Template talk:Trans-Neptunian objects navbox

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy This template is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This template is supported by Solar System task force.

This template was considered for deletion on 18 July 2010. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template has a /workpage

I do not believe that adding scores of red (no article) links is helpful. There’s more than 1000 TNOs and we’ll only have a limited number of articles on the individual objects. Instead, I feel that only objects with entries should be listed and added progressively when a new article is created. Eurocommuter 12:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While normally red links are useful because they help spawn new articles, it isn't unreasonable to believe that at some point there might be hundreds or more of identified TNOs on this template if we continue going this way. We should leave the red links to the individual article page or perhaps and appendix subpage and only include the major bodies in this template.--Burzum 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about including 2000 CR105, (65407) 2002 RP120, (84719) 2002 VR128 and 2005_TN74 in this template? Martinwilke1980 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and 2000 EE173 Martinwilke1980 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we were happy with ‘Large TNO’ navigator and do not need this list. After all, it is the job of the category to re-group all articles related to the TNOs and not the job of the navigator. Instead, the Large TNO navigator could be extended (no red links) to include notable TNOs, not necessarily large but outstanding for one reason or another. By the way the unclassified sub-list makes little sense; the definitions of different sub-categories are only emerging. MPC does not really classify the objects; the ‘types’ given in the database are no more than a hint. For a attempt at classification see for example Elliot 2006 quoted in cubewano#Toward a formal definition. Eurocommuter 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Sedna is not shown in the template?--Nixer 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and Varuna 24.68.180.163 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedna is in SDO's as its not currently classified as and OCO - (it also has double asterisks denoting this) - feel free to add Varuna (bit strange its not here) -- Nbound

Is there any consistent system in the ordering of the objects in each category? Most objects seem to be ordered by date of discovery, but Eris (in SDOs) does not follow this system, being discovered in 2005. Neither do Teharonhiawako or Charon.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What categories do you mean? Ruslik_Zero 19:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the different lists of objects given in this template - Plutinos, Cubewanos etc. (Not "category" in the Wikipedia sense.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recently completed TfD, this template needs a rewrite, see the /workpage for examples. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version in the sandbox as of this date has gone live. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]