Talk:List of Mars-crossing minor planets

Martian Perihelion Distance

In the second paragraph the Martian perihelion distance is given as 1.58 AU, but this is incorrect as it is ~1.38 AU. The reference cited does not specify 1.58 AU as the Martian perihelion distance but rather the minimum perihelion distance for a shallow Mars crosser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.114.163 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2018

List of Mars-crossing minor planets → Mars-crossing asteroid – Move over redirect. Restore original and more appropriate title from 2008. Rfassbind – talk 23:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). ToThAc (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per ASTONISH. The current title is already concise enough. ToThAc (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator – the term "Mars-crossing asteroid" (MCA) is undoubtedly better than "Mars-crossing minor planet", as much as "near-Earth asteroid" is to be preferred over "near-Earth minor planet" (which is unheard of). On Wikipedia, the term "asteroid" is used consistently for all minor planets inside the orbit of Jupiter. This should be the case for any corresponding dynamical group as well. Unfortunately, in 2009, user UU renamed several articles concerning Mercury-, Venus-, Earth- and Mars-crossing asteroids from "asteroid" to "minor planet". This was a mistake: all these articles will need to be renamed (back) to "asteroid" in order to establish consistency across all cis-Jovian dynamical groups. In addition, it is reasonable to drop the "List of.." from the article's name (the list can be linked by an #R-to-section instead). The corresponding Wikipedia articles in Spanish, French, Italian, German and Portuguese all agree with the proposed renaming. Finally, I don't know what the invoked WP:ASTONISH- objection should be good for; but I'm sure, that the term "asteroid" is more comprehensible to a layperson than "minor planet". Rfassbind – talk 03:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Struck nom's duplicate support vote. ToThAc (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: This list includes more than just asteroids, so just "asteroid" is not good enough. Also, interlanguage wikis have different rules for naming than the English Wikipedia, and we shouldn't follow their conventions just for the sake of doing so. As far as I can tell, this is still technically a list, and should follow the conventions at WP:LIST accordingly. Lastly, this move would violate consistency, as we have List of Mercury-crossing minor planets, List of Venus-crossing minor planets, List of Earth-crossing minor planets, List of Jupiter-crossing minor planets, List of Saturn-crossing minor planets, List of Uranus-crossing minor planets, and List of Neptune-crossing minor planets. ToThAc (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I don't think editors are allowed to do this in a discussion. Ego aside, this should be really an uncontroversial request. The definitions given by the MPC and JPL SBDB agree with the foreign wikis and with articles, categories, and groups used in the partial lists on the English Wikipedia. The criteria used in the article in question are unmaintainable and poor (quote from the lead: "Nevertheless, these objects are listed on this page") as is the above rationale, which is – to the best of my knowledge – ignorant and self-referential on the inconsistencies I pointed out. Rfassbind – talk 21:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: The "Nevertheless" part can be deleted, but you still haven't responded to my statements above about how this is still technically a list, and how this would violate consistency, which must be considered before moving any one page within the consistent naming scheme. And I should have mentioned this above: we don't always rely on official names, and instead rely on common names; in other words, this means that even if official statute changes, readers may not understand the current official terms, and thus we must use common names that aren't that unofficial but not entirely official, either. Also, why are you still comparing interwikis? They are different, content- and page traffic-wise and need different rules than the English version. ToThAc (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I removed your vote because you already voted as the nominator, therefore the other vote is not needed. ToThAc (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional support pending wider discussion/consensus – After reading Rfassbind's statement I was inclined to simply Support, but looking at List of Mars-crossing minor planets#See also, there is a very clear consistency of "minor planets" usage, which I don't think should be broken without a wide discussion/consensus. Otherwise this will be just another to-and-fro in the minor planets/asteroids saga amongst WP:ASTorians. I do like the idea of "asteroids" when inside of Jupiter's orbit, and "minor planets" when outside, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)