Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)

Minor planet names

EDIT: Because several users (on and off wiki) have stated that the post below is confusing, I'd like to clarify that I am only talking about guidelines for mentioning asteroid names on other stuff's articles. The notability of the asteroids themselves is not part of my question. Renerpho (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

We do have a clear guideline for when a minor planet itself is notable enough to have its own article. What we do not have is a guideline for how to treat minor planet names. Do we need a guideline for when the naming of a minor planet is relevant enough to be mentioned in the article about the subject?

Lots of Wikipedia articles mention minor planets alongside other kinds of recognition (street names, named species, etc), often pointing only to a primary source (the List of minor planets, or the relevant issues of WGSBN or Minor Planet Circulars), or to Lutz Schmadel's dictionary if the asteroid was named before 2014 (example: Vera Gaze). Sometimes the naming is even mentioned only in the lede, without any source, like at Jürgen Stock (astronomer). I have added a few names to articles myself, usually the moment they are announced (like at Martha Argerich; Hofheim, Hesse; and MS Zaandam), following the apparent precedent that had been set in the past (I usually point to WGSBN for reference), but I wonder if there isn't a notability issue.

There are asteroid namings that get reported in reliable secondary sources. Those are not an issue -- their notability is established by Wikipedia's WP:general notability guideline. What I am concerned about are names that are not reported beyond their initial announcement. One might argue that these fail the notability standards.

Should we keep treating asteroid names as automatically notable? Should WP:NASTRO say something about that?

I'd like to hear opinions from anyone. I am specifically tagging @Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, SevenSpheres, and Tom.Reding: Your thoughts? Renerpho (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:COMMONNAME cover this? Praemonitus (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I don't see what WP:COMMONNAME has to do with it. This isn't a question about article titles, it's about when to mention the naming of an asteroid like 56067 Argerich in the article about Martha Argerich. Right now we are treating this as "notable by default", but I see no discussion about this. Renerpho (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NASTRO is clear that having a name is not sufficient. An asteroid is notable when it meets at least one of WP:NASTCRIT. As for it should be mentionned on an article about the subject, that's something for the talk page of that subject. For example, on Isaac Newton, I'd say no because it's better mentionned on List of things named after Isaac Newton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

(Just to be clear, whether the asteroid itself is notable is a different question -- in most cases, it won't be, because we're talking almost exclusively about small main-belt asteroids.)

The Isaac Newton example is unusual because there are not many people/places/things that have a "List of things named after X". I agree though that, in the few cases that do, the name should go there, rather than into the main article. Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this roughly fits into the MOS:POPCULT domain, if not directly/obviously. "Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist." and it requires some particular relevance/coverage in additional sources to be worth invoking (e.g. Pluto having a dwarf planet named after him, Donald Johanson having an asteroid visited by a spacecraft, etc) which is not the way that this is currently being applied for the record. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks -- yes, it seems like, since the early days of Wikipedia, the assumption has been that the mere fact that an asteroid is being named is automatically notable. It is difficult to find any articles in which such an asteroid is mentioned because it had some media coverage, and with a citation that goes beyond the standard ones I listed -- WGSBN, MPC, Schmadel -- which don't seem to satisfy MOS:POPCULT. For an asteroid name, being listed in those sources is synonymous with "existing". Renerpho (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

To provide a few more examples, I checked the list of people with minor planets and Wikipedia articles, with numbers between 10000 and 10150. For mentions that likely shouldn't be there per MOS:POPCULT, we have:

List, 29 articles

• Valentin Lebedev, asteroid 10015, reference to MPC, included since 2017
• Fran Bagenal, asteroid 10020, reference to MPC, included since 2017
• Heike Rauer, asteroid 10025, reference to JPL database, included since creation of the article in 2023
• Sophie (musician), asteroid 10026, reference to WGSBN, included since 2022
• Vladimir Arnold, asteroid 10031, reference to Schmadel's dictionary, included since 2006
• Bradford Parkinson, asteroid 10041, reference to MPC, included since 2019
• James M. Creighton, asteroid 10046, no citation, included since 2018
• Friedrich Silcher, asteroid 10055, no citation, included in 2008
• Digne-les-Bains, asteroid 10088, no citation, included since 2008
• Igor Sikorsky, asteroid 10090, no citation, included since 2008
• Karl Glazebrook, asteroid 10099, reference to MPC, included since 2017
• Bruno H. Bürgel, asteroid 10100, no citation, included since creation of the article in 2025
• Fårö#Digerhuvud, asteroid 10102, reference to JPL database, included since 2014
• Lickershamn, asteroid 10103, reference to JPL database, included in 2016
• Hoburgen, asteroid 10104, reference to JPL database, included in 2016
• Hoburgen, asteroid 10105, reference to JPL database, included in 2016
• Rute, Gotland, asteroid 10106, reference to JPL database, included in 2016
• Fide, Gotland and Öja, Gotland, asteroid 10123, reference to JPL database, included in 2016
• Hemse, asteroid 10124, reference to JPL database, included in 2016
• Stenkyrka, asteroid 10125, reference to JPL database, included in 2008
• Lärbro, asteroid 10126, reference to JPL database, included since 2016
• Fröjel, asteroid 10127, reference to JPL database, included since 2015
• Bro, Gotland, asteroid 10128, reference to JPL database, included since 2008
• Fole, asteroid 10129, reference to JPL database, included since 2008
• Ardre, Gotland, asteroid 10130, reference to JPL database, included since 2016
• Stånga, asteroid 10131, reference to JPL database, included since 2016
• Lummelunda, asteroid 10132, reference to JPL database, included since 2008
• Marco Cavagna, asteroid 10149, references to MPC and Schmadel, included since 2016

On the other hand, here are all the articles with references to reliable secondary sources:

• Ghillar Michael Anderson, asteroid 10040, reference to WGSBN, MPC, and ABC News, included since creation of the article in 2021

For the most part, at least it seems like we got better at citing anything, in contrast to how this was handled before 2015 or so..

The remaining ~60 articles for subjects in this number range do not mention the minor planet in their article. Renerpho (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think for people whose connection to the asteroid name is through astronomy (whether professional or amateur as e.g. Marco Cavagna above), mentioning the asteroid named after them is almost always WP:DUE. For celebrities or names that do not come from people the answer may be different.

But there is a serious mistake in the discussion above: WP:N and the existence of in-depth secondary sourcing is only for the question of whether we should have a standalone article on a topic. For the question of whether (once we have an article) some claim should be included, the requirements are WP:DUE (we should not unbalance an article by too-detailed coverage of minor subtopics) and WP:RS (we need sourcing that is reliable, for which Schmadel or the various databases are entirely adequate; it does not need to be in-depth or secondary).

Also I think the relevance of MOS:POPCULT is dubious. That is for adding claims like "random pop culture show mentioned X" in articles to X; I think naming minor planets is a different category of things. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, for some subjects who are notable but for whom the depth of coverage is on the light side, the citation for why are the namesake of an asteroid can provide helpful information for expansion of the subject's article. An example from today: it is only through the asteroid citation that I learned about the birth year of Po-Ling Loh. And although there are better sources, it is where I learned of the high school that she went to and of her performance in the Intel Science Talent Search. None of these are essential to the article nor provide much additional notability but they help fill it out. It would be deeply strange to use this source for this information and then forbid its use to say the main thing that it says, that an asteroid was named after her. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to agree with this interpretation/use of MOS:POPCULT, and that was my first reaction. But, if I were interested in Valentin Lebedev, for example, I would also want to know that there's a minor planet named after him. Scouring the MP pages for his name is not something the typical reader is likely to do on a whim/randomly/for fun (if they even know those pages exist), and so that is likely to be a piece of information that will be lost in obscurity otherwise, so I don't see the harm of including a single sentence about the fact, but no more, unless warranted by additional tertiary coverage beyond WGSBN, MPC, Schmadel, etc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: When I created that list for asteroids 10000–10150, I was surprised by which articles did not mention the minor planet. I noticed that longer articles, or articles about the most notable individuals/places, were exactly the ones that left out the asteroids. Examples for that from this number range include the physicists Augustin-Jean Fresnel and Matthias de l'Obel, as well as Rudolf Diesel, Erich Maria Remarque, Thucydides, Rembert Dodoens and Paul Gauguin, and the articles about Paraguay, Uruguay, and Palermo. A lot of the articles about astronomers also didn't mention them, like James W. Head, Hiram Perkins and Jaymie Matthews. Joseph Fourier is similar to Isaac Newton, in that the asteroid is mentioned in List of things named after Joseph Fourier instead. Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle mentions the lunar crater that is named after him, but not the minor planet. Renerpho (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

if we have an article on the asteroid, or even just a redirect to a list of asteroid names or their meanings, we could place that in the 'see also' section. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're asking about inclusion in the biography of the person the name is based on, rather than in the article about the asteroid or comet, then that's out of scope for this guideline or WP:AST. I suggest asking WP:BIOGRAPHY instead. Modest Genius ^talk 12:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: Yes, that's what I am asking about. I'll consider cross-posting (or re-posting?) at WP:BIOGRAPHY. Renerpho (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am asking at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Notability of asteroid namings instead. Not all names will be about people specifically, so WP:BIOGRAPHY seemed to too narrow. Renerpho (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I made a request for comment about this subject at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?. Renerpho (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:DWMP

Our "dealing with minor planets" section suggests to redirect any non-notable minor planets to the corresponding list of minor planets. Per the discussion currently happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/184314 Mbabamwanawaresa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/472235 Zhulong, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(666823) 2010 VR11 (which indicates that this is an unwritten but established practice), it seems like articles about non-notable trans-Neptunian objects should better be redirected to either List of trans-Neptunian objects, or to the appropriate sub-page of List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects, depending on whether the object has been numbered or not. I suggest that we amend the guideline accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree for now, if only because list of trans-Neptunian objects tend to include more information. Praemonitus (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that WP:DWMP currently asks us to add a category like Category:Minor planets named for people. This category, as well as the parent Category:Astronomical objects by source of name and its ~20 subcategories, have been deleted in 2022. It had previously been discussed in 2019 and 2018; both of those discussions had resulted in "keep".

Anyway, now that these are gone, I am removing the reference to them from the guideline. Renerpho (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Improvement in Criteria 4

4. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.

Hey users of WP:AST, I think the Criteria 4 should be modified from "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology" to "The object was discovered before 1920 or 1940". There are multiple reasons like primary reason is that until that time or more the astronomer doesn't even know that much about galaxies and thought them as wierd nebulae. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that your proposed change would make a source notable. Those objects that have been subject to a history of visual observation and cataloging would tend to have a more lengthy record of interest. The same can't be said for objects appearing in photographs. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there are ways to improve #4 by making it a bit less strict -- something like The object was discovered prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology (before circa 1850), to emphasize not the year, but the mode of discovery/observational history. But I don't think changing the year to 1920-1940 is a sensible idea, and not for the reason proposed here. Renerpho (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah bro i didn't mean to completely change the rule @Praemonitus but i mean to either increase the year to between 1880 or 1920 or just make it a bit less strict what @Renerpho bro told. Because even after 1850 there are many things that are not solved Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Your suggested rewording makes sense to me. It would clarify the reasoning. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099 and Praemonitus: How about changing the year from "circa 1850" to "circa 1870", and keep the footnote for further clarification? That seems to best capture the meaning and reflect the examples provided in the footnote. What is the intention behind this criterion, and how do we best capture that?

Examples like IC 342, which was discovered visually in 1892 but is usually thought of today as an exclusively photographic target, could be justified to fall under this, as could be 1073 Gellivara (the last asteroid that was discovered visually, in 1923). The shift away from visual astronomy to photography took decades, and not everyone adopted photography at the same time (or ever, as in the case of Johann Palisa, the discoverer of 1073 Gellivara). Renerpho (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

For me, the point is that the current 1850 date is conservative and thus can be readily applied without raising significant concerns. Exceptions, per your example, can be handled by including suitable references. Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the 1870 date is great Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The discovery of Mizar A as a binary took place spectrophotographically in 1887, so I don't think we want to move past that date. The first nebula was photographed in 1880 (by Henry Draper) and the first comet in 1881 (by Jules Janssen). Before then, the photographic plates just weren't sensitive enough for detailed astrophotography. Praemonitus (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, the first astronomical discovery with the use of photography was made in 1860 (that prominences are features of the Sun, rather than the Moon). Renerpho (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I could gather, astrophotography became important for deep space astronomy with the development of the dry plate process in the 1870s. This eliminated the time limit on exposures. That would suggest the 1880 time frame. Praemonitus (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah @Praemonitus @Renerpho, I think 1880 is a better date than 1850 after knowing these facts Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"Circa 1880" sounds fine to me as well. Renerpho (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Based on that information a date change seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, 1880 is a very reasonable date. So, i want to include @Lithopsian @SevenSpheres @21.Andromedae @Nrco0e to this talk to get there view and after a consensus the improvement will be implemented Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone @Praemonitus @Primefac @Renerpho, Can we take steps on either updating or keeping the criteria 4 1850 date Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no objections. Renerpho (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the change. Perhaps with wording like the following? Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

4. The object was discovered prior to the dry plate process that allowed long exposure times in astrophotography (before circa 1880).

Yes, looks good to me. Renerpho (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, That's mean there is a consensus on 1880 so i am gonna add this to criteria 4 Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The New General Catalogue was published in 1888 and the first edition of the Bright Star Catalogue in 1884, so I think we're still good there. Praemonitus (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, That i thought before updating the criteria. But you missed Henry Draper catalogue and some other important catalog Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The original HD was published in 1924. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, it was just the Harvard Photometry, published in 1888, which was the predecessor of the YBSC. Praemonitus (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

BD Star Catalog started in 1859 Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well that's a problem; the (original) catalogue went down to magnitude 9.5. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

And that's a problem because... our new criteria make all 342,198 stars in that catalogue "notable"? Renerpho (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

which BD Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to state that clause 4 applies only to non-stellar objects. I.e. "The non-stellar object was discovered prior to the dry plate process..." Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, That can solve the problem Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Renerpho (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we should exclude all extrasolar objects. We've had New General Catalogue object articles redirected at AfD due to passing NASTRO#4 but failing WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I think all the problems can be easily solved by adding a clause like article should fulfill any two of four given criteria to be notable for a stand alone article because having a general discovery date before 1880 doesn't everytime means the article is automatically notable yeah it of course should be given some priority. The criteria 4 has been misused multiple time like first real case of it was @Princenile and nowadays i am seeing more such cases like @Tangjai1234 is also following similar path. Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099: What are the problems, and how is it been misused? What objects are there that meet the new criteria that shouldn't? Are there even any extrasolar objects for which NASTRO#4 is relevant? I think all Solar System objects discovered prior to this are already notable for other reasons. Renerpho (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There is not that much problem, Users generally are trying to create articles based on Criteria 4 and the articles generally not even passes general notability, this is the only misuse Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts, but I think many NGC objects have already been properly dealt with so it's not as big a deal as the Durchmusterung catalogue. Praemonitus (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think both catalogues are manageable Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, sorry, just after a change was implemented. The purpose of this notability guideline is to easily identify which objects are highly likely to justify an article. Criterion 4 exists because objects discovered before 1850 are all bright and have been known for a long time, so are likely to have numerous sources available. They were found before large-scale surveys began, which vastly increased the rate of discovery. It's not because there's anything intrinsically important about the detector used (eye vs photographic plate vs electronic detector), it's about the existence of surveys. Yes photography enabled those surveys, but that's not the reason for the criterion. I don't think we should say anything about the dry plate method in the criterion, which is an excessive technical detail. Changing the threshold from a specific year to 'circa' makes it vaguer, and adding 'non-stellar' makes it more complicated; I don't understand the benefits of these. Modest Genius ^talk 18:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Bro i understand what you want to tell but you are also partially incorrect as there are many Flamsteed stars that are even near naked eye bright stars but not have any articles like i had work on one of them Draft:85 Geminorum and after reviewing you can obviously understand what i mean. 1880 is choosen because it is when long exposure astrophotography started, yeah 1850 is when astrophotography has started to increase but is not until 1880 long exposure astrophotography was started to use extensively like finding nebula, etc. Yeah, circa and other words can be vague. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see this revision as a significant change from what we had before, which was about the usage of photography. As for surveys, the second criteria in the list already covers that topic. But I agree with you on the 'circa'; that just allows argumentative wiggle room. Praemonitus (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Features

Based on a discussion in WT:ASTRO, I would like to propose adding a section titled 'Features' that would address the topic of natural features on astronomical objects. Here's a draft text:

In many cases, natural features on astronomical bodies may be provided with separate articles. For these topics, the WP:NATFEAT criteria is out of scope, per WP:GEOPURP. Instead, the article will need to at least satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. Features that are readily apparent in large scale images of the parent body are more likely to satisfy this criteria, as they are typically subject to greater scientific scrutiny. If the notability criteria can not be satisfied, it may be possible to merge the topic into a list of similar features for that body. For example, an entry under List of craters on Mars for a Mars crater article.

A link of WP:ASTROFEAT to this topic might make sense. Thoughts? Praemonitus (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

As I already stated on WT:ASTRO, I do not see the need for such a section. There's no need to tell people to see GNG for something that's already covered by GNG. None of the rest of this guideline is relevant to features. I also disagree with several parts of this draft e.g. 'many cases', the sentence about 'readily apparent' etc. Modest Genius ^talk 17:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, if it was clear then the discussion would never has arisen. One of the uses for such guidelines is, for example, to help explain why a particular astronomy article is being redirected to a list (in the comments), or to provide useful guide rails when a new editor is looking to create an astronomy article. Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 There is a need for guidance beyond GNG, as clearly shown by the discussion that sparked this question and by the rising number of such articles that don't appear to be a net positive for the site. Renerpho (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)