Talk:Neptune trojan

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The picture in this article needs a lable Dauto (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new discovery today, see the MPC Neptune Trojan page and the MPEC at http://www.minorplanetcenter.org/mpec/K10/K10P50.html 202.7.182.10 (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pending announcement of 2011 HM102? (Solar System Live)
• M.P.E.C. 2012-T05
• 2011 HM102 - An L5 Neptune Trojan (vimeo : Neptune rotating frame) -- Kheider (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the years of identification are not known with all the objects in the table, it would probably be better to remove the column. Now, when you click to order the table according to the year of identification, 2014 QP₄₄₁ comes before 2001 QR₃₃₂, which is a nonsense. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into that yet. It may well be around the time of their discovery, with their status as Neptune trojans included in the discovery report to the MPC. --JorisvS (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the table according to the List Of Neptune Trojans by Minor Planet Center, and it seems to me that the three references in the final column are not necessary. I failed to find, which information they refer to – most of the information is sourced by the MPC list, diameters have their own sources, years of identification are unsourced, but the three refs seem to be extra. Therefore I suggest to remove the last column. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The column can be removed, but the references must stay and so be placed at the information they're referencing. It would make it clearer what the references are there for. --JorisvS (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information was updated according to new MPC data, so I think they are not referencing anything now. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They most definitely are referencing something, except [16], really. [2] and [9] are about the first high-inclination and L₅ trojan discovered, respectively. I think it is best converted to a notes column. I've gone ahead and done so. --JorisvS (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good solution, thank you. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]