User:Exoplanetaryscience/CategorySortTerminology

A few suggestions, if anyone ever reads this page, for the terminology regarding the sort order in categories for astronomical objects. Currently the sort is highly chaotic, with, for instance, objects titled (4197) 1982 TA being possibly sorted as [ [category:apollo asteroids] ] which would give the object sorted starting with (. [ [category:apollo asteroids | 4197] ] would sort the object with 4, including a number of objects that are completely off number from it. Finally numbering it [ [category:apollo asteroids|1982 TA] ] would sort it with 1, which would bring it in both a list of objects discovered between 1000 and 1999, and a list of numbered objects in the category with option number 2 chosen, numbering 1; 10-19; 100-199; 1000-1999; 10000-19999; and 100000-199999. This is just the start of the chaos. Before this already bad situation becomes any worse, I propose the following methods for object phrasing in categories:

=Asteroids=

Named/numbered asteroids
With asteroids, such as 2006 Polonskaya, the same for asteroid naming goes with these. I propose that for categories regarding the orbit type, such as [ [Category:Main Belt asteroids] ], that the objects be numbered by their first assigned numeric designation (in this case 2006) and preceded by the number of zeroes that a number in the one hundred thousands place would go, in this case making the correct case for this be: [ [Category:Main Belt asteroids|002006] ]

Regarding cases where the category regards physical, objective, or other miscellaneous conditions, rather than orbital, such as [ [Category:Binary Asteroids] ] the name, Polonskaya, would be sorted. [ [Category:Binary Asteroids|Polonskaya] ]

Lastly, for categories sorting astronomical objects by discovery date, the sort would be on the precise date of discovery, optionally (though preferably) followed by the numbering. Since 2006 was discovered on September 22nd, 1973, the correct format would be [ [Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1973|197309222006] ]

Unnumbered (provision designation) asteroids
Although a smaller population of these exist, asteroids such as 2013 JX28, I propose, would be sorted in any category case, as [ [Category:Samplecategory|2013J28X ] ] I reverse the designation, not for unnecessary complication, but rather the fact that the IAU's complicated style denotes first the year of discovery (2013) and then the half-month of discovery (J, or the first half of May] followed by the letter (1-26) and the cycle of the number (28) so X is the 24th letter of the alphabet, and since the alphabet has 26 letters and this is the 28th cycle, 2013 JX28 was the 752nd asteroid discovered in the first half of May. As a result, due to the typical following of less significant digits according to most, if not all, numeric systems, the correct format for the sort wold be 2013J28X, or the 24th asteroid discovered in the 28th cycle of the alphabet, in half-month J, of year 2013.

=Comets=

Numbered comets (***P/ [name])
There are currently 300 numbered comets, and in this case numbered comets will be designated APNNN with N's being numbers, and the A being to put them after asteroids and before non-numbered comets.

Typically named comets (*/**** ***)
Now Comets are much harder than asteroids. A typical comet, unlike an asteroid, which often has one or two, rarely three names to choose from, comets always have three, sometimes four or more. Take C/2011 L4 (panSTARRS) - the comet has so many names, C/2011 L4, 2011 L4, panSTARRS; even the name isn't agreed upon. panstarrs, pan-starrs, and even pan starrs are just a few of the names I've seen it spelled as, not even including case-sensitivity. Here is my proposition, rather quickly come up with in the last hour: For the aforementioned date categories, use the comet name like this- C2011L04 - the name first denotes the comet's status as non-periodic and non-asteroidal, being C, followed by the discovery date, the aforementioned half-month rule, and the discovery number. I have never seen a comet number in the last value reach 40, let alone 100, so we are not in immediate danger for rephrasing for at least another decade or two if not up to a century.

For categories regarding specific orbit types confining different bodies from one another, such as [ [category:non-periodic comets] ], the C would simply be taken away, making it 2011L04.

Atypically named comets (Great comet of ****), (*******'s comet)
While slightly harder to define, these comets would be referred to in their respective categories as G[O] with the Y being a mandatory four-digit number, regarding the year the comet was named. The O is optional, and denotes, if included, the location of the comet, such as the Great Southern Comet of 1887. For comets with described names with dates, such as the Great January comet of 1910, put the month number instead, G191001.

Sorting
1 - numbered asteroids (000161, 003248, 418712) 2- unnumbered asteroids (1996Q046X) 3- numbered comets (AP001) 4- unnumbered comets (C2012K01)

=Summary= I want to remind whoever may be reading this, however few or many, that these descriptions are not mandatory rules to abide by, but rather guidelines that would be helpful for the more efficient sorting of objects in astronomical object categories, which can get to be quite large. I would advise anyone who is reading this to post feedback in either this page, or the talk page. Feel free to edit and contribute to this in a way you feel is helpful. However, if you do not include a description of your edit in either the article talk page or the page itself, I will be more inclined to revert your edit, than if you do.