Template talk:JPL SBDB Jupiter Trojans

2012 vs 2018 fugures

13 Dec 2012 archive: http://archive.is/Ptox -- Kheider (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The up-to-the-second version of that page doesn't seem to have any changes made to it whatsoever in the 5+ years since that snapshot, even though several of the objects have got good, more recently updated information available for them. It's not doing anything for my own increasingly strong opinion of the JPL SBD as a little bit lacking on the curation and general information front. What data is there can be a bit questionable in the first place, and overall it's badly maintained. Disappointing really, but then what do you expect from a national agency that's been so disgracefully defunded that most of its parent country's space missions are now handled either by their one-time cold war adversary, or by privately funded concerns... 146.199.0.203 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? 911 Agamemnon slipped from "166 to 131", 588 Achilles "135 to 130". 3451 Mentor was added to the list at 126. 1437 Diomedes slipped from 164 to 118, 1173 Anchises slipped from 126 to 100... -- Kheider (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!

So this is where it was hiding. Have to get to it through the somewhat hidden expanding links that are only immediately apparent if you have God's own monitor (otherwise, you need to scroll down special to below the Publish button, in the whole-page/whole-section edit view). Once I've had a skim through all the linked Trojan pages (and maybe seen if I can find a separate top-10 list anywhere that shows a slightly different lineup, should more recent studies push existing members off the list and bring others into it) I'll see about updating these sizes in a suitably scientifically rigorous fashion.

That might end up being tomorrow, or several months into the future, though, depending how much free time I have. My own updated-map-of-the-top-100-SS-bodies project has been dragging on for some time now thanks to external pressures, and these guys aren't even *on* that list (they're no's 130-275 instead, at least according to WP's own rankings, but Hektor at least might yet climb up into the double digits, and it might seem justifiable to have one or two honourary inclusions on the map as representatives of larger populations of small bodies that are collectively, even if not individually important), they just happen to be where I'm at on a double checking run that's going from the sun outwards (because once you hit the TNOs, things get slow and tedious, and the main planets plus their moons and co-orbitals are the framework that everything else will hang off). 146.199.0.203 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest any changes be made to the main article page so there is more consensus. Based on the JPL SBDB list, this list is current. -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]