This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
They most definitely are referencing something, except , really.  and  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)