Talk:List of minor planets: 2001–3000/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Credit for 2630 Hermod

Hey, Rfassbind— If you have a moment to explain, I'd appreciate a little better understanding of your take on the attribution for discovery of 2630 Hermod. As I noted in a dummy edit summary, there appears to have been a change in policy between 1980 and 1981, with 2630 Hermod being credited to "Institute d'Astrophysics" and subsequent bodies being credited to "Haute Provence", despite there being no practical difference (if I correctly understand your comment about the observation code). Is your stance that the MPC is just wrong and we should ignore them, or that this kind of historical blip need not be recognized on Wikipedia? I don't think the link as constructed prior to your edit was an unacceptable encroachment upon WP:EGG, and if it helps to reflect a complicated situation correctly, I'm for it, but I look forward to hearing your thoughts! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 18:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi JamesLucas, to the best of my understanding this is one of many anomalies it the MPC's data base, as there are no MPC-credited, non-human ("institutional") discoverers using the same observatory code. If you are interested, you can find dozens of these anomalies in List of minor planet discoverers, which shows these "alternative/alias names" in the column "Name(s) at MPC". For the case of List of minor planet discoverers § Haute Provence, both "Haute Provence" and "Institute d'Astrophysics" as being used. I wouldn't say the MPC is just wrong, I'd say the MPC doesn't give a damn to establish consistency and doesn't even correct the most obvious typos (e.g. Spacewatch). I actually added this table with the distinction made in the footnote to be more clear about the mentioned anomaly. Rfassbind – talk 20:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I propose that we either (a) add a similar footnote to this table or, if that is opening the door to too much clutter, (b) add a clarifying comment in the wikicode explaining that this is an intentional departure from MPC. Are either of these acceptable to you? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)