Talk:Provisional designation in astronomy

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I think this page's title should be Provisional designations of asteroids. If no-one disagrees, I'll change it soon. The Singing Badger 18:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you worried about disambiguation? Shouldn't it be Provisional designation (astronomy) or some such? On the other hand, "provisional designation" returns 5080 Google hits, while "provisional designation" + asteroid returns 2580 Google hits, so the dominant meaning of provisional designation is the asteroid (astronomical) meaning, so perhaps the current title is just fine (according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation). -- hike395 02:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter then. It just seemed odd to me, since asteroids aren't the only things in the world of science that might receive a provisional designation. But if they're the dominant meaning then there's no need to change. 14:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the title should make reference to what's being provisionally designated, just for the sake of clarity. However, shouldn't this article be merged with astronomical naming conventions? Worldtraveller 16:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I looked at astronomical naming conventions: the detail in this article is much more than the detail over there --- I would keep them separate.

Re title: how about if we make a first line that points to a (now non-existent) dab page? That way, the first line of the article says "asteroid" explicitly. --- hike395 00:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not keen on inserting such a prominent redlink. I can't see any strong reason not to simply move the article to Provisional designation of comets and asteroids, which is much clearer and helpful to the reader than simply 'provisional designation', I think. Worldtraveller 00:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This article just follows the policy described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, under Page naming. From my Google experiment (above), I believe that "Provisional designation" mainly refers to asteroids (2580 hits), but could have other meanings (5080-2580=2500 hits). Under the policy, we should not qualify the name of this page (analogously to calling "Rome" Rome, rather than Rome, Italy). Other meanings can be referred to from Provisional desgination (disambiguation), when someone decides to add it.

I would not oppose a redir from Provisional designation of comets and asteroids to here, that would make things clearer. However, adding the extra words to the title of the article directly will just make it harder to find by readers, especially considering that full-text search is disabled (again).

-- hike395 02:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me the applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary, which says 'Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings'. When I first clicked on a link to this article I did not expect at all that it would refer specifically to astronomy, and I think it makes an article much more useful if one can understand from the title what it's referring to. I only clicked on it because I thought it looked likely to be an inappropriate link which should be fixed, so actually not specifying in the title what is being provisionally designated can make it harder to find by readers. I'm not sure I see how it could make it easier to find. Worldtraveller 12:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

OBJECT. Provisional designation is being misconstrued here. Above where a writer writes asteroids aren't the only things in the world of science that might receive a provisional designation, clearly shows a misunderstanding. I think there is a confusion in general with the concept of temporary nomenclature. An example is that systematic name the term used for chemical elements recently discovered seems to be unique to chemistry.

Unlike those, provisional designations aren't temporary. It is literally the provision made for designating unique observations. Please do not change the title without putting it to a vote, as I see no justification for expanding the title that has been unique since 1925. --Sturmde 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true, Sturmde: the provisional designation of asteroids is temporary, being superceded by a sequential number and name once an orbit is well established. So, 2003 VB12 became 90377 Sedna, and the former name is no longer used. Worldtraveller 23:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

CONTINUED OBJECT and Point of Fact. Worldtraveller: There are only approximately 13,000 numbered asteroids with "trivial" names. The other 87,000 or so numbered asteroids retain their provisional designations. And the majority of them will never receive different names. Hence, there is a provision to designate these. It's not temporary, because most aren't given trivial names. Also, even though Brown has gotten Sedna somewhat surreptitiously approved, even though it was done improperly, the original observations still are referenced at the MPC under K03V12B... --Sturmde 27 September 2005

Worldtraveller: the consensus at this talk page was unclear: the page should remain at Provisional designation until we settle the discussion. -- hike395 22:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I decided to move because no-one responded to my argument that we should follow the guideline to be precise where necessary. I am trying to follow the principle of least astonishment - I was surprised to find an article relating only to comets and asteroids when I first followed the link to provisional designation, having expected to find a page about general scientific provisional nomenclature. A link to 'provisional designation of asteroids' is immediately more comprehensible and I can't think of any good reason to keep an article at an ambiguous title. Worldtraveller 23:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• There are enough uses of provisional designation that this page should NOT reside at provisional designation. I have no problem with provisional designation (asteroids) though. 132.205.44.134 00:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What are these uses? I can't find any specific technical terms. Are you think of a generic designation that is provisional? Wouldn't that just be a dictionary definition, rather than a full Wikipedia article?

At the very least, I think that this article should be provisional designation (astronomy), and we can talk about any provisional astronomical designations here. Although, I still don't understand what we are disambiguating against. -- hike395 20:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to editors... you may find Template:Minplan to be of use when writing in provisional designations into Wikipedia -The Tom 21:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Original page was Provisional designation, which was proposed to move to Provisional designation of asteroids. No consensus was reached on Talk page. After 6 weeks, proposer moved page anyway. I object, because I believe that asteroids are the predominant meaning for "provisional designation". Other meanings should be referred to in Provisional designation (disambiguation). No other meanings are described in Wikipedia. Please undo page move, we can continue to discuss. -- hike395 22:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose since current title is clear and gives scope of article, old one isn't clear: other objects get provisional designations, including moons of major planets, comets, and many other things. Jonathunder 00:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - just to note my opinion here as well as above - I agree with Jonathunder, and can't see any reason to move the page to a more ambiguous title. Worldtraveller 12:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose A 50-50 google split does not establish a primary usage; and the proposed name is inherently ambiguous. The present name is preferable to Provisional designation (astronomy), since it will occur in running text. Septentrionalis 16:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support (see discussion above and below) -- hike395 03:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Also used for satellites and comets at the least. Rmhermen 01:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please return this to original location. (I think it's very unclear what people are saying here with Oppose, particularly Rmhermen's) Provisional designation (astronomy) would at least have some rationality. Right now, due to Worldtraveller's "over-everyone's-objection" move; there now is a section on provisional designation of asteroidal satellites in an article titled provisional designation of asteroids -- they're not asteroids any more than the Moon or Io are planets. --Sturmde 27 September 2005

Discussion

The unilateral move was probably a Bad Thing; WP:RM exists to settle controversial moves, and should have been invoked instead. Bad Worldtraveller! Now that that is over with, the question at hand is "what should this page be called?". Septentrionalis 16:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just did a quick scan of the usage of "provisional designation" in en (with Google), and found no running text usages of "provisional designation of asteroids", only the bare phrase "provisional designation". I think that Provisional designation (astronomy) would be just as (in)convenient as Provisional designation of asteroids. And, by the way, all usages in en were for asteroids.

I personally dislike very specific page titles, because they lead to articles that are too narrow (IMO). If we broaden this to Provisional designation (astronomy), I will add other provisional designation information for satellites and comets. -- hike395 03:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A quick google of "provisional designation" + "moon" shows a number of pages using it for satellites not asteroids. For instance, "Confirmed planetary satellites are permanently numbered by Roman numeral. New discoveries are assigned provisional designations including "S/" for satellite". Rmhermen 01:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Rmhermen: what do you think of Provisional designation (astronomy) ? -- hike395 03:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good if you will add other provisional designation information for satellites and comets. Rmhermen 14:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I will add the information, at least a short section's worth. Does anyone else object to Provisional designation (astronomy), or prefer something else? -- hike395 05:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer Provisional designation in astronomy so that it could work in running text. Jonathunder 05:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea: How about someone else show any google hits for something of the form Provisional designation (field other than astronomy)? Because, frankly, "Provisional Designation" has no formal use anywhere I see, BUT in Astronomy. Asteroids started in 1925 using that two-word description for the identification system devised. Satellites "back-doored" into using a compatible format, and comets only started using something compatible in 1995. The Minor Planet Center of the IAU has since 1925, and continued to use the formal title Provisional Designation. How about putting the article there where it used to reside? And when some other field or endeavour creates Provisional designation (aardvarks) or Provisional designation (zymurgical brews)... then move the article to Provisional designation (Astronomy). --Sturmde 02:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be deadlocked. Sturmde is in favor of Provisional designation, Rmhermen and I like Provisional designation (astronomy), Jonathunder likes Provisional designation in astronomy, and Worldtraveller presumably likes Provisional designation of asteroids. No consensus, but it doesn't seem right to leave this as-is, because this article was named Provisional designation for years and no one complained. What shall we do? -- hike395 07:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the voting above showed that people were not in favour of the article being at Provisional Designation. I see absolutely no reason not to have the article title indicate what is being provisionally designated. Who, on reading the words 'provisional designation', would immediately know that that implicitly means provisional designations in astronomy? I think no-one, so that title is unnecessarily obscure, and two words make it absolutely crystal clear. I would support Jonathunder's suggestion for the name. I don't see the point in using a disambiguation style page name when there's nothing being disambiguated. Worldtraveller 09:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Approval

The usual solution at this point is approval polling. Please note which of the following names for this article you can tolerate, and the one that the most people can put up with is where the article goes (until next time). Feel free to add or strike out approvals to reach consensus, also to add new possibilities. Comments of more than a sentence and arguments against should go in #Further discussion Septentrionalis 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Provisional designation

1. hike395 02:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Urhixidur 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Seems the dominant meaning of the term. One could include a disambig header if required, as is done with other similar articles. "Provisional designation" is also easier to link to within the flow of a text.

Provisional designation (astronomy)

1. Last choice. Septentrionalis 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. hike395 02:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Rmhermen 01:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC) What Jonathunder said below.

Provisional designation in astronomy

1. Septentrionalis 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Worldtraveller 22:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
3. If provisional designation of different kinds of celestial objects, such as moons, comets, planets, trans-Neptunian objects, and beyond are covered in the same article. Jonathunder 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Rmhermen 01:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC) What Jonathunder said.
5. sturmde 20 October 2005 (UTC) Of all the options, I agree belatedly that this is the best choice. Running text that might have read "provisional designation of asteroids" is longer but just as rational as "provisional designation in astronomy of asteroids". Thank you Jonathunder for finding a consensus candidate.

Provisional designation of asteroids

1. Septentrionalis 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Worldtraveller 22:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Only if there is enough material for provisional designation of asteroids to have an article separate from that of other celestial objects. Jonathunder 01:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion

I'll add more material about non-asteroidal provisional designations, if we rename it to be more general. -- hike395 16:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to do a great job in describing provisional designation of comets and satellites. I'll get to it in the next couple of weeks --- if someone else wants to take a crack at it first, please feel free. -- hike395 04:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A small majority seems to be in favor of Provisional designation in astronomy. I'll attempt the move now. -- hike395 04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have some confusion for the designations for 1893. Everyone agrees that the system started in 1892, and the last 1892 designation was 1892 V ('vee', not '5'). The problem is what was the first one in 1893? The implication here is that the system was started over again at 1893 A, then ran to 1893 Z, and then the double-lettering (AA, AB, etc) started. But Willy Ley, in Watchers of the Skies says that they just continued the lettering, and the first one was 1893 W. The information at the Minor Planet Data Center website is not clear, and may even indicate that they finished the 1892 alphabet, then started over again with 1893 A, then ran through again to 1893 AA. That probably is not the case, since W-Z would be repeated that way, but their wording can be interpeted that way. The one piece of information that I do have is that 1893 Z turned out to be a rediscovery of 175 Andromache (again, from Ley). Does anyone know for sure? CFLeon 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

2005 UW512 is said here to be the 12,875th minor planet discovered in its half-month, but 512*25+22 = 12,822. Shouldn't the last one be 2005 UY514? NSHSedit (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: latest count (from the citation) is 13268. I assume that 12823-12875 weren't confirmed discoveries; can we put 2005 US530 as the last provisional designation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHSedit (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it! K05Ur0P is the last listed in . That works out to 2005 UP530, which is just about right! NSHSedit (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe interstellar objects designators (I/) need to be added to this article, as well as the A/ designators for "asteroids originally mistaken for comets."

I am not a subject matter expert so I don't feel qualified, especially w.r.t. packed designations.

2601:646:8600:40C1:8528:7390:256:B1FB (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

cf. https://minorplanetcenter.net/mpcops/documentation/provisional-designation-definition/ . They've finally run out of space and are once again extending the format to cram more rocks in. More power to them. Someone should add it to this article; maybe I'll do it later. Patallurgist (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

This may be mentioned somewhere, but I see both e.g. (543354) 2014 AN₅₅ and 543354 (2014 AN₅₅). Why the difference? Is one of the forms deprecated? I see the latter form a lot on other WP's, such as Finnish. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: They're not deprecated, no. These are stylistic choices made by different organizations (on or outside of Wikipedia). Different Wikipedias may follow different sources; the Finnish Wikipedia seems to follow JPL.

The official designation (per IAU/WGSBN) would be (26329) 1998 WC₁ until that asteroid is named; then it becomes (26329) Cleoabram. Neither the MPC nor JPL follow that exactly. JPL would use 26329 (1998 WC1), with different bracketing and no subscript for the index; the MPC adds an = sign for unnumbered objects, making it (26329) = 1998 WC1. I don't know why JPL and MPC choose to render the designations the way they do.

Unlike the MPC or WGSBN, JPL doesn't put the number in brackets once the object gets named, so 26329 (1998 WC1) becomes just 26329 Cleoabram. That's elegant, and it is widespread on the English Wikipedia, but it can cause ambiguities in very rare cases, as in "2031 BAM" vs. "3271 UL" vs. "2004 FH". Writing these as (2031) BAM, (3271) UL and 2004 FH makes it clear that BAM and UL are proper names whereas FH is not. The first of these can be disambiguated if you know that there will never be three letters in a provisional designation (not in a real designation anyway) and because 2031 is still in the future; the second could become ambiguous in the year 3271. If one decides to drop brackets for named asteroids then there is no way to be sure just from the designation alone that FH is not the name of asteroid 2004.

I have often seen people here on Wikipedia say that the brackets are simply dropped once the object gets named -- so that (26329) 1998 WC₁ becomes 26329 Cleoabram upon naming. I may have said so myself in the past, but it is a misunderstanding and a mix-up of two different conventions. You either have "26329 (1998 WC1)" and "26329 Cleoabram" (per JPL); or you have "(26329) 1998 WC₁" and "(26329) Cleoabram" (per IAU). When you move from (26329) 1998 WC₁ to 26329 Cleoabram, you don't drop the brackets, you switch from IAU to the JPL style. Renerpho (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Renerpho.

I remember a discussion on whether we should retain or drop the brackets on named asteroids, and was in support of dropping them myself, but now regret that we did.

I suspect that the equal sign in the MPC form is there to indicate that those are two different but equivalent designations, the symbol and the name (the circled number being chosen as the planetary symbol for asteroids after graphic symbols were abandoned), because it's not uncommon for people to think that the entire thing is the name and that both number and name must be used together.

For JPL, they seem to be using the brackets to indicate that the temporary designation is just that, and not the name. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I personally like the version without brackets -- outside of the rare ambiguous cases, I think it looks the best. If I'd have to decide what to do on Wikipedia, I'd keep the brackets, because clarity trumps aesthetics. I don't think we need to reopen that discussion though.

P.S. I intended to ping you in the other talk page section below, because we've had a related discussion on the category page a few weeks ago and because that section of the article was written by you, but I forgot to do it. Renerpho (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The MPC format can be indefinitely extended, e.g. "(523731) = 1995 SN55 = 2014 OK394". So that makes sense. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

BTW, can you find which temporary designation its permanent number was assigned to? I would assume it would have to be 2014 OK394, but does one of them have priority, or are they just synonyms? — kwami (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

See https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=523731&view=OPA, at the bottom ("primary provisional designation above shown in bold"). That would be 2014 OK394. Renerpho (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What I am curious about is what happened to the discovery observations. The MPC says that this object was discovered on 1995-09-20 by Spacewatch, but the data starts with an observation from 2004. The observations are in the database ( has them), but JPL and the MPC both ignore them. Renerpho (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself. I would hope the parameter values we're using include the early observations. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I don't know if they do; and I don't know if they should. The reference that's linked in the infobox of (523731) 2014 OK394 has an archived url with JPL's orbit of 1995 SN55 based on the 1995 data, and it looks incompatible with the orbit of 2014 OK394: a=23.56±1.31 au vs. a=42.67 au; peri=53.6°±14.0° vs. peri=250.5°. The 1995 data is said to have mean residuals of more than 2.5 arcseconds, which is extremely poor (so poor that I'd have questioned the existence of the object, if it hadn't been recovered in 2004 with a very good orbit by 2026). Maybe this should be discussed at Talk:(523731) 2014 OK394 instead (although I fail to see how we could possibly resolve that issue). Renerpho (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That probably explains it, then. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, you're right about the flexibility of the MPC format.

I looked at some older discussions, and found them very interesting. There is a lot of material to read, and I'm certainly only skimming the surface; some of the conclusions I draw may be incomplete or completely inaccurate. But here's what I see at this point:

The debate about this on Wikipedia seems to have started early in its history. I found arguments dating back to 2005. Talk:Minor-planet designation#1 Ceres vs. (1) Ceres from October 2006 gives an interesting overview over the history of asteroid designations in general starting in the 19th century, and the inconsistent formats used by IAU, NASA, ESA, and others. I think it is safe to say that the history is messy, and attempts by the IAU to standardize this only happened late into that history, likely explaining many of the inconsistencies that still exist. What I feel was ignored in those debates is that many of those different styles (NASA/JPL's, IAU's, etc.) may have their own internally consistent, underlying logic.

On 12 October 2006, two days after its creation, our article minor-planet designation was edited to include this statement: The parentheses may be dropped, abridging the designation to 1 Ceres or 134340 Pluto, according to the preference of the astronomer or journal. No citations were provided to clarify what was meant by that. This remained in place essentially unchanged for many years, until the article was rewritten in January 2017. Since then, it says that for named minor planets such as (274301) Wikipedia, the parentheses may be dropped as in 274301 Wikipedia. Parentheses are now often omitted in prominent databases such as the JPL Small-Body Database. The paragraph remains uncited to this day.

I'd argue that the current version misses the point of what JPL is doing. It suggests that the parentheses are optional; but JPL doesn't omit the parentheses, it consistently puts them in a different place, and this has nothing to do with whether the asteroid is named or not! I am not aware of any "prominent database" (whatever that means), at least nothing with a somewhat trusted status, that specifically omit parentheses in the designations of named asteroids. Other than the English Wikipedia, of course, which certainly is a prominent database! We cannot ignore the possibility that people will adopt the standards we set on this site. Wikipedia has every right to determine its own stylistic standards. Problems arise when we make dubious claims about how our practices are based on what some authority is allegedly doing.

Beyond the survey of historical practices in the 2006 discussion, I find no evidence that the later changes are based on reliable sources, rather than on how users understood the databases they saw. Almost none of the substantial changes made to either of the two articles are accompanied by any relevant citations. As a result, there is a lot of original research in both this article and in minor-planet designation, much of which may not be historically accurate. I am once again reminded of discussions at Talk:Minor-planet moon and Talk:List of periodic comets. Both of those discussions were started by former MPC director Gareth Williams, and both have as their root course that Wikipedia users sometimes misinterpret technical databases. Renerpho (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the summary at Minor-planet_designation#Syntax. Turns out our favorite asteroid Wikipedia has lots of provisional designations, making in a natural illustration of the MPC convention, though perhaps a bit too good. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there really such a thing as a "formal" (compound) designation? Or are these sources just identifying which catalog number goes with which name and provisional designations, using whichever sequence happens to be convenient for their presentation? The MPC at least certainly isn't treating the resulting string as being a fixed label. Instead, we just have provisional designations, catalog numbers, and formal names, which may all be identified with each other.

We start minor-planet designation with the statement,

A formal minor-planet designation is, in its final form, a number–name combination given to a minor planet,

and I'm starting to think there is no such thing, any more than "Congo (Kinshasa)" is the name of a country.

The MPC doesn't bother subscripting indices online, but they do in the circulars. I wonder if JPL might be similar. — kwami (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, even JPL uses formal designations such as 274301 Wikipedia (2008 QH24). It's pretty clear that these are just multiple designations strung together, so I've rewritten minor-planet designation to reflect that. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The §Traces in the permanent name section begins like this: In some cases the provisional designation may carry over into the permanent name. We provide some examples, but they all refer to the name in a literal way, where the name was picked to make parts of the provisional designation look like initials. Would less literal examples like 284054 Keeling = 2005 CO₂, with the chemical formula CO₂ for carbon dioxide, not also count? See the naming citation from August 2025:

Discovered at Catalina on 2005-02-01 by CSS.
Charles David Keeling (1928–2005) was an American climatologist who developed the first reliable instrument for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. In 1958, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, he began a long-term monitoring program showing by 1961 that carbon dioxide levels were rising. This ongoing record is now known as the Keeling Curve.

How about 17944 Lansbury = 1999 JF₇, named in December 2025, preserving the initials of Jessica Fletcher?

Discovered at Catalina on 1999-05-08 by CSS.
Angela Brigid Lansbury (1925–2022) was an Irish-British and American actress, producer, and singer. Beginning her film career in the 1940s with roles in Gaslight and The Picture of Dorian Gray, she later became a Broadway icon. She achieved worldwide fame as Jessica Fletcher in the television series Murder, She Wrote.

The section also says that in 2025 it [this pattern] appeared again, but the examples we give are all Trans-Neptunian objects that appear to have been named by the IAU directly, rather than at the initiative of the discoverers. The main-belt asteroids listed below were all named in 2025. All of them were discovered at (i.e. named by) the Catalina Sky Survey. As we write in Category:Minor planets named after their provisional designation, when series of objects named by the same people match their provisional designations, and especially when both letters are preserved, this is unlikely to be coincidence. Many of these not only preserve both letters, but preserve the numerical part as well, either as the year of birth/death, or as a number that is otherwise strongly associated with the subject and is mentioned in the citation. (This seems to only be possible now that the number of assigned provisional designations reaches into the many hundreds or even thousands per half-month.) The aforementioned 284054 Keeling = 2005 CO₂, named after Charles Keeling (1928–2005), also falls into that category.

22955 Tibees = 1999 TH₂₅₁, after Toby Hendy; 147745 Novemberkelly = 2005 NK₆₇; 175397 Oumousangaré = 2006 OS₆; 180932 Luciegreen = 2005 LG₃₁; 227711 Dailyminorplanet = 2006 DP₁₁₄; 262825 Dianearbus = 2007 AD₂₃, after Diane Arbus (1923–1971); 331298 Eunicefoote = 2011 EN₁₉, after Eunice Newton Foote (1819–1888); 346666 Knorozov = 2008 YK₂₂, after Yuri Knorozov (1922–1999); 426524 Rainerhannig = 2013 RH₅₂, after Rainer Hannig (1952–2022); 508440 Lewishamilton = 2016 LH₇, after the seven-time Formula One world champion; 543061 Ruthsager = 2013 RS₉₇, after Ruth Sager (1918–1997).

Renerpho (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I think those should all very much count. Without such info, the names appear random -- maybe someone or something the discoverer wanted to commemorate, or had a personal connection to, but no connection to the object itself. This often seems to have been the case -- even, early on, arbitrarily picking from a random list of female names. At the other end, we have objects like Apophis and Eris that were named for their characteristics or effect on us. These are somewhere in the middle: the connection to the object is nothing inherent, but the choice of name is still constrained, and without the citation or the pattern might not be apparent to the reader. Keeling is particularly interesting here, as it would be completely opaque otherwise. Trivia, but then we could argue that all names are essentially trivia -- I know astronomers who don't care if things get named because they consider it to be meaningless. But lay readers will often find names and naming to be of interest. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I added them to the text. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)