Talk:List of minor-planet groups

message: It should be made clear that when the article says the asteroids have a semi-major axis of so-and-so many AUs that this refers to the orbit of the asteroids and not the size of the actual asteroid. 134.173.94.191 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, see all the other discussions below.  Also Asteroid should re-direct to Minor Planet (still the official term), not the other way. Tom Peters 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with merging Asteroid into Minor planet and not the other way. I will start it if noone else oppose. Öòö0 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: asteroids

message: I'm seriously considering moving the entire part which concerns Asteroid Families to a separate article. (Including the list of families), and putting in its place a link with maybe a sentence or two. There are two reasons:
#Quite a number of links to this article that I have encountered are just there because of the asteroid families. They are there largely because there isn't a separate article which explains the issues common to all the families.
#A longer piece of text about the families like what I have put in today doesn't really sit well here, because this article is mostly a list of groups with only enough detail to identify what they contain.
So, i'm interested what your opinion is on this suggestion. If there is no major protest against this, I'll try to implement the move in a week or so. Deuar 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no protest, I have carried this out. Deuar 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate ''Asteroid Family'' article 

message: Does anyone know where the main belt subgroups with names like Main Belt IIb asteroids come from. I've never come across them anywhere else. Is there some sub-field that they are used in? Perhaps they were introduced in a paper or two, but never caught on? (they're kind-of dull...) Does anyone have a reference for them? They look like they're never going to get an article, so if no-one stands up do defend them I would certainly suggest removing the broken wiki links, and probably deleting them outright. 
While i'm on this, is there a group inwards of 2.3 AU? e.g. Main Belt O asteroids? There's a heap of asteroids around there. Why did they get the short straw? Deuar 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of those groups before, but it seems that the source of the article is  and that page cites Clifford Cunningham's book and the MPCs. - hike395 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main belt subgroups  

message: Hello. Wow, that's a lot of pages. But is it really encyclopedic? Or perhaps better suited to dictionary? e.g. List_of_asteroids, List_of_asteroids_(29001-30000), List_of_trans-Neptunian_objects, List_of_periodic_comets, List_of_non-periodic_comets. Is there a top-level page that discusses this project? Ewlyahoocom 13:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encycolpedia or Dictionary 

message: My Solar System Dynamics book says that the Hilda family is in a 3:2 resonance with Jupiter, not a 2:3 resonance as the article claims. 3:2 makes more sense since they should be completing three orbits for every two orbits of Jupiter (for comparison, Jupiter's moon Io is described as being in a 2:1 resonance with Europa and it completes two orbits for every one that Europa completes - so the inner body should have the higher number in the x:y description, surely?). 
Can someone doublecheck the resonances shown here to make sure they're shown the right way round?
:Thanks! Should be ok now Deuar 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resonance values need checking? 

message: Minor planet is asteroid. The bodies called planetoids - the transitional bodies between planets and asteroids, which have planet-like shape and considerabl;e dimentiions, such as Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, Xena etc. Sometimes Ceres considered planetoid.--Nixer 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Planetoid is somewhat outdated (although more accurate) synonym for asteroid, an object officially known as minor planet. Since the discovery of large trans-Neptunian objects, Mike Brown (and perhaps others) have suggested that the name could be recoined for those almost-planet sized objects. Currently, however, the terms can be considered synonyms and no one should claim that false. Personally, I like Mike Brown's suggestion (if it's his).--JyriL talk 20:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Asteroid is already 32 KB in size, and minor planet about half that. Merging them would result in an article that'd probably be large enough to warrant splitting again anyway. I don't believe there's much overlap in content, minor planet is mostly a big list of the various subgroupings by orbit and the asteroid article has only a single paragraph on that topic. Bryan 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Minor Planet is under consideration for merging with Small solar system body in accordance with IAU recognition of that term encompassing everything that isn't a planet or dwarf planet. Asteroid might work as a sub-page to Small solar system body. As well as others, once the merge is done this should be revisted. --Exodio 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor planet is not the same as planetoid ? 

message: If the draft definition of a planet will be adopted, the term minor planet will be no longer used. Instead, all objects orbiting a star smaller than planets are to be called small solar system bodies. That term covers objects such as asteroids, TNOs, and comets.--JyriL talk 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a difference in definition of asteroids and TNO's?  I don't think so.  The Centaurs for example are most likely very similar to SSSBs beyond Neptune, but by definition they are not TNO's; OTOH they are unlike the rocky major-belt asteroids. Tom Peters 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Using planetoid would've made life so much easier... I wonder why they didn't? 132.205.93.195 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term seems to have been adopted happily by the IAU. I've created a stub; probably worth bulking it out quickly. Shimgray | talk | 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why a stub? The term used here includes asteroids and comets, exactly the same objects. Just a page move should have been enough.--JyriL talk 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a total lack of evidence that the IAU intended the term SSSB to replace "minor planet".  The status of the term "minor planet" isn't addressed in the IAU's resolution. IIUC "minor planet" is anything that the Minor Planet Center assigns numbers to: asteroids, centaurs, trojans, TNOs.  SSSB includes most of these (per resolution) + comets and meteors.RandomCritic 08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is this: If minor planets are considered as asteroids (like the IAU unofficially does), this page is redundant, but if the term "minor planet" include asteroids + comets + TNOs (like has been done here) this page is again redundant (because SSSB ~ minor planet).--JyriL talk 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IAU officially uses the term "minor planet" as you yourself pointed out, and according to Brian Marsden that is synonymous with "asteroid".  That does include TNO's (moving specks of light without a coma that happen to orbit beyond Neptune) but excludes comets (moving specks of light with a coma that they usually develop within the orbit of Jupiter).  So actual and current terminology among astronomers is that "Minor planets" are not synonymous with "SSSBs" but are synonymous with "Asteroids", so we should not merge "Minor planets" with "SSSBs" but with "Asteroids". Tom Peters 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's how it should be. Nobody has provided any evidence that comets are classified as minor planets. The contents of the minor planet article should be moved here, and redirect should be pointing to the asteroid article.--JyriL talk 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a practical problem with this currently, in that when discussing physical characteristics, the asteroid article talks almost exclusively about rocky bodies that lie within the orbit of Jupiter. Deuar 10:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is also what the common usage of the term "asteroid" means; when most people hear the word they don't think of icy bodies in the far depths of outer space, they think of rocks caroming around the inner solar system. Keeping a separate article focused on the rocky asteroids is worthwhile on that basis alone, IMO. We should mention all these technical terminology issues of course but Wikipedia as a whole is intended for a general audience. Bryan Derksen 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small solar system bodies

message: According to  there are other minor planet planetary symbols around, we should probably add it into the text (but not infobox) of the various asteroids concerned. 132.205.93.19 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planetary symbols for asteroids 

message: As the majority of this article is mainly about asteroid groupings, perhaps it should be renamed to something more appropriate? Most of the remainder appears to be redundant with the asteroid article. — RJH (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid groups 

message: Why are Vulcanoid asteroids listed in this section given they are hypothetical?? If it is considered this entry should remain then at least some explanation should be given as to why it is appropriate to include such hypothetical items.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldumpo (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups out to the orbit of earth 

message: Dont merge them these are two totaly different topics we are talking about!!!
Indeed. These are two different topics entirerly. Leave them in seperate articles.
:Speaking as a completely unqualilfied layman, the merge proposal seems odd to me.  Conceptually it seems to me that there must be a definitional difference between a minor planet (which orbits a star) and an asteroid (which need not).  I think lay people would normally consider these to be complete different things.  Everyone knows asteroids revolve around the sun in the Kuiper belt, and that some asteroids get trapped by planet gravity and become moons, but it seems to me that there is still a difference.  If there was a merge, I suspect that the introduction paragraph would get hijacked providing some highly technical explanation as to why astronomers consider asteroids and minor planets to be the same thing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: In order to facilitate bring the asteroid article up to FA at some point into the future, I was "bold" and took the initiative to merge the asteroid and minor planet articles. The majority of the minor planet article concerned "asteroid groups", so that has been moved into a separate article, asteroid group. What little remained was heavily redundant with the asteroid article and I saw little reason to keep them separate. But the content can be readily moved to the minor planet page, if that is the preferred direction. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since most of this material went to asteroid group and asteroid group had no history before now, I've turned this merge into a move in order to preserve edit history. Bryan Derksen (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I, too, was bold: when I read the article, it struck me as a very good list article, not a C-class standard article. So, I changed the article's name to reflect its content. hike395 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: It now has 3 members, see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.tmp.1068B
--115.128.7.77 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thule group has grown! 

message: Does there exist a catch-all term for all SSSBs/minor planets with semi-major axes smaller than those of the asteroids of the asteroid belt? --JorisvS (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: S.t. along the line of inferior planet maybe. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  catch-all term?