Wikijunior talk:Solar System/Asteroid belt

Name
As a chapter, this should be called "Asteroid Belt" with a capital "B". I'd move it, but I'm worried it might mess up the templates. Rachel 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should it be just called asteriods? Most of the info is just on asteroids - generally. There isn't even a section on how the belt came to be, or why it stays there ( all ordered) but yet there are other asteroids randomly in the solar system etc. [[User:cilstr 11:45, 16 August 2006

Writing this module as an introduction to other modules
When doing the "cleanup" of this module, it might be nice to make this more into an introduction of the asteroids as a general topic, with this being a launching point to other sections on specific Asteroids. There is indeed a rich history for Ceres and Vesta, and some detailed information together with pictures (important for kids!) of several other asteroids. Ceres in particular is going to be an interesting topic not only because it is the largest of all asteroids, but because there is a robotic mission that is going to do specific exploration of that asteroid that has already been designed and is scheduled to launch some time next year. --Rob Horning 19:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Response
I dont really understand your point, but I agree that this module needs an overhaul (if your not working on this anymore, then disregard), but as I edit I will focus on reorganization and rewriting Basejumper123 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reorganize
I removed these pictures from the top of the page in order to reorganize it, Im no good at coding, so would someone turn this into legitamate code that will fit on the page?

 "] ]" 


 * Sorry but I reverted you. Whilst reorganising you removed the section on what asteroids were made of and you removed they key facts box on asteroids. I realise that the top of the page is a bit ugly at the moment but some of that is caused by the cleanupboxes. Theresa knott 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

April 26, 2007- I know that the asteroid belt is awesome and I also know that the gravitational pull of the planets occasionally take an asteroid or two out of the belt. Jupiter is the planet that keeps the asteroid belt in place as it revolves around the sun. P.S.- There are around 40,000 asteroids in the asteroid belt.

Proofing
I did a quick proofing check of this page and have a few suggestions: Thanks. &mdash; RJHall 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It contains lumps of rock much smaller than planets. There are asteroids that are made primarily of metal. (See "M-type asteroid" on wikipedia). It would be more correct to say "rock or metal", or even "rock and metal".
 * 2) The largest asteroid is 2001 KX76. While this is true (depending on whether the plutino definition is accepted by the IAU) '2001 KX76' is in the Kuiper belt, rather than the asteroid belt. I would suggest changing the text to read: "The largest asteroid in the solar system is 2001 KX76. The largest asteroid in the asteroid belt is Ceres, which is 1,032 kilometers across."
 * 3) Some asteroids are less than a kilometer. It should say "across".
 * 4) some objects have been seen that are indeed smaller than 50 meters that merely pass nearby the Earth. Awkwardly worded. How about: "some objects smaller than 50 metres have indeed been seen passing nearby the Earth."
 * 5) Due to some automated asteroid scanning observatories and a systematic exploration of the Solar System for near-Earth asteroids seems too technical. "Because so many near Earth asteroids are now being found" cuts to the chase. Perhaps the "Who discovered them?" section could mention the automated observatories?
 * 6) Ida is the only asteroid with a moon, named Dactyl. Not even remotely true. At least 37 have been discovered so far. There may be many, many more. C.f. the wikipedia article on "Asteroid moon".
 * These are changes that should be made. If you don't get around to it, I'll do it in the next week or so. --Xixtas 05:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay it's done. Thanks. &mdash; RJHall 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of largest asteroids in the belt?
Would it make sense to include a table of the five largest asteroids (by maximum dimension) in the belt? &mdash; RJHall 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea. I have a question though. Is Ceres still an asteriod? I thought it was now a dwarf planet and not an asteroid. Is it both? --xixtas 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, how many asteroids fit the current IAU definition of a "minor planet"? (aka with Pluto, Quorar, etc.) That might be a good limit on what to include in this table, as I think Ceres and Vesta both fit the description and definition.  --Rob Horning 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia Ceres is considered a dwarf planet and Vesta, Pallas and Hygiea may be if it is determined that their shapes are formed by hydrostatic equilibrium. Wikipedia Dwarf Planet. According to NASA "According to the IAU, more dwarf planets are expected to be announced in the coming months and years. Currently, a dozen candidate dwarf planets are listed on IAU's dwarf planet watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better-known." and "Instead, on August 24, 2006, an alternate proposal came into effect labeling Ceres a 'dwarf planet'. It is not yet clear whether dwarf planet status is, like planet status, a sole defining category, or whether dwarf planets also retain their previous minor body classifications such as 'asteroid.'" --xixtas 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since this is about the asteroid belt, we could just say "Largest bodies in the asteroid belt". That would get around whether they are asteroids or not. &mdash; RJHall 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Trojan asteroids
The one portion of the text that I think may be problematic for wikijunior is the final paragraph of "Are there asteroids outside of the asteroid belt?" I.e. the whole concept of Trojans, Lagrange points, and 60&deg; stable orbit locations. Is this going to work for a very young reader? Perhaps that paragraph needs to be simplified or explained a little more? Thanks. &mdash; RJHall 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs contain some interesting information. I think they add value to the article, but may be a little overly technical for the audience. So I'm not sure. I would lean toward trying to simplify the language rather than removing them completely. --xixtas 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to work on the text, but I'm not sure I completely succeeded. Thanks. &mdash; RJHall 19:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)