of astronomers" - hope that's OK. It seems inconsistent to list astronomers' children, but not their wives or siblings where they too have been honoured.
Since "discoverers" are, de facto, astronomers, maybe these two categories should be combined?
Or - since most of these relatives are not "important" in their own right - should these categories be deleted?
Gallina3795 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives and children 

message: I have changed this to: "Other scientists, engineers and inventors", because:
* Grammatically, it was out-of-style with the other subheadings, which described the particular occupation (astronomer, chemist, etc) rather than the subject area (astronomy, chemistry, etc)
* There were already some engineers and inventors in this section. It also seemed the natural place to add Edison and the Lumiere brothers, so I think the heading needs to be generalised in this way.
Gallina3795 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Other sciences" subhead

message: Barney1159 T-2 (#5655 Barney) Named for Astronomer Ida Barney.   Should be listed. I can't find it here in the list of objects named for astronomers.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ida Barney]]