Talk:List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge "List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in 2015" with "List of Solar System objects ... 2018".

Same article, but updated. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• If it is merged, it should be to List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun or List of most distant Solar System objects -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It also doesn't make sense to merge into the newer list, the older list has more edit history and more material; both lists should merge into a time-invariant title, with a timeline section listing the most distant object titleholder over time. This would obviously represent the average distance, and not hyperbolic paths. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• There is the discussion above about parabolic and hyperbolic objects, which would change greatly from one time to another, so a merged list would need to delete those, or add a per-year section to handle their greatly changing distances. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Distances do not change very much year-to-year as space is very big and the further you got from the Sun the slower objects will move (even the hyperbolic ones). C/1980 E1 (Bowell) with e=1.057 is only moving away from the Sun at a rate of ~1AU/year (6km/s). Most objects will be moving less than a 1/3rd that speed. -- Kheider (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be okay with that. I also started a bit of a discussion (read: I think it was one other person last I checked) at the main talk page of WP:ASTRONOMY, which supported the move. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 22:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

Numbering

The List should be numbered.

--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Truncate below 50AU

This list should be truncated below 50AU because that is where most Kuiper belt objects are. It would also greatly simplify maintenance. -- Kheider (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Go for it! GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kheider: I also agree with this. It makes sense to cut the list off to only objects beyond the Kuiper cliff, which would be roughly 50 AU, so it's not a completely arbitrary number. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I truncated it further to 60 AU, because updating the table in its previous form was an impossible task. Now it is just a lot of work. I estimate a manual update of the table in its current (truncated) form takes about 5 hours (rather than 10 hours previously), and would have to be repeated about once a year for it to remain useful. Could someone automate the task? Renerpho (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested merge 9 April 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of most distant trans-Neptunian objects → List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun

Pretty much the same topic. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The big question is which list is more useful? -- Kheider (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This was originally a page template not an article, made it should be converted back to one. Fotaun (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support There should be one such page. Unclear which title is best. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Support Same topic. I agree. --Io Herodotus (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Support per above, with List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun as target article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 April 2019

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

---

List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun → List of most distant Solar System objects – More simplified title per guidelines on concise article titles. I think it is fair to assume that readers would not look at "distant Solar System object" and assume "most distant from Earth", but instead "most distant from the Sun". The Sun is implied in "Solar", after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Too ambiguous. There would reasonably be some readers who would see the proposed title and think of the distance from the Earth. When I see the proposed title, my first thought is distance from the Earth. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as mentioned by Mrbeastmodeallday, the geocentric distance is not the same as the heliocentric distance. We still have 2 mostly similar most-distant lists running and need to decide how/if to merge them. -- Kheider (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Was there consensus to merge?

@GenQuest: I am confused by the two requests to move/merge this article, both of which started 9 April 2019. One of them ended on 16 April 2019, with clear consensus not moved. The other one received little attention, but was revived on 3 April 2020, and was closed on 29 April 2020 per non-admin closure by user GeriQuest, who actually was one of the voters, and decided to merge. I did not vote myself on the issue, although I would lean strongly not to merge or move the article, but in any case, I doubt this merger was done correctly. If anything, I think the second request has been "no consensus", by lack of participation, and should have been closed last year. I have tagged user GeriQuest above, and I tag the other users who have participated: PhilipTerryGraham, Kheider, Fotaun, Mdewman6, Io Herodotus, Iffy, Mrbeastmodeallday. Renerpho (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think they were separate discussions. I agree the move proposal was closed with consensus to not move. As for the merge proposal, it was closed with clear consensus to merge. 3-4 messages in support with no opposing messages in several weeks is more than sufficient consensus. My question is, were the pages actually merged? Merge discussions should only be closed if the proposed action is actually going to be done, either by the person closing the discussion or someone else that agrees to do it via the discussion. If the closer is not prepared to merge, they shouldn't close the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the merge was completed. (I was not following these pages after I commented). I see no issue with the merge. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger requests announced at the Project Merge noticeboard (PM) will generally move forward if there is no opposition expressed to the merge, especially in the case of two articles on the same subject and/or with huge content over-lap. The completed article merges were in response to a request posted at PM that involved several articles which basically were covering the same topic. It just took a while for me to get to it on my 'To Do' list, as I have been busy in RL; and, unlike most requests, this last one was a difficult and time-consuming merger that involved combining the contents of the two huge, inconsistently formatted tables in the articles. All cited materials from the articles and table contents were indeed merged, so yes, the merge was done correctly, and, even though some posted there late, there was indeed consensus indicated to proceed with all three mergers. Also, see [1], which was taken into consideration before the first merge took place on 4/2/2019. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Column to be deleted

About the column "Distance from the sun/in 2015"

Is there a need to keep it? Is it just a temporary work?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me it should be deleted. It could be useful to portray how far things have moved since 2015, but with 2015 data for so few entries, I think deletion makes sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Before that, an update is necessary. --Io Herodotus (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I updated the table today. There is still a lot of work to do, but if I find the time, I'll go ahead and work on it over the coming weeks. It's not like this data wasn't available. But like the orbit data and the discovery circumstances, it takes a lot of time to add it. Renerpho (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)