Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

Abbreviating catalogue designations (2MASS, WISE, etc.)

I've noticed that there's a bit of inconsistency with abbreviations for catalogue designations like 2MASS, WISE, and DENIS. For example, 2M1101AB has several different abbreviations used in scientific literature, including 2M 1101-7732AB (Luhman 2004), 2M 1101 AB (Steltzer and Micela 2007), and 2M1101AB (Faherty et al. 2020). Another dilemma is whether to truncate the letter 'J' preceding the numbers in an object's designation. There's WISE 1828+2650, but it is called WISE J1828+2650 in the discovery publication by Kirkpatrick et al. 2011 (not to mention that it is also called WISEP J1828+2650 by Cushing et al. 2011). Should there be some kind of preference for which abbreviation to use?

Similarly there's also some vagueness surrounding the usage of full catalogue designations such as 2MASS J03480772−6022270. There's plenty of excruciatingly long designations mixed in with the eight-digit abbreviations in Category:2MASS objects and Category:WISE objects, but I don't see any apparent standard for abbreviating or using full designations. Should all full designations be abbreviated for the sake of searchability, or by notability and press coverage? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Renerpho and Modest Genius for additional input. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some designations are indeed 'excruciatingly long', but that's because the catalogues they're taken from are excruciatingly comprehensive, containing billions of sources. The IAU has rules on how to designate astronomical sources which are supposed to be followed by all professional astronomers. Unfortunately not all of them do, there's no effective enforcement mechanism, and nicknames are often used for press releases or in the popular media. The IAU rules say designations "should never be altered (e.g., neither truncated, nor rounded, nor shortened)". In practice that only really applies to the first mention in a publication - it's allowed to then specify an abbreviation for use thereafter, provided the first mention is the full, unabbreviated designation. If the designation is based on coordinates, the J, B or G indicate which coordinate system is being used, so should never be omitted - even in abbreviations. I think 2MASS J03480772−6022270 is a good example of correct usage, giving the full form in the article title and defining an abbreviation in the first sentence of the lead.

Those are of course IAU rules, not Wikipedia rules. The NCASTRO guideline is to follow whatever the dominant name is in reliable sources, but to favour professional literature over popular media in the case of disagreement. If the professional literature predominantly uses a nickname or abbreviation, that's what we should follow, despite the IAU. For 2M1101AB, the 'correct' name according to the IAU rules is 2MASS J11011926-7732383, which is exactly what Luhman uses in the original discovery paper ("2MASS J11011926-7732383 (hereafter 2M 1101-7732)"). The recent Faherty paper also introduces it with the full name before defining a different abbreviation ("binary brown dwarf 2MASS J11011926-7732383AB (2M1101AB) found in the Chameleon star-forming region") ['AB' refers to the two members of the binary, so is being more explicit without changing the underlying designation]. I've not dug into every mention in the literature, but from my quick search the dominant usage is the full designation, with various forms of abbreviation in use but only after quoting the full 2MASS J11011926-7732383.

As for the initial letters, those come from the abbreviation of the catalogue. The definitive listing of those abbreviations is the CDS Dictionary of Nomenclature which explains the differences between WISE, WISEP, WISEA etc. For your example, it's in multiple WISE catalogues so has several valid prefixes. If we look at the Kilpatrick discovery paper, they introduce this object as WISEPA J182831.08+265037.8 then later abbreviate it WISE 1828+2650 (which is technically not a valid abbreviation as it omits the J).

So to summarise a very long reply: this needs to be handled case by case, depending on dominant usage in the professional literature. In most cases, that will be the full unabbreviated designation following the IAU rules, with possible abbreviation thereafter, but not always. Modest Genius ^talk 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius: So someone has to review every abbreviated 2MASS/WISE object article to check whether the abbreviation is more widely used in the scientific literature? I wouldn't mind if all of these page titles get moved to their full designations. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the guideline, though it doesn't seem worth the effort of checking unless there's a specific issue or dispute. Modest Genius ^talk 10:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius: While moving all those abbreviated pages, I came across this requested move discussion from 2012. There was no consensus, but it seems that all of them were moved during 2014-2016. I'm torn; I need additional input from everyone involved before I resume (or revert) the WISE page moves. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @JorisvS and the original requestor @Hekerui for additional input. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the shortest unambiguous abbreviation style. Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only unambiguous form is the unabbreviated one. Pretty much all possible two- or three- letter abbreviations are already in use for other catalogues. The number of digits in the designation is deliberately chosen to be just enough to avoid ambiguity between multiple sources in the same catalogue. If you abbreviate the designation of an astronomical object, it almost always becomes ambiguous with another astronomical source. Modest Genius ^talk 10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the same catalogue I mean, don't understand your answer. The name always includes a catalogue name, no? Hekerui (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that abbreviated designations should be used whether possible. We should stop accepting everything that IAU says as "an unquestionable and inviolable truth". Our objective is to make useful articles to readers, not to serve the interests of some people. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does whether the article title is abbreviated affect how useful it is to readers? The designation can still be abbreviated in the article text where necessary. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because the shortened name is more likely to be searched by readers. That's why we have 2M1207 and not 2MASS J12073346–3932539. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that depends on what name is used by sources? If a source uses the unabbreviated form that's what a reader seeing that source will search for. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only once, and only copying and pasting the name on Google, if there is an abbreviated name who will use the full name? But honestly I don't care anymore about this thread, so it can stay as it is. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on changing how we decide the common name

I propose that we should get rid of the following excerpt: When more than one name is in common usage, preference should be given to the name used in the more reliable sources. For astronomical objects, papers in scientific journals or publications of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) are regarded as more reliable than press releases or articles in the popular media. If we really want to decide to decide the common name, which most people will search, all reliable sources should be considered as the policy says, not only the "most reliable sources". That is a completely arbitrary, nonsense way of deciding the common name: The "most reliable sources" have nothing to do with the article title, all reliable sources are to be used, without giving preferences. At excluding some sources without reason, we are not deciding the common name, but rather the name common among x, which is wrong. Also see WP:NOTHOW: Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We may be opening a can of worms with this (depending on why this guideline was introduced in the first place), but you're right that the current naming convention contradicts a core policy (namely WP:What Wikipedia is not). The question is whether "whenever possible" applies here; and to be honest, I don't see why it shouldn't. Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with this proposal (full disclose: I wrote the current wording). There are degrees of reliability, and some publications are reliable for certain types of information and not others. For example, Sky Sports is highly reliable for the results of sporting contests, but not if one of their commentators says they 'saw a comet passing overhead' during a night-time game. When it comes to the names of astronomical objects, there's a broad continuum of sources encompassing articles in tabloid newspapers, popular science books, press releases, scientific papers, textbooks etc. Many of those are not written by professional astronomers; journalists or press officers are unlikely to be experts in the object in question, or astronomical naming conventions. Those sources are less reliable for determining the name or other information about the object. Hence we should weight sources which are produced by astronomers themselves over popularisations of the subject written by non-astronomers. This guideline does NOT contradict the policy you quote - it's not telling anyone to use the 'official' name, rather it's favouring the name commonly used by those who are reliable sources on the topic (which in some cases is NOT the official name e.g. Eskimo Nebula). Note that WP:UCRN explicitly states lists 'major international organizations ... major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals' as sources to consult - this page merely provides guidance on which of those sources are most reliable in astronomy. Modest Genius ^talk 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius: I think I'm just about now changing my mind about this. Renerpho (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our RS policy already addresses at least some of your objections. We define 'reliable source' as reliable in the topic. Sky Sports is therefore not a RS for astronomy articles. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for minor-planet moons

A discussion that may result in a need to update our naming conventions for moons is ongoing at Talk:Minor-planet moon#Source of the provisional designations?. Renerpho (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change naming conventions for moons

As noted in the previous section, I believe there is a need to change our naming convention for moons. Here is the current guideline:

For moons of planets or dwarf planets:
#If the moon has been officially named by the IAU, use the name as the article title.
#:a. No disambiguation is needed if it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC e.g. Enceladus.
#:b. Because most names are taken from mythology, they often require disambiguation. In that case, add "(moon)" e.g. Titan (moon).
#If the moon is numbered, but not named, use the designation with Roman numerals e.g. Jupiter LIV.
#If the moon is neither numbered nor named, use the provisional designation, e.g. S/2003 J 10.

We provide no guidance for minor-planet moons in general, which has led to problems, ultimately requiring a massive cleanup operation. As noted in the discussion at Talk:Minor-planet moon#Source of the provisional designations? initiated by Gareth Williams, our assumption that the IAU would always assign a provisional designation is not true; in fact, the assignment of a designation is the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of minor-planet moons remain undesignated, and this extends to moons of possible dwarf planets.

For a prominent example, see Satellite of 38628 Huya, which was recently moved there from the fictitious(!!) designation S/2012 (38628) 1. The article by Rommel et al. mentioned in that discussion has since been published in the Planetary Science Journal, and thankfully we were able to alert them in time that they removed the fictitious designation used in the preprint from the final paper. People, it turns out, are absolutely using Wikipedia's list of minor-planet moons when they work on scientific papers (sometimes, like in this case, by proxy of a previously published paper that has done so).

What should our guideline be for moons where the last line of our existing guideline gives no proper answer? That is, for moons that are neither numbered nor named nor designated? I would suggest to add the following to the existing guideline, based on the solution we've found for Huya:

#If the moon does not have a provisional designation, use Satellite of X, where X is the full designation of the primary, e.g. Satellite of 38628 Huya.
#If there is more than one moon, add Inner, Middle, or Outer, e.g. Inner satellite of 3749 Balam.

Do you agree? Renerpho (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified/tagged: WP:WikiProject Astronomy, WP:WikiProject Astronomical objects, and users ArkHyena, Double sharp, Kwamikagami, Exoplanetaryscience, Nrco0e. Renerpho (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Sounds good to me. One query, though: are we sure second is a good disambiguator? It might not be clear if it means "second counting outward from the primary" or "second by order of discovery". Double sharp (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Good point. Maybe it's enough to write add Inner or Outer. To my knowledge there are currently no cases that would require further disambiguation than this. Renerpho (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Sounds good to me. If we get into the situation of 3 undesignated moons, then Middle seems the obvious answer. If we end up with more than 3, then I suppose we can revisit it then. Double sharp (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Agreed. I've changed my proposal accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might cause problems. In the unlikely case that there are 3 moons, we could label them inner, middle, outer, I doubt we'd get more than that without at least one of them being named. If we have a mix of designated and undesignated moons, we could clarify as 'undesignated satellite of X' or even 'inner undesignated satellite of X' — kwami (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the need for disambiguation, there is one quadruple asteroid that has an undesignated satellite. It does not currently have its own article, and is simply referred to as Third satellite in the 130 Elektra article. Renerpho (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a provision for such cases. Please reword as needed. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a misunderstanding what my proposal was supposed to mean. I've now removed the word "such" from "If there is more than one such moon", and have also removed your addition. I did not mean that there had to be more than one undesignated satellite; just more than one satellite with one of them being undesignated. Renerpho (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That works.

I doubt we're going to need to worry about more than 3 moons, and if we do, we can revisit the idea once things have had a chance to stabilize. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Renerpho (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section in the Elektra article to 'inner satellite' per Double Sharp's comment and what looks to be our new naming guidelines — kwami (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks! Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal, although User:Double sharp brings up a good point about "second" not really being a clear indicator (discovery? distance). The "inner" and "outer" descriptor also has issues if you're dealing with minor planets with more than two satellites, i.e. 130 Elektra. Elektra has two moons with published provisional designations while the innermost one does not; do we call it the inner moon or the third moon?

Regarding your statement about "People, it turns out, are absolutely using Wikipedia's list of minor-planet moons when they work on scientific papers (sometimes, like in this case, by proxy of a previously published paper that has done so)." I confirm this is true; Nelsen et al.'s recent PSJ paper on Altjira being a potential triple system unfortunately uses the fictitious AND INCORRECT provisional designation "S/2007 (148780)" for the outer companion, which was discovered in 2006 and announced in 2007. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the naming guideline according to our discussion. Renerpho (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What symbol to use for minus in RA/Dec designations?

While looking through categories like Category:2MASS objects, Category:Quasars, and Category:WISE objects, I noticed that there's a mix of articles that either use a hyphen (-) or an en dash (–) for the minus sign in the RA/Dec part of their designations. Initially, I assumed that the en dash is preferred because it looks most similar to the minus sign, and I saw a greater percentage of articles using the en dash as their title. I even went on a mass article-moving spree. However, I realized that the astronomical naming conventions on Wikipedia has no proper rule for this, and it turns out that the minus sign has its own symbol (−) which has been used before in Wikipedia titles (namely, −1). So I went to check other scientific papers to see what symbol they use, and it looks like the convention is to use the minus sign (because they use LaTeX to show the designations). For example, see this 2020 paper and this 2021 paper. On database websites like Simbad and VizieR, the symbols are limited so they resort to using the hyphen in place of the minus sign.

So now, what symbol should be used? While I am personally leaning toward using the actual minus sign, I'm concerned about it being untypable. The hyphen is simplest and I have no objections to it other than being inaccurate in appearance. The hyphen is closer to looking like the minus sign, but it suffers from being untypable and I am not sure if it is appropriate to hyphens in place of minus signs. So admittedly I am split---I really need to hear other people think.

We have so many articles that either use hyphens or en dashes, so I have no idea how to keep track of them. And when we decide what symbol to use, how do we mass-move them to keep them consistent? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Lithopsian, Praemonitus, Stevinger, EF5, Renerpho, ArkHyena, SevenSpheres, 21.Andromedae, and Modest Genius:. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use the hyphen-minus in most cases, for the sole reason that it is easier to type (yeah, I'm lazy). That said, the minus sign is easier to read. Here we're talking about a template, so there may be the option to just tell Template:DEC to convert all hyphens and en dashes into actual minus signs (yes, that's three different symbols). If that's possible then I'm all for it. Renerpho (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to consistently use the − symbol, which is the '−' (minus) character found in the 'Insert' list below the edit window. This character doesn't wrap at line end. (I.e. I'm agreeing with the below.) Praemonitus (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lithopsian. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about designations, right, such as 2MASS J09393548−2448279? The one thing that shouldn't be used an en-dash. En-dashes should never be used as minus signs (although some style guides suggest they can), can do nasty things like wrapping, and can look poor in some fonts. See MOS:NEGATIVE.

Hyphen-minus (-), as the name suggests is often used as a convenient replacement for a minus sign, but strictly the real minus sign (−) should be used in these cases. There is often a redirect with the other symbol, although that might be considered to be encouraging incorrect usage in articles. The hyphen is convenient because it is what the simple keyboard key generates, but there is a convenient button on the Wikipedia editor for inserting a minus sign. Some templates, most obviously {{Dec}} and {{Val}}, convert hyphens to minus signs for display.

A, perhaps major, complication is that Simbad and the various astronomical object database tools such as Sesame and Vizier use hyphen-minus in these designations (eg. 2MASS J09393548-2448279). Presumably because of typographical issues in the current or old versions, or perhaps just for convenience. Some other symbols, notably the degree symbol in BD/CD designations, are also not used. These tools are so widely-used that whatever they do tends to become a standard. Lithopsian (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of MOS:NEGATIVE. Well, I'm more convinced that we should use the actual minus sign for their page titles then. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind using hyphens, but for consistency actual minus signs should be used. Definitely not en-dashes. See 2MASS J05352184−0546085 for an example of what should be done - the title uses a minus sign, while titles with a hyphen and en-dash are redirects.

For GSC (or TYC) designations like GSC 02652-01324, the symbol is not a minus sign so a hyphen should be used. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is correct. I wanted to suggest a minus sign, because of coordinates. But the Guide Star catalogue uses internal area numbers, so this is not really a minus sign. Stevinger (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this set of page moves was triggered by the common type of Wikipedia page title where an en-dash is preferred over a hyphen because the title is a compound attributive or phrase describing a relationship. See Dash#En dash and MOS:DASH. Lithopsian (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per Renerpho, ease of reading is a determining factor, but simple ease of writing should not be. hyphen-minus should be replaced by a minus/negative sign or en dash per semantics and the mos, especially in page titles. hyphens should be retained in pages like GSC 02652-01324 [presumably] that are neither minus signs nor en dashes. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

since it looks like we have consensus, I'm adding a note to the punctuation section, with examples from this discussion. please adjust for clarity or if i got something wrong. — kwami (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the hyphen in numeric non-minus situations the consensus? Does that also apply to cases like CoRoT-24c? Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i believe so. i think it would apply to CoRoT-24c, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable should answer.

generally, a hyphen is the default, to be used when there's no particular reason to use something else. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on "mass" renaming. I have hit most of the 2MASS, WISE (and variants), IRC, and IRAS designations. I'm not 100% sure I've got all of them yet, but I'll get there. There are definitely more: WD, ~~DENIS~~ (and variants), ~~GAL (G)~~, ~~MSH~~ (and MS?), ~~PSR~~, ~~QSO~~, ~~RXC~~, ~~SDSS~~, ~~SWIFT~~, ~~XTE~~, ~~ZTF~~, ~~GLEAM~~ (and variants), ~~GPM~~, ~~GRO~~, GS(?), H (quasars, etc.), HE, ~~HESS~~ (only one, and it has +), J (various, but seem to be mainly from VVM2013), ~~KIDS~~ (just KIDS J232940-34092, I think), ~~PSO~~, ~~PLCKESZ G286.6-31.3~~, RE, ~~SGR~~, ~~SMM~~, SN (and ~~SNR~~), ~~SWEEPS~~, ~~SSSPM~~, ~~SSTGFLS~~, ~~TGSS~~, TN, ~~UGPS~~, ~~ULAS~~, and ~~W0410-0913~~. There are also some that use galactic coordinate designations, like LBN 114.55+00.22 and SDC 335.579-0.292. A bit of creative searching might turn up some more. Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks for moving these pages! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i reworded the en-dash guideline to 'compound names of compound bodies', as compound names do not automatically take a dash. i think that wording gets the point across, but perhaps someone here can think of something more precise. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are names like 48643 Allen-Beach that name multiple people but take a hyphen. i don't know how to explain this succinctly in a way that would bring more clarity than confusion. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Maybe write that asteroid names should be spelled as they are published in the M.P.C. or WGSBN Bulletin (whichever applies)? Renerpho (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that they are sometimes ASCII-ified. i've pointed out several errors to the MPC, and they said they'll fix them, but last i checked they hadn't gotten to all of them. and of course they sometimes contradict one another. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the specific point above is that we use an en dash for co-discoverers of a comet, but not for two people honored in the name of an asteroid. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Is there any article for which this is actually an issue at the moment? 48643 Allen-Beach is just a redirect. Renerpho (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know. i came across that while looking for an counter-example of a compound name that should take a hyphen. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's 7968 Elst–Pizarro with an en dash, but it was named as a comet. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that one is different... There's also the additional complication of names like 13534 Alain-Fournier, which was named after Alain-Fournier (one person), and in which the hyphen is correct. You can't tell from the name alone which one should be used. Renerpho (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i've gone through names a-j, and so far there are no other complications in actual articles.

personally, i would keep the hyphen in 48643 Allen-Beach, as i'm not sure there's good reason for a dash, but others might have a different opinion. only a minor issue at this point. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, keep it as it is. This seems to be a non-issue. Renerpho (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8289 An-Eefje is similar (but also a redirect). Renerpho (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, there's at least 3131 Mason-Dixon. actual article, name honours two astronomers. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And named at a time when the M.P.C. was definitely limited to ASCII... Okay, that's an interesting one. Renerpho (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also 2100 Ra-Shalom is named after two different concepts, one Egyptian and one Hebrew, in honour of the Egyptian–Israeli peace deal. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the body of 3131 Mason-Dixon, the name is spelled Mason–Dixon, while the article is titled 3131 Mason-Dixon. 2100 Ra-Shalom spells it Ra-Shalom both in the title and in the article body. Renerpho (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2228 Soyuz-Apollo is similar, and is named for Apollo–Soyuz, where we use an en dash. I'm not convinced that we should therefore use a dash in the asteroid name, though.

91287 Simon-Garfunkel is another rd. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4015 Wilson–Harrington is another named as a comet. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that seems to be it for current articles. there are presumably quite a few more rd's. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: any opinion here? — kwami (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This can be confusingly different for comets, as comets named for two or more people use a hyphen (Hale-Bopp), while those for one person with a compound last name use a space (Comas Solà). That's not getting into the asteroid with that name. Thunkii (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

presumably the asteroid name would inherit the spelling of the comet. the question is whether we want to extend this convention to asteroids named in honour of two people, not for their two discoverers. with only 3 examples that have dedicated articles, i think we can ruminate on this. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

parentheses with minor planet numbers?

any interest in restoring parentheses to minor planet numbers with names? it's more formal, is the format used at the minor planet center, and would make our convention more consistent with the temporary designations. when we voted on this years ago, i supported stripping down to the bare numbers. but the more i go over these articles, especially on other WP's where they retain the parentheses [like french, German, Spanish WP], the more i notice how they make the text more legible -- especially now that the numbers are getting so long.

it would be a job for a bot if we did it, of course. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to restore the parentheses indeed. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, as long as it doesn't create a lot of manual work (not being lazy, it's just this really is bot work). Renerpho (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]