Talk:List of minor planets

' 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)

The MPC itself is annoyingly sloppy about using apostrophes for these in the citation. I think what Kwami said should be correct, but the WGBSN may need to issue a fix on their end, if they haven't already. thunkii (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

They have recently fixed some on their end, should roll out with the next website update. There are more that are correct in their DB but somehow wrong online; those should also be fixed with the next update. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! thunkii (talk) 03:17, 31 May 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)

Date format

Since this edit from April 2020, the article is tagged with {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2020}}. I see no discussion about this. Why was this done, when all the actual lists that are linked here as sub pages use mdy (like here), and this article gives comparatively few dates of its own? As in this edit by GhostInTheMachine that I just reverted (following an update I made earlier today to the outdated example), the example table in List of minor planets#Example is supposed to illustrate what the actual lists look like. It should look like the real thing. There is no point turning the dates in the example into dmy without applying that to all the sub pages. Renerpho (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm pinging AlanM1, who added the dmy tag in 2020 and changed all the dates accordingly. Maybe there was a reason to do so that I'm missing? Renerpho (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: in short, I don't know. I may have been working on a number of articles with references that convinced me that DMY was the prevalent format in the field. It wasn't a personal preference, as DMY is in distant third place for me, personally. Quick looks now at some of the references suggest YMD is more common. I would support whatever format follows the majority of use in the field. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects

A related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Problems with Asteroid family. You are welcome to participate. Renerpho (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)