Talk:List of most distant trans-Neptunian objects

Most distant TNOs[edit]

Since the same table appears in several different articles, shouldn't it be a template or something? I don't know exactly how these things work, so I won't attempt to do it myself... 78.145.113.232 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried creating a template {{TNO-distance}} but it doesn't show up right except when I'm editing the article. Anyone know what I messed up? Please fix. - Denimadept (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make it a template, instead of embedding it in the page coding? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the post starting this section here on this talk page. Now what needs to happen is that the template needs to be included in whatever other pages include that table. - Denimadept (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for everything listed in the table at any rate. Also searched for "most distant tnos" and found one other occurrence. It could be lurking somewhere else with a different title, of course, but there can't be that many pages that would need to include it... 78.146.212.83 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TNO-distance

In addition to current distance and magnitude, I think this should include the albedo factor, avg distance, semi-major axis, aphelion, perihelion, eccentricity, orbital inclination, proper motion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to over-complicate the list? Even though albedo is relevant to distance, size, and vmag, I am not sure it will mean much to the average reader. Avg distance and semi-major axis are the same thing. Does the average reader care about proper motion? "Just my first thoughts on the subject." -- Kheider (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very possible that eventually the template will turn into a List-class article of all known TNOs. Then the relevant articles can add a {{See Also}} to point at the list article instead of having it embedded. I expect this will happen when we get a few more TNOs for the list. I'm kinda tempted to do it now, to invite more contributions. We can rotate it and add more columns, as 70.51.44.60 suggested. I suspect more people will contribute to an article than to a template. It's just that 78.145.113.232 asked about a template, so I didn't think very hard about it. Something like List of Trans-Neptunian Objects with a sortable table. - Denimadept (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - List article created: List of Trans-Neptunian Objects. It needs a lot of work, but I created it as a starting point. Add columns as appropriate, add {{See Also}} to the referring articles, and stop using the template. Then we can have the template deleted. - Denimadept (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh. There's already a List of trans-Neptunian objects article. Why not just refer to the existing article rather than including the original table? - Denimadept (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of most distant objects should only include those currently at least two Neptune distances away from the Sun (60.14 AU). Looking at AstDys, there are many objects inside that distance, but only 9 beyond (V774104 would be the 10th). Objects at least two Neptune distances from Sun vs Objects at least 50 AU from Sun. Ambi Valent (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a list article, it'd be better as List of most distant objects in the Solar System, with separate sections for current distance, average distance, and aphelion, for three different determinants of "most distant" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already List of trans-Neptunian objects. I've redirected my new article to the existing one. - Denimadept (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the analog of this table, the most distant ones are not equivalent to all TNOs, so it would be better to just call it the most distant objects -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how slowly these things move when far from the Sun, List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in 2015 is basically the same thing. I am not sure how many of these almost identical TNO "list articles" Wikipedia wants. Eris is moving at a slow 2.3km/s wrt the Sun and 2000 CR105 is still only moving 5km/s wrt the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So continue using the template if that works for you, but my feeling is that an ever-growing sortable list of TNOs would do. If you want to know what's farthest away, or nearest, click on the "distance" column. - Denimadept (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would result in unreasonably large tables/pagesizes, as more and more TNOs are discovered. A separate list of most distant objects would make a smaller subset list, under the different classes of distance measurements (avg, perihelion, apohelion, current distance, distance above/below ecliptic, etc) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most distance objects will always be long-period comets with periods of hundreds of thousands / millions of years. Many small (less than dwarf-planet-sized) TNOs will simply be comet-like objects that do not get close enough to the Sun to outgas. Any near-parabolic comet discovered before ~1930 will currently be more than 100AU from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really thinking this needs to go to a list article, as previously described, and this template, if it continues to exist, should point people there. As data changes, we shouldn't need to update this, which leads me to think that a list article makes the most sense. - Denimadept (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation[edit]

For now, with a fairly short list of TNOs, this table is fine as it is. When we have 50 of them, we'll need to rotate it to put the list of TNOs on the rows and the distances on the columns, or it will get too wide. - Denimadept (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the table exceeds 20 items, it's time to convert it to a list article, and reduce the size of this table back to 10 items, if it is to remain a template. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As a template this list probably should not exceed 10 objects. Otherwise it will look bad in well developed articles. -- Kheider (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With just 10 items, the template already is too wide for most articles including it. I would switch it to vertical format and add the next two known objects which are very close to the 60 AU limit: 2008 ST291 and 2003 QX113, both at 59.9 AU and traveling away. Another bonus in switching to vertical format is that we can make the columns sortable. — JFG ^talk 18:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, fits much better. — JFG ^talk 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I thought templates don't need references.--Io Herodotus (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template has data. The data needs references. - Denimadept (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Earth[edit]

the "Distance from Earth" is different on the site given on reference, why ?

Eris : data on this page =96.2; on the site =95.45

2007 OR10 : data on this page =87.6; on the site =86.63

2008 ST291 :data on this page =60.1; on the site =59.203[1]

2011 GM89 : data on this page =68.3; on the site =not found

V774104 : data on this page =103; on the site =not found

all red links don't work on this site. How did you find those values ?

Perihelions and Apohelions are slightly different, why?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The red links are from the reporting MPECs on each object. Of course, the perihelia and aphelia are also different due to uncertain orbits and orbital variation. I'm not sure what you mean by the distance from earth, though. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Objects not in source given[edit]

As of now, the source (Astdys2) lists 43 objects that are more than 59 AU from the Sun, see here. This is far less than the number of objects on this page. Some objects missing from the source, like 2015 KH162, clearly belong here, so I guess the source is wrong and should be replaced. Renerpho (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "clearly belong here": The template says the objects are "at least twice as far as Neptune", but Neptune never comes closer than 29.81 AU from the Sun. Shouldn't the table exclude objects with distance below 59.62 AU (currently 2 of the objects in the list)? Renerpho (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved: I've marked the page as unreviewed so someone from WikiProject Astronomy can merge or write a lede. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TNO-distance → List of most distant trans-Neptunian objects – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this template is not marked as collapsed, it should be converted into an article itself, and referenced rather than expanded in articles including it. As-is, it takes over small article with a huge list. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a long list and should be collapsed by default. -- Kheider (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this list of actual data (which requires references) is article text content, and is inappropriate for the Template namespace as WP:TG:Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader. Moving the data table to a List is a fine solution. I see no reason this table needs to be displayed in all those articles. -- Netoholic @ 12:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see another article, so probably should be merged. List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in 2018, or wait, apparently that article exists for each year, or at least 2015 as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it up to the Astronomy WikiProject editors to say whether having separate lists for each year has value. I see that page has a merge proposal since December that hasn't been moved on. List of trans-Neptunian objects linked below also seems to duplicate much of this. Overall, I'm neutral as to were it goes... it just can't be in Template namespace and should not be transcluded on these articles. I suggest perhaps replacing the template in article with links to these Lists. Once the template is orphaned, it can be deleted. -- Netoholic @ 00:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm neutral on this issue, even though I created the template. Here's the thing. There's already an article for the purpose: List of trans-Neptunian objects, so it might be better to just delete this and point to the list article where this template is currently invoked. See above #Most distant TNOs. - Denimadept (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If List of trans-Neptunian objects had a column with current distances, and can be sorted, it would work fine. Distances don't change much year to year. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It does. - Denimadept (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Average distance from the Sun is not the same as current distance from the Sun. I do not see it at List of trans-Neptunian objects. I think it should be at List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun. That way spacecraft and comets can be included. -- Kheider (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping up-to-date on "current distance from the Sun" seems like an unachievable, undesirable, and unenjoyable task. I get that there may be scientific value in such, but is there encyclopedic value? Seems like doing so would violate a few items in WP:NOT, like WP:NOTSTATS. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.