Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Main asteroid belt

Main asteroid belt

Note this was a Featured Topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

or Major asteroids in the main belt

or simply Asteroid belt

Major contributors: Serendipodous; RJHall; Deuar; Nergaal; Ruslik0; Urhixidur; Kwamikagami.

Slightly more than 50% of the entire mass of the belt is found in these 4 minor planets.[1] They are known among astronomers as the "big four".[2] Some sources indicate that the total mass of the three next most massive asteroids is about as much as the last in this list. These 4 are also the only probable candidates for achieving hydrostatic equilibrium. Nergaal (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am going to support. Zginder 2008-09-08T02:28Z (UTC)
• Support. - Meets the criteria, high percentage of featured content, nice work. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've taken a look at this topic, and I think that this topic should actually just be titled "Asteroid belt" instead of "Main asteroid belt." The topic would have all the major bodies of the asteroid belt as articles, and would therefore be comprehensive, as smaller asteroid belt objects are probably not noteworthy enough to warrant their own articles within the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically is "Main asteroid belt" but popularly is simply "Asteroid belt". Nergaal (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes I see. For the sake of simplicity I think it would be better for the topic to just be named "Asteroid belt" since that is the title of the lead article and is the term that is more commonly known. But either way I support the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - you have spent the time trying to convince us that this topic has no notable gaps in terms of main belt asteroids. You point out that the "Big Four" contain more than 50% of the mass of all the MBAs. Howvever, I don't think you've convinced me that there is a huge gap between the smallest of the big four, and its nearest competitors. Contrary to what you state above, according to this, the mass of the fifth and sixth biggest MBAs are 6.6 × 10¹⁹ kg and 6 × 10¹⁹ kg, respectively, whilst the fourth is only 9 × 10¹⁹ kg. So which is right, you, or the list?

...Conversely, as you successfully establish the concept of these four asteroids being the "big four", I'm not sure how much the weight gap matters (though I would still appreciate clarification). One thing you have not even attempted to address though is whether the topic has any notable gaps in terms of related articles. And what does matter to me is that I believe that List of notable main belt asteroids constitutes such a gap, and for this reason, I oppose - rst20xx (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - actually, I withdraw that, based on precedent. I didn't lobby to have List of plutoid candidates included in the Dwarf planets topic, nor articles such as Table of the largest objects in the Solar System included in the Solar System topic. I think all these things should have been included, but precedent dictates that they needn't be. I therefore change to neutral, and state that I would like to see you guys work on including such articles as future additions to all three topics - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was looking at going for this topic I considered that page too. But soon I realized that half of that page is in fact related to asteroids in general (not only those in the main belt). I actually moved the page from List of notable asteroids to there, and after realizing the mistake I tried to undo the move but I couldn't (no deletion rights). Nergaal (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it shouldn't be included anyway :) Bring the page to WP:RM as an uncontroversial move, explain what you did and why it's wrong and it'll be moved back no problem - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support- I guess that the fact that only these four are close to hydrostatic equilibrium sets them appart from the next dozen or so. That would mean there is no gap ErikvDijk (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support now it's moved back. And call it "Main asteroid belt" please, common name is less of a worry here, rather go for unambiguity - rst20xx (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose — I would like to see List of notable asteroids included for completeness. I don't think that not having Table of the largest objects in the Solar System sets a precident because there is a clear divide between things like plants and regions versus smaller things; in this topic, however, the dividing line, though logical, is still an arbitrary line. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the List of notable asteroids contains tables of which half or more contain asteroids that are not in the main belt. I believe that the logical place for that list would be in a general "Asteroids" topic, where "Main asteroid belt" should be a subtopic, along with the other asteroid belts (i.e. Kuiper?). Nergaal (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that article is unacceptable, I still feel that this topic is lacking information on the smaller asteroids. the lead article does a good job of describing the average characteristics of the average asteroid, but I would like to at least see the names of a few more of them. This might be nitpicking, though, so I'll change my vote to neutral. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - and sorry it took so long - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)