Talk:Astronomical naming conventions
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Given that the IAU is meeting now to discuss what makes a planet a planet, I find it very interesting that someone is actaully considering naming a planet after a fictional character; I refer, of course, to the 12th planetary body in our system, currently designated UB313.
Someone at the IAU is thinking of naming it Xena, after the television show, and calling its satellite Gabrielle, after her travelling companion.
- This rumor is not true. Xena and Gabrielle are the codenames which the discovers have been using informally, but which even they are not suggesting as the official names. : "We use these names internally simply because they are easier to say and remember [...]. There is no chance whatsoever that these will become the permanent names of these objects!" Tfleming 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- In the Minor Planets section, the official (as of 13/9/2006) designation 136199 Eris would be a good second example of naming TNOs after underworld deities, along with the cited Orcus example. Also please note that 624 Hektor is the worst possible example of a Jupiter Trojan in the Trojan camp, since it is located in Jupiter's L4 Lagrangian point (the Greek camp) and one of only two exceptions to the Greek/Trojan naming. There are plenty to choose from to replace it and correct this error. 18.104.22.168 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Natural satellites of planets" section
Two questions from material in this section: 1. What is meant by the phrase "...;although no occurrence of the other planets is expected,..."? Does it mean "although it is not anticipated that any more satellites will be discovered orbiting either Mercury or Mars"? 2. What is P doing in this section at all? It has been reclassified by the IAU. Is it "grandfathered in" to the set of planets here simply by virtue of tradition and agreed-upon convention? Writtenright (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
- I think that Pluto remains included in this section, because its known satellites were discovered in the time when it was considered a planet and thus their naming followed the rules described in this section.
- I am not able to answer 1st point, but I agree that the mentioned sentence is quite ambiguous and therefore should be rewritten. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Designations for extra-solar planets
It is my understanding that comets are treated the same as planets - the word comet is not a part of the name, and not capitalized, so just as we say plant Mars, planet Jupiter, planet Earth, it is comet 17P/Holmes, comet Hale-Bopp, and comet 1P/Halley, also known as Halley's comet. Apteva (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Has a scheme been chosen for when the number of supernova discoveries surpasses 702 in a year? I hope so, for as many as 572 have been found already in one year (2007). Suppose we get to one designated "SN2013zz" - what would the next one be, if also found in 2013? I am very worried about this.22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)concerned wikipedia user