Talk:Vulcanoid

Vulcanoid has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 4, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
January 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Contradiction

This article says that MESSENGER will enter Mercury orbit in 2009. The article MESSENGER says it will enter Mercury orbit in 2011, while in 2009 only a flyby of Mercury will be performed. Which one is right? Devil Master (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASA says 2011 (see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/timeline/index.html). The MESSENGER article says that the original plan called for an arrival date in 2009, but due to testing issues, NASA missed the first launch window, and went for a later launch window that lengthen the mission travel time by 2 years, -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vulcanoid asteroid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I think the article generally satisfies GA criteria. However I noticed a few minor problems:

The use of SI and imperial units is not consistent. For instance, in the lead I read 100 metres (330 ft). SI units are used as primary units, which then are converted into feet. However in the 'History and observation' section heights are measured in feet, which then are converted into metres. I suggest using SI units as primary units and converting them into imperial (see WP:MOSNUM).
Done- I see User:Serendipodous did a bit on this already.
Per WP:MOSNUM numbers should be separated from the units of measurement by non-breaking space ( ). Currently many numbers are written without any space at all (like 0.387AU). Please, add non-breaking spaces.
Done
In the ref 12 the title of the publication should not be written in capital letters.
Done
It is always better to cite a final publication, not a preprint. I noticed that ref 17 was published in Nature. Please, cite Nature. It will add more weight to this source. The link to the preprint can remain though.
Done
There may be some minor prose issues. So I will give the article the second reading tomorrow.

I will put the article on hold. If the problems are fixed I will promote it. Ruslik (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after a copy-edit the article satisfies GA criteria, and I will promote it. Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Per WP:MOSNUM dates should not be autoformated. I fixed this problem myself. Ruslik (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Thanks for the review and suggestions. Regards, Reyk _YO! 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcanoid

Is Vulcanoid really a better title than "Vulcanoid asteroid", especially given that none have been discovered? -- Kheider (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer this: why should "asteroid" be appended, what is its added value? --JorisvS (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind one way or the other. Reyk _YO! 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Messenger observations?

Now, as the mission of Messenger has come to an end, the question arises if there have been any further searches for vulcanoids. Does anybody have information about that? If there are no further results, I suggest the section about Messenger should be removed.Renerpho (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needs updating. MESSENGER has apparently searched for vulcanoids, so regardless of the results, it is inappropriate to remove mention altogether. Instead, the result of the search should be added. --JorisvS (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check sentence

"Due to technical problems, none of the images were revealed any vulcanoids." This sentence is grammatically incorrect or incomplete (at least it appears so to me as a non-native speaker). What exactly was the consequence of the problems? The fact that no vulcanoids were found may be due to their possible non-existence, so it cannot be claimed that it was (definitely) due to technical reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.208.249.149 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. I think it should be better now. Thank you for noting it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vulcanoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vulcanoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming question

If a vulcanoid is an asteroid in a stable intra-Mercurian orbit, as Vulcanoid#Orbit claims, then is there a name for asteroids which are currently in unstable intra-Mercurian orbits? Double sharp (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seems that some would call such asteroids vulcanoids too. Added with a source. Double sharp (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]