Talk:List of minor planets: 2001–3000/Archive 1

Credit for 2630 Hermod
Hey, — If you have a moment to explain, I'd appreciate a little better understanding of your take on the attribution for discovery of 2630 Hermod. As, there appears to have been a change in policy between 1980 and 1981, with 2630 Hermod being credited to "Institute d'Astrophysics" and subsequent bodies being credited to "Haute Provence", despite there being no practical difference (if I correctly understand ). Is your stance that the MPC is just wrong and we should ignore them, or that this kind of historical blip need not be recognized on Wikipedia? I don't think the link as constructed prior to your edit was an unacceptable encroachment upon WP:EGG, and if it helps to reflect a complicated situation correctly, I'm for it, but I look forward to hearing your thoughts! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  18:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesLucas, to the best of my understanding this is one of many anomalies it the MPC's data base, as there are no MPC-credited, non-human ("institutional") discoverers using the same observatory code. If you are interested, you can find dozens of these anomalies in List of minor planet discoverers, which shows these "alternative/alias names" in the column "Name(s) at MPC". For the case of, both "Haute Provence" and "Institute d'Astrophysics" as being used. I wouldn't say the MPC is just wrong, I'd say the MPC doesn't give a damn to establish consistency and doesn't even correct the most obvious typos (e.g. Spacewatch). I actually added this table with the distinction made in the footnote to be more clear about the mentioned anomaly.  R fassbind  – talk  20:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I propose that we either (a) add a similar footnote to this table or, if that is opening the door to too much clutter, (b) add a clarifying comment in the wikicode explaining that this is an intentional departure from MPC. Are either of these acceptable to ? —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)