![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/40px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png) | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a few thousand of them, in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs and the related asteroid stub categories. I think most of them (over 95%) should be deleted because of a lack of wp:Notability. Perhaps this has been discussed before. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it's been discussed a few times, but there hasn't been a consensus formed so I think we just set it aside.—RJH (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think any asteroid discovered before the advent of astrophotography should be kept. Anything that has been imaged by radar, anything imaged/studied by a spaceprobe, any used by a a goodly portion of the astrological community (if there is any besides the first few asteroids and Chiron)... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there's heaps of them and very few have more to them than "12345 Random is a main belt asteroid. It was discovered by Joseph X. Bloggs at the Mt. Somewhere observatory" and then an infobox containing its orbital parameters and whatnot. Most of them, in my opinion, lack notbaility and violate our policy of Wikipedia not being a directory orindiscriminate collection of data. I think these rocks require some source that goes beyond the mere fact of its existence before they should have an article. Otherwise, merge them into a list and have an external link to the JPL asteroid database whose job actually is to list every bit of data on every known asteroid. Reyk YO! 07:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. All numbered asteroids are generally notable, because they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no reason to delete them. You can see these AFDs:
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids,
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids/120901–121000,
where arguments based on WP:NOT were rejected. Or this one
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(90569)_2004_GY14 (you can find other AFD as well).
The general opinion is that asteroids are natural objects, and as such they are probably inherently notable. They are not songs, people or companies, which can appear or disappear at any time, they have existed for billions years. Ruslik (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note that you refer to deletion proposals of lists. That's precisely what was suggested, to put them in a list. The next door guy who ran over the girl from the other next door also got coverage. Still we'll agree that this does not make him notable. If anybody knows where to propose deletion of a few thousand asteroids, I'll lend him my voice. Debresser (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I do not. The last example is for an asteroid. The reason I referred to lists is that the arguments for their deletion were exactly the same as your arguments for the deletion of asteroid's articles. You actually seems not to realize that the wiki notability is very different from the common understanding of this word, and your example is not relevant. Asteroids are notable because they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (I specifically want to repeat this). Ruslik (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- This one got deleted due to zero notability. Reyk YO! 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong example. This article consisted of just one sentence: Named in honor of Mel Bartels for his contributions to amateur astronomy, especially his freely-shared designs for driving alt-az telescopes. No inforbox, no orbital parameters. So I am not surprised that it was deleted. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article. If you are suggesting that an infobox containing the asteroid's physical and orbital parameters from the JPL confers notability, then I disagree in the strongest terms. That's like saying an article on me would get deleted if it only contains my name, but if it also had my address and height & weight it would be kept. Reyk YO! 10:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- This AFD discussed Bartels case and rejected it as precedent because Bartels article lacked content and really looked like an example of A1 (someone even mentioned G1—gibberish). Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your interpretation of either of those AFDs: there were plenty of NN opinions as well as "no content" opinions in the Bartels AfD, and only one person rejected it as a precedent in the GY14 one. I still say asteroids aren't inherently notable just because they exist. Reyk YO! 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are thousands more like it. Equally fit for (speedy) deletion. I'd just like to know how to get it done. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The key word here is "significant". An announcement in a specialized journal of a list of the next 500 odd asteroids located and catalogued is not significant.
Who can tell me where to raise this question? Debresser (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before. There is no consensus to delete these articles. Spacepotato (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let's discuss it again. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:GNG, the issue with asteroid article notability might come down to the requirement for secondary sources. I'm not sure I regard the JPL Small-Body Database as a secondary source. On the other hand, perhaps the Dictionary of Minor Planet Names might considered such. I know I've experienced great difficulty in trying to expand some of the more obscure asteroid articles, so I'm not clear those can be anything beyond a stub (in the near future at any rate). This comes back to the requirement for significant coverage. Still, I'm not in any hurry to do a mass delete; they should at least get links to the JPL pages (on the lists of minor planets pages) before that happens.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The point I am trying to argue is another. That a mention of another asteroid found in any or all of these sources is not considered significant coverage. I would really like to raise this question anew. Please tell me where to do this. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This subject has been extensively discussed, without reaching a useful actionable consensus, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#main belt asteroids and in Archive 8 ff. Please take note of that large corpus before reworking the same ground here. I think WikiProject Astronomical objects (or a sub-project of that) is the place the discussion needs to be centralized, in any case. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I propose continuing the discussion at the place you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived here. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed using a bot to automatically redirect a large number of asteroid stubs back to the list-of-asteroids pages. This is the sort of thing that should only be done if there's strong consensus for it, so I've started a discussion thread at WT:ASTRO#Straw poll: Automated stub redirection. Please comment as you see fit. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've closed this as "no consensus" (after leaving it up for a week). There were comments in support, but I'm not going to the bot approval group and ask to auto-redirect 10k+ stubs with only four votes in favour. By all means float the proposal again down the road if more people think it's a good idea. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please review the list history at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new. Does everything seem to be in order? I'll post it here:
- Did Farmbrough store a list of the 363 asteroids that had a "reference" on the JPL Small-Body Database? -- Kheider (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I asked him that (see the corresponding discussion, below), but he didn't reply. Shall we ask him again? Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see the JPL removed list just so I better understand and follow the overall bot-process. -- Kheider (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd love to help you but I don't know to much about bots. I did, however, provide the names of each person involved so that you can direct your questions accordingly. Let me know if there's anything more I can/should do. Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Rich says:
- The JPL references were added to the articles for the minor planets they related to. These are the articles
- 10443 van der Pol
- 11027 Astaf'ev
- 11072 Hiraoka
- 11118 Modra
- 11496 Grass
- 11509 Thersilochos
- 11836 Eileen
- 11868 Kleinrichert
- 11978 Makotomasako
- 12016 Green
- 12071 Davykim
- 12238 Actor
- 1233 Kobresia
- 1242 Zambesia
- 1243 Pamela
- 1244 Deira
- 1249 Rutherfordia
- 1250 Galanthus
- 12527 Anneraugh
- 1255 Schilowa
- 1261 Legia
- 1267 Geertruida
- 1281 Jeanne
- 12845 Crick
- 12895 Balbastre
- 1291 Phryne
- 13014 Hasslacher
- 13154 Petermrva
- 13260 Sabadell
- 1328 Devota
- 1337 Gerarda
- 1340 Yvette
- 1346 Gotha
- 1347 Patria
- 13482 Igorfedorov
- 1349 Bechuana
- 13533 Junili
- 1354 Botha
- 1356 Nyanza
- 1364 Safara
- 1366 Piccolo
- 1368 Numidia
- 13732 Woodall
- 1378 Leonce
- 1379 Lomonosowa
- 13806 Darmstrong
- 1382 Gerti
- 1389 Onnie
- 13906 Shunda
- 1392 Pierre
- 13921 Sgarbini
- 1393 Sofala
- 1397 Umtata
- 13977 Frisch
- 1405 Sibelius
- 1409 Isko
- 14141 Demeautis
- 14164 Hennigar
- 1419 Danzig
- 1425 Tuorla
- 1426 Riviera
- 1429 Pemba
- 1430 Somalia
- 1431 Luanda
- 14335 Alexosipov
- 1434 Margot
- 14342 Iglika
- 1452 Hunnia
- 1460 Haltia
- 14643 Morata
- 14659 Gregoriana
- 1477 Bonsdorffia
- 14835 Holdridge
- 1496 Turku
- 1504 Lappeenranta
- 15107 Toepperwein
- 1522 Kokkola
- 1524 Joensuu
- 1532 Inari
- 1533 Saimaa
- 15350 Naganuma
- 15374 Teta
- 1540 Kevola
- 15415 Rika
- 1543 Bourgeois
- 1576 Fabiola
- 1585 Union
- 1609 Brenda
- 1611 Beyer
- 1628 Strobel
- 1644 Rafita
- 1646 Rosseland
- 1648 Shajna
- 1665 Gaby
- 1669 Dagmar
- 1672 Gezelle
- 1682 Karel
- 1688 Wilkens
- 17035 Velichko
- 1707 Chantal
- 17079 Lavrovsky
- 1709 Ukraina
- 1710 Gothard
- 1712 Angola
- 1718 Namibia
- 17198 Gorjup
- 1720 Niels
- 1722 Goffin
- 1731 Smuts
- 1735 ITA
- 1753 Mieke
- 1754 Cunningham
- 1757 Porvoo
- 1759 Kienle
- 17683 Kanagawa
- 1789 Dobrovolsky
- 1800 Aguilar
- 1801 Titicaca
- 1803 Zwicky
- 1804 Chebotarev
- 1805 Dirikis
- 1837 Osita
- 1842 Hynek
- 1873 Agenor
- 1877 Marsden
- 1879 Broederstroom
- 18874 Raoulbehrend
- 1897 Hind
- 1902 Shaposhnikov
- 1907 Rudneva
- 1928 Summa
- 1933 Tinchen
- 19379 Labrecque
- 1939 Loretta
- 1941 Wild
- 1946 Walraven
- 1956 Artek
- 1957 Angara
- 1960 Guisan
- 1961 Dufour
- 19763 Klimesh
- 1995 Hajek
- 19982 Barbaradoore
- 2003 Harding
- 2013 Tucapel
- 2017 Wesson
- 2049 Grietje
- 2054 Gawain
- 20571 Tiamorrison
- 2080 Jihlava
- 2084 Okayama
- 20898 Fountainhills
- 2091 Sampo
- 2109 Dhotel
- 2111 Tselina
- 2113 Ehrdni
- 2139 Makharadze
- 2140 Kemerovo
- 21436 Chaoyichi
- 2156 Kate
- 21609 Williamcaleb
- 21652 Vasishtha
- 21705 Subinmin
- 2175 Andrea Doria
- 2186 Keldysh
- 2187 La Silla
- 2197 Shanghai
- 22338 Janemojo
- 2253 Espinette
- 2259 Sofievka
- 22603 Davidoconnor
- 2274 Ehrsson
- 2276 Warck
- 22776 Matossian
- 2285 Ron Helin
- 2292 Seili
- 2293 Guernica
- 22988 Jimmyhom
- 2301 Whitford
- 2302 Florya
- 2304 Slavia
- 2323 Zverev
- 2338 Bokhan
- 2339 Anacreon
- 2364 Seillier
- 23712 Willpatrick
- 2381 Landi
- 2385 Mustel
- 2398 Jilin
- 24101 Cassini
- 2415 Ganesa
- 2416 Sharonov
- 2422 Perovskaya
- 2433 Sootiyo
- 2442 Corbett
- 2443 Tomeileen
- 24643 MacCready
- 2474 Ruby
- 2477 Biryukov
- 2480 Papanov
- 2483 Guinevere
- 2490 Bussolini
- 2523 Ryba
- 2524 Budovicium
- 2529 Rockwell Kent
- 2543 Machado
- 2545 Verbiest
- 2563 Boyarchuk
- 2572 Annschnell
- 2591 Dworetsky
- 2624 Samitchell
- 2637 Bobrovnikoff
- 2649 Oongaq
- 2669 Shostakovich
- 2687 Tortali
- 26879 Haines
- 2713 Luxembourg
- 2714 Matti
- 2760 Kacha
- 2774 Tenojoki
- 2779 Mary
- 2783 Chernyshevskij
- 2785 Sedov
- 2794 Kulik
- 2796 Kron
- 2832 Lada
- 2862 Vavilov
- 2880 Nihondaira
- 2893 Peiroos
- 2895 Memnon
- 2896 Preiss
- 2937 Gibbs
- 2939 Coconino
- 2942 Cordie
- 2943 Heinrich
- 2945 Zanstra
- 2960 Ohtaki
- 2981 Chagall
- 2991 Bilbo
- 2993 Wendy
- 2995 Taratuta
- 3005 Pervictoralex
- 3025 Higson
- 3052 Herzen
- 3068 Khanina
- 3076 Garber
- 3080 Moisseiev
- 3099 Hergenrother
- 3101 Goldberger
- 3109 Machin
- 3111 Misuzu
- 3116 Goodricke
- 3133 Sendai
- 3134 Kostinsky
- 3141 Buchar
- 3176 Paolicchi
- 3178 Yoshitsune
- 3186 Manuilova
- 31956 Wald
- 3212 Agricola
- 3247 Di Martino
- 3267 Glo
- 3268 De Sanctis
- 3284 Niebuhr
- 3290 Azabu
- 3300 McGlasson
- 3332 Raksha
- 3370 Kohsai
- 3402 Wisdom
- 3403 Tammy
- 3444 Stepanian
- 3485 Barucci
- 35062 Sakuranosyou
- 3514 Hooke
- 3525 Paul
- 3557 Sokolsky
- 3590 Holst
- 3597 Kakkuri
- 3617 Eicher
- 3631 Sigyn
- 3637 O'Meara
- 3638 Davis
- 3651 Friedman
- 3657 Ermolova
- 3675 Kemstach
- 3685 Derdenye
- 3724 Annenskij
- 3725 Valsecchi
- 3729 Yangzhou
- 3731 Hancock
- 3761 Romanskaya
- 3785 Kitami
- 3790 Raywilson
- 3794 Sthenelos
- 3801 Thrasymedes
- 3807 Pagels
- 3811 Karma
- 3843 OISCA
- 3855 Pasasymphonia
- 3872 Akirafujii
- 3880 Kaiserman
- 3888 Hoyt
- 3906 Chao
- 3918 Brel
- 3923 Radzievskij
- 3924 Birch
- 3935 Toatenmongakkai
- 3936 Elst
- 3953 Perth
- 3960 Chaliubieju
- 3968 Koptelov
- 39741 Komm
- 3986 Rozhkovskij
- 4007 Euryalos
- 4008 Corbin
- 4045 Lowengrub
- 4057 Demophon
- 4085 Weir
- 4112 Hrabal
- 4162 SAF
- 4169 Celsius
- 4172 Rochefort
- 4174 Pikulia
- 4190 Kvasnica
- 4196 Shuya
- 4201 Orosz
- 4204 Barsig
- 4214 Veralynn
- 4224 Susa
- 4226 Damiaan
- 4255 Spacewatch
- 4263 Abashiri
- 4289 Biwako
- 4294 Horatius
- 4308 Magarach
- 4317 Garibaldi
- 4323 Hortulus
- 4423 Golden
- 4457 van Gogh
- 4467 Kaidanovskij
- 4498 Shinkoyama
- 4502 Elizabethann
- 4505 Okamura
- 4509 Gorbatskij
- 4703 Kagoshima
- 4712 Iwaizumi
- 4722 Agelaos
- 4741 Leskov
- 4754 Panthoos
- 4773 Hayakawa
- 4791 Iphidamas
- 4792 Lykaon
- 4806 Miho
- 4816 Connelly
- 4827 Dares
- 4828 Misenus
- 4832 Palinurus
- 4833 Meges
- 4836 Medon
- 4863 Yasutani
- 4867 Polites
- 4894 Ask
- 4946 Askalaphus
Let's not leave them here. Where should we put them? Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Phase I:
Phase II:
Phase III
NOTE:
The actual list contains the above text and the list itself. Here it is again: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, if you would like, it seems like a good idea. Please be sure to alter the list history accordingly. Chrisrus (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – To my eye it looks a little odd that the list only contains a single entry that begins with a 5–9. That makes me suspect a bug somewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Can we pinpoint it? Chrisrus (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe stubmaker was going through list and was stopped before creating articles about minor planets that begins with a 5–9? Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- That could explain it. Can you find the same thing on Category:Minor planets? If so, it'd be explained as the place the creation process was stopped. Chrisrus (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Bug in phase I, for example 6715 Sheldonmarks was skipped Bulwersator (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think it got past the bot because it had more than one discoverer. The bot wasn't told what exactly what kind of text over and above "(Minor planet) is a (whatever) that was discovered by (person) in (place) on (date)" would constitute enough information to pass WP:NASTRO, so it erred on the side of causion. It didn't know that having two discovers didn't mean an article shouldn't be notablity-tagged. It's ok, we don't have to get them all at once. We're taking baby steps here. So even though the only extra information in that article was a second discoverer, it was set aside as one we could always come back to another day. It's a good thing: we have plenty of articles right here which we know can't possibly pass WP:GNG or Nastro based on the content within them alone. Ok? It's not like later we can't look back at the ones we didn't tag. Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Question - In the big picture... Is all this concerning the ~10k articles created by ClueBot II in March of 2008[1]? Sorry if I'm late to the party and covering old ground. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not entirely. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I remember there was consensus to get rid of the stubs over a certain number. Does anyone remember what the cutoff was? Gigs (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was discussed at WP Astronomical Objects (as they are objects...) 2000 was the cutoff (further discussions 2009 , 2008 ) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I may pick up the torch on that. It's something that's been nagging in the back of my head for a while, and I have the skills to write the bot to finish the task. I think Christopher Thomas was being a little too conservative there. Any "collateral damage" of accidental redirection of a notable object could be easily undone by any non-admin, and I have a few ideas in mind for some improved automated ways to identify probable notable objects numbered >2000. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 has something like 5000 articles (mainly stubs?) tagged as questionable notability. That is an astronomical number of tagged articles. (sorry...) It would be good to get a decision on what to do with them. Listify maybe? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed extensively, at WT:ASTRO, see the multiple topical archive pages devoted to asteroids (hundreds of k's worth of discussion). Objects numbered below 2000 were to be postponed from cleanup to ease the workload since below 2000 there's a bigger likelihood of notability, and work would be needed to bring those articles up to snuff, while objects 2000+ that fail WP:NASTRO were to be redirected to the existing lists. (List of asteroids subarticles) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the plan is to redirect to the relevant lists. But it requires some manual or semi-automatic oversight, so is a big job. The category isn't doing any harm, and it's useful as and when people have time to work on it. Modest Genius talk 23:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's a ((chemical-importance)) so perhaps we should have a ((astronomical-object-importance)) template, with corresponding category Category: Astronomical object articles with topics of unclear importance -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
((Notability|Astro))
does the same thing. And I notice that the chemistry version is currently a candidate to be merged into ((notability)). Modest Genius talk 22:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't add a specific cleanup category for astronomical objects -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Is that desirable? I never look at categories so don't know. If so, ((notability)) could easily be modified to do so. Modest Genius talk 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- It'd sort out the astronomical objects from everything else. (you can't do WhatLinksHere with just ((notability)) ) Any of us that would work on notability issues for these articles can go through a pure listing from the category then. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't ((notability)) emit a category for that? If not, it could easily do so. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking about asking for a new bot task to turn all stubs on unnamed minor planets (articles like (59115) 1998 XG3) into redirects, as suggested by Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#Dealing with minor planets. At the moment, we have 4112 such articles (excluding redirects and all named minor planets), which seems to be about 4112 too many. I haven't (obviously) checked them all, but those I did check didn't contain any material establishing notability, and not even any material not already present in the lists. For the named minor planets, the situation seems to be more varied and no blanket appraoch seems to be advisable here (although a fair number, e.g. 10095 Carlloewe, could be redirected as well); so my proposal is only for unnamed minor planets, those where the article name starts with "(". Thoughts? Fram (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. These should all be merged/redirected to the relevant lists. In fact, that should be the standard approach to any series of articles whose entire contents can be represented as entries in a table. Reyk YO! 12:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree as well. However, before doing such a thing I'd chat with StringTheory11 as they have put a lot of work into star stub articles and might have some good ideas. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with Fram's course of action. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought, see my comments below; this does seem a little rash now that I think about it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with blindly redirecting every unnamed minor planet stub. You should only blindly re-direct main-belt asteroid stubs that are numbered above say 3000. It should not matter if the asteroid is named or not. -- Kheider (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- One criteria could be that there is more than two references in the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- That would be better than a generic blindbot re-directing 4000+ articles. I also think near-Earth asteroids and trojans need to be excluded. What exact minor planet category is this bot searching? I see 17,077 articles in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs (many of which have already been re-directed). -- Kheider (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the reason to exclude trojans and NEAs. If they are notable, then the article will certainly have good sourcing, as our notable minor planets are one of WPAST's strong points in terms of coverage and article quality. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a numbers game. There are not that many NEAs or Trojans with dedicated articles on Wikipedia. Surely for such small categories it better to have a human decide what should or should not be re-directed. Stub class articles do not have good sourcing by definition and WP:NASTRO requires determining which articles are notable and which are not. -- Kheider (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Somewhat Disagree this seems hardly like the ideal solution. A new 2012 VP113 could show up any day, and a bot that automatically transforms some stubby starting point such into a redirect would end up in an edit war. Didn't we already come up with a solution to handle sequentially evaluating these, a few months ago? As for starting with "(" that only handles the MPC numbered minor planets, not the ones that have not yet received a number (such as articles similarly named to "2012 VP113") -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could you link to the consensus demonstrated a few months ago (not disputing that there was one, just that it would be better for everybody to have the link without having to search the archive). StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- finding redirectable stubs by bot;What should be redirected:discussion 1&discussion 2&discussion 3 -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think discussions from before the ANI discussion and the creation of the notability guideline are no longer really relevant. Some of these discussions also suggested redirecting all of them, while I want to restrict the automatic redirection to the unnamed ones; generally speaking, the named ones have more chance of being somewhat notable, and should be dealt with manually (in an AWB run or something similar) in my opinion. Fram (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Notability guideline are there to keep people from being wreckless with article creations or re-directs. This conversation comes up every 6 months or so (See:Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects). The best solution still seems to be to have users manually go through the articles and do the re-directs. A wreckless bot can do as much harm as good.
- If a main-belt asteroid is more than ~60km in diameter (H<10), there is a good chance it is notable.
- The first handful of near-Earth asteroids and Jupiter trojans are generally notable.
- Articles edited by more than just bots should probably be respected more.
- Just because an asteroid is named (ie:GeorgeClooney) does not make it notable.
- If you have to re-direct and are in doubt, re-direct "sub-stub" asteroid articles numbered above 5000. -- Kheider (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mean a bot that constantly checks Wikipedia and instantly redirects these, but a bot that does this task once, and perhaps then every six months or so; this would give people the chance to expand new articles, or resurrect and expand previously redirected ones. I thin, the task (redirecting) is necessary, but it isn't the kind of urgent task that needs a bot on permanent standby. Fram (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- What candidate category/list is the bot to check? I can not find your "4112 such articles". The general consensus in the past is that such re-directs should be done by a human. -- Kheider (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the 4112 suggested ones. I can do them manually (using AWB), but that would be rather tedious, and this seemed like the perfect bot task. Fram (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Looking again at my list, it appears that there are a few named ones starting with "(" anyway. I'll remove these from my list, the 4112 will drop slightly accordingly. Fram (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed four named ones[2], perhaps these need moving? Anyway, 4108 remain. Fram (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. This task is not for a bot. All articles should be checked manually. I just reviewed a few of them and found 116903_Jeromeapt, which had not been renamed. So, other such articles can exist. All articles should be also checked against the MPC database. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fortunately, it doesn't appear as thought 116903 Jeromeapt is notable either. Having looked at around 50 asteroids in the list, it appears that nearly all of them were created by a single user: Merovingian. I so far haven't found a single notable article of his/hers, so I think another plan for now is to just redirect articles created by Merovingian, while leaving the others alone (for now). Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Objects like (7264) 1995 FK are sub-stub, main-belt asteroids, less than 60km in diameter, numbered above 5000, and have not been edited by a human. Your idea is probably a good one. I am still not convinced a bot is best for this as I am afraid of someone being wreckless with such a bot in the future. -- Kheider (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you want an example of a notable asteroid from that list, there is (101429)_1998_VF31 – a Martian trojan. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
So, it looks like there is no consensus for a bot task for this, but that most people see no problem with someone manually doing this (as long as it is done somewhat carefully obviously). I'll see whether I can easily do this correctly with AWB, but if someone else feels the urge to tackle this, feel free, no need to wait for me :-) Fram (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I know this has been brought up above, but to make sure people actually see it, I'm going to start it in a new section. By now most regular readers here are probably aware of WP's minor planet problem, in that (literally) tens of thousands of non-notable minor planet articles have been created by ClueBot II (talk · contribs) and other users. Past requests for redirecting these to the listings of minor planets have gained consensus, but there has been no consensus on exactly how to carry out the redirection. The biggest problem is that maybe 1000 of them actually 'are notable, and should not be redirected. How to avoid redirecting these when using a bot has been a challenge to figure out.
In order to reduce the false positive rate to nearly zero, I propose the following criteria for a redirection-by-bot:
- The article has only one external link. All articles created by ClueBot II seem to only have a link to the JPL database, and any article with more links has a high chance of being notable.
- The article was created by ClueBot II or Merovingian, who are the ones who created the vast majority of the articles.
- The article size is less than 2000 bytes.
These three criteria would sacrifice redirecting some obviously non-notable ones created by other authors or with larger prose in exchange for significantly reducing the false positive rate of such a bot. Thoughts on these criteria for a bot? Pinging @Kheider:, who is an editor who has done good work in the field and whose opinions would be appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree - I think if an article meets all three of these criteria, it's a fairly good bet that it's not worth keeping. Given the strictness of these criteria, we may miss some stubs/non-notables (which is okay) but I don't think there will be many (if any) false positives. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly; although some non-notable ones will obviously be missed, this should cut it down enough to where it is practical to redirect the others manually, without the aid of automation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comments:
- Seems like a reasonable solution.
- I would like to see a list generated by the bot first before the final re-direct run as I am curious how many asteroids numbered below ~2500 are included.
- Will the bot search all asteroid articles or just the numbered ones? I do not think bots ever mass produced provisional unnumbered asteroid articles. -- Kheider (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would be in favor of searching all asteroids. While ClueBot II seems to have only created names ones, Merovingian seems to have focused on unnamed ones, so I think it would be beneficial to include them as well. I won't make the bot myself as I don't know how to make a bot; instead, if this discussion achieves consensus, I'll put in a request at WP:BOTREQ. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- It should not matter if an asteroid is named. But I am not sure if either ClueBot II or Merovingian ever made an article on a provisional unnumbered asteroid. -- Kheider (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind, I misunderstood your comment; I thought you said named ones for some reason. Yes, it would only search numbered ones. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with the caveat that it would be good to see the preliminary candidate list before the final run. -- Kheider (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- NOTE most recent preceding discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_14#Minor_planets -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- For ease of reference, that discussion closed with consensus to not redirect all unnamed minor planets. This method takes a more focused approach to reduce false positives. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note the 2012 list of candidates Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection new; the 2012 listing bot request Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_45#Bot_needed_to_make_a_list -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- That looks like a good list of named candidates to start with, at least. However, Anomie's linkclassifier.js shows that many of them are already redirects. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment per 2012 discussion, I think we should have a lower limit of #2000 as the starting point, and a candidate list should be created for perusal before implementing redirects (as also per 2012's listing discussion) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was not around for this discussion as I only became active at WPAST in mid-2012, but that looks reasonable. The non-notable ones below 2000 should number small enough that redirecting manually is easy enough to do. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- In 2 more days it will have been a week since I posted here, so if nobody objects by then, I'll put in a request at WP:BRQ. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Posted a request to BRQ. Let me know if you think I missed anything. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been bold and merged Meanings of minor planet names: 391001–392000 to List of minor planets: 391001–392000. There are hundreds of very similar pairs of articles already. Is there a good reason to keep them separate for all but the first X (20,000? Less?) minor planets? Fram (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That merge looks sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Soon after the ides of March last year there was very narrow consensus (1 other editor) on Category talk:Main Belt asteroid stubs to turn all (or most) minor planet stubs into redirects to List of minor planets: xxxx–xxxx. Solo Toady (talk) (contribs) initiated the discussion, received support from @Chrisrus: (ping) 5 hours later, began redirecting 12 hours later, redirected about 326 asteroid pages, then quit Wikipedia literally the next day after receiving a request to stop from @Kheider: (ping). I spot-checked about a dozen non-current versions and most are still redirects, so I'm left wondering (as anyone who might stumble across these):
- Revert these ~300 redirects, restoring the stub articles?
- Do nothing?
- Manually or WP:Bot request to make the remaining several thousand minor planet articles redirects to their corresponding List of minor planets page?
I'll leave a pointer on the category talk page to here, and I'll try not to induce bias with my opinion right now. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 03:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Chrisrus has left comments about the viability of asteroid stubs before, at Category talk:Asteroid stubs -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- While we're at this, there's WP: Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO, seems to be the only work on asteroids that Chrisrus does besides saying that stub articles and list articles should not exist (ie, at Talk:List of minor planets ; and using ((help-me)) to try to delete articles at Talk:(237357) 2059 T-3 and Talk:(5796) 1978 VK5) . -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it is better to put them all in a list, as long as there is a description and a thumbnail image if possible. Just my two cents Tetra quark (don't be shy) 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- We've discussed this issue several times before. That category talk page was the entirely wrong place to continue it. archive AArchive 1Archive 2Archive 3 -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, I had no idea I'd be delivering a flaming bag of poo here. The most recent, relevant (imo) discussion is that started by @StringTheory11: (ping) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive table of asteroids 1#Minor planet redirection bot? in August 2014. The older discussions (≲ 2012) potentially predate existing notability guidelines, brought up by Fram here July 2014. Spot-checking a handful of Solo Toady's 300 redirects reveals that he was operating on:
- asteroid stubs with ≤ 1 external link (specifically, to JPL)
Y
- asteroid stubs created by either ClueBot II or Merovingian
Y
- asteroid stubs < 2000 bytes (with only 15 exceptions, the largest being 3469 b)
Y
- asteroid stubs beginning with any number (as opposed to only those > 2000)
N
- as (mostly) prescribed (after the Solo Toady fact) by StringTheory at bot requests, so the same rules would apply.
- Therefore, my take on all this would be to revert redirects to those pages starting with a number < 2000, to effectively match the
now-completed (unperformed) bot request. This amounts to at most 51 20 pages, listed here User:Tom.Reding/Minor planet redirects from March 2014. I wouldn't want to do so without getting the approval of StringTheory and/or Kheider, though. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I initially delayed my response to see what other people might think without them reading my personal bias. My concern with Solo Toady was that I did not want to see hundreds or even thousands of low numbered asteroids re-directed without a proper discussion involving several people. I have always enjoyed working with StringTheory. On the other hand, I have accused Chrisrus of Forumshopping since October 2013. In March 2014, I did NOT know Chrisrus was using Solo Toady to forward his crusade. Undoing 20 of of the 321 re-directs is probably the most reasonable solution, though even many of them may not be very notable. -- Kheider (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like Chrisrus should be brought to WP:AN as a having serially and persistently for years had a problem with articles that Chrisrus has campaigned against ignoring existing discussions, and being disruptive editor. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll do so after a few days (Monday), pending additional comments. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What I would like to know is how many of Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs are NOT re-directs to a list? -- Kheider (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't the ones in italics redirects? --JorisvS (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There're 14,622 articles total in that category though, and at 200 articles/page = a lot to look through, so that sounds like a WP:BotReq, unless there's an easy way in like Emacs to check for italics. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I figured out an easy way (but I'm leaving for the weekend). In AWB, grab all the pages in the category, then set the only skip option as "Page is redirect", then go through the list. AWB's log tab keeps track of whether you clicked skip or if it automatically skipped (i.e. is a redirect). Save the log, Ctrl+H replace "redirect" with "blah" and have it count how many instances of "redirect" there are. Have fun! (If no one does this I will, gladly) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Category search returned 14,640 pages; 482 redirects; 14,158 articles. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I still support StringTheory11's August 2014 bot request. Too bad no one has worked on it. If Chrisrus had directed Solo Toad to start with higher numbered asteroids, Solo Toad might have fixed a large part of the problem instead of being driven away from Wikipedia. Chrisrus seems to be his own worst enemy. -- Kheider (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments, and 65.94.40.137's, here on Chrisrus; the evidence is against him. Causing someone's removal from the WP community through actions against consensus to forward an unnecessary personal crusade is worse than any number of bad edits. That's like reverse-mentoring. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is rather unfortunate that the request was ignored. When I have more time, I may post it again, as this discussion is reaffirming that consensus. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of the 482 redirects in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, all 15 starting with <= 2000 are still redirects to the list (none of these were performed by Solo Toady and are still redirects after my 20 redirect reverts).
- Also, those 20 redirect
reverts need to be put into Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs pages weren't in the Category, but the articles all are. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Does anyone object to unredirecting the 15 redirects I found numbered <= 2000 in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll do this tomorrow (30th) if no comments, or later today if I get an affirmative, since it isn't controversial. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
StringTheory11 made a bot request (never performed and aspects previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here) with the following criteria (verbatim):
- Article has one or no external links.
- Article was created by the users ClueBot II or Merovingian
- Article is less than 2000 bytes
- Asteroid is numbered above 2000.
I can filter articles in AWB which meet criteria 1, 3, 4, but not #2 (I think).
If y'all want, I can do this semi-automatically, or I can use a different criteria #2v2:
- 2v2. Article body is a variant of the form "<#####> (<name>) is a <some type of asteroid> asteroid discovered on <date> by <discoverer> at <place name>."
which doesn't restrict pages to those created by ClueBot II or Merovingian, but maintains a similar spirit to the original request, I think. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that the replacement for #2 is ideal, since that would miss anything with an infobox, if I'm understanding correctly. Rather, I think doing it semi-automatically for now would be good, and resubmitting the bot request might be a good idea as well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- If the page already only has 1 external link (rule #1), and that link is to the JPL database, then any information in the infobox is either from JPL, or unreferenced. Is that adequate?
- If that's insufficient, I can avoid infoboxes with > some minimum, required amount of information (i.e. some list, agreed to here, of non-empty parameters). Pages with infoboxes with < this amount of information can be redirected, as long as they meet criteria 1, 2v2, 3, 4. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I changed my rule #2 from #2 to #2v2, for referring to later.
- You can ignore templates such as infobox when running AWB, so unless there's major dissent I would say go for it Tom.Reding. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to blanket ignore infoboxes - I'll look through the entire page when assessing rule #1. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- If I might ask, what is the significance of the number 2000? Why that number? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive table of asteroids 2 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 14#Minor planet redirection bot?. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- So from what I read, 2000 is simply a reasonable but arbitrary number. Basically grandfathered in because of their earlier discovery and because they are the "usually" the largest asteroids. Not always but usually. And those above 2000, for the most part, should not have their own articles and should simply be on the list pages. Exceptions, obviously, will happen to a very few above 2000. Ok, this sounds pretty reasonable but the the countless thousands on the list pages whose articles have been or will be removed or redirected need to be "de-linked" to stop circular traveling. I click on one it it simply leads me back to the same page. That can't happen. A bot may have to be deployed to do the de-linking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, unless it's a regularly-run maintenance bot. As various asteroids gain notoriety and have legitimate pages created for them, someone/something would have to maintain the links on the list page to only point to non-redirects. Without a maintenance bot, I think it's adequate (although certainly not ideal) as-is. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
But remember that if placed in a list, MoS tells us to never allow the linking to go circular and link back to it's page of origin. "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on." They can be redlinked "IF" it is likely to have a stand-alone article created in the future. But no links back to itself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- The WP:MoS isn't written in stone, nor should it be blanket applied (it says so right at the top); there are, of course, exceptions, which this undoubtedly is. What do you think is the best thing to do, independent of the MoS? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't written in stone, but there is nothing special about this case. You cannot have circular links. De-link all asteroids that do not have a separate article. It's as simple as that. If one day a couple of them do get a separate article then we go to the list and link them properly. But a redirect back to the same spot is a disservice to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've seen several asteroid redirects which kept the original article's categories (i.e. Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1990, Category:Discoveries by Kin Endate, Category:Discoveries by Kazuro Watanabe). These redirects are in the minority, but I can see why they'd be useful to someone searching through them. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects says generally, no, but maybe, sometimes. Should I keep all categories when I make the redirect or just get rid of them as usual? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think including the redirects in the categorization is useful. I've recently created a category for the magnetospheres of planemos, and I've included redirects to sections, because this helps people locate information on these topics for objects whose magnetospheres do not have dedicated articles, which is particularly useful here, I think, because the only moon with a known magnetosphere (Ganymede) does not have one. Keeping the categorization of these asteroid stubs when redirected can have similar uses, unless there are dedicated list articles in place. --JorisvS (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the first part: Great. It's easier to remove existing cats than to find old ones, so keeping them was the safest thing to do, imo. Since my last post I've kept categories as well as the associated ((DEFAULTSORT)). Later I can find how many uncategorized asteroid redirects exist, and either copy the cats from the last stub version, or make a botreq if it's a lot.
Done ~100 of my redirects needed their categories propagated. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding
unless there are dedicated list articles in place
: I'm redirecting all asteroid stubs to pages/locations such as List of minor planets: 9001–10000#101 (I guess that wasn't made clear in this thread). Do you disagree with the categorization of all these redirects? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I don't disagree, because that's not a dedicated list for categories like "minor planets discovered in XXXX", or "discoveries by Y". --JorisvS (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify: Aside from not being sortable, minor planets discovered in a certain year can have quite different numbers, and are hence likely to be spread across multiple such pages. And obviously, this is even more probablly the case for their discoverers. --JorisvS (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see; thanks! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 1st pass on the ~16,500 #redirect candidate asteroid stubs is complete. ~8,240 redirects were made. Exceptions to the above criteria were made on a case-by-case basis, for example: 2307 Garuda, 17543 Sosva, 18155 Jasonschuler, 18809 Meileawertz. This has brought down the WikiProject Astronomy cleanup listing and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 dramatically!
Proposal: I noticed the potential for a few small expansions of the orignal #redirect criteria. Once I started with an edit summary (..."2) main-body data duplicated on the list page"...) I wanted it to hold true for the entire run. Now, with the original criteria fulfilled, I think the following 3 reasonable modifications (rules) can be added (assuming the page contains no novel information):
5) Pages with orbital parameter data from the JPL database written into the article text (i.e. orbital period like 23315_Navinbrian and 28516 Möbius, or with several parameters like (5903) 1989 AN1). Any page with diameter, mass, density, surface gravity, or escape velocity won't be redirected because those doesn't appear obviously on the JPL link.
6) Pages with namesake information written into the article text (i.e. xxx was named after yyy, xxx is Latin for yyy, etc.), which already reside in list form at Meanings of minor planet names.
7) Pages with specifically these 3 external links: 1) to the JPL database (rule #1), 2) to the Minor Planet Center database (like http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/NumberedMPs005001.html), which is basically a duplicate of the info on the #redirect lists and/or the JPL database, and 3) to Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, which is the primary source for the Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–2500 family of pages (see top of that page).
Is there a concensus to include some or all of rules 5, 6, 7 in a subsequent run? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 13:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with this. I've never really seen the need to have a multitude of microstub articles containing only information that could be expressed as entries in a table. Reyk YO! 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see these as controversial either, so I won't wait too long before implementing as long as there are no dissenting remarks. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:; it's been a week now, so I'd say there's definitely been ample opportunity for somebody to comment here if they disagreed, so I think you'd be fine implementing this now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 2nd pass using rules #1-7 is complete. ~2790 redirects were made. Of the 16,444 asteroids numbered > 2000, 15,035 are now redirects. The 555 missing-meanings asteroids will be delt with later (next Tuesday). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Towards the beginning of the 2nd pass I saw that some asteroid pages which included the discoverer's information did not have the corresponding category. I figured out an easy way to make 431 AWB rules to made sure that asteroids which contained variants of "discovered by <name>" included one (or more) of the 431 corresponding "Category: Discoveries by <name>". I wish I had seen this opportunity sooner, but I applied it to all non-redirects at the time (~4100) and only made 41 additions. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Missing Meanings of Minor Planet Names
While going through the asteroids, I found that there are many Meanings of minor planet names which exist in Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (Google Books link) but not in the list pages. If someone here would want to put in and wikilink some of the missing meanings, that would be very helpful. Only a small phrase is necessary for each entry (i.e. 3905 Doppler: Christian Doppler, Austrian mathematician and physicist). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 19:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Trivia about names may be trivial, but it seems a shame to just lose it. Perhaps the bulk wipe should have bypassed articles with edits by non-bots? Or did I miss something? --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- If an asteroid page contains variants of "named/dedicated/honored after/for/in/to/for" etc., and no entry or a null entry exists in Meanings of minor planet names, then it doesn't get redirected (though when I started, I assumed all asteroid pages had at least a null entry in the meanings-list, which I found relatively early on not to be true). I'm asking for existing null entries in the list to be turned into a proper entry via a small phrase from Schmadel's DoMPN. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks. Missed the List of ... vs. Meanings of ... thing. Maybe there could be a cross-link in the headings of List of minor planets: 12001–13000 to Meanings of minor planet names: 12001–13000 etc. --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see that the Meanings link is at the bottom of the List of pages actually. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Below is a list of 555 redirect candidates that are missing a Meanings of minor planet names entry. The information on (probably) each asteroid's page is duplicated on the JPL/MPC databases, but I prefer not to redirect these pages until a complete Meanings entry exists on Wikipedia. Right now, they are distinguished from the redirected asteroid pages which have a Meanings entry, and I prefer to not relax the redirect criteria further, at least for now (unless everyone's ok with redirecting, iif the data exists on JPL/MPC).
- If you add the missing pages to a Meanings page, please feel free to
strikethrough <s>
what you've done. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
555 Missing Meanings of Minor Planet Names
Meanings of minor planet names: 3501–4000 is missing:
- 3524 Schulz, 3810 Aoraki, 3832 Shapiro, 3900 Knežević
Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500 is missing:
- 4134 Schütz, 4187 Shulnazaria, 4258 Ryazanov
Meanings of minor planet names: 4501–5000 is missing:
- 4576 Yanotoyohiko, 4632 Udagawa, 4662 Runk, 4663 Falta, 4686 Maisica, 4778 Fuss, 4779 Whitley, 4780 Polina, 4852 Pamjones, 4925 Zhoushan, 4948 Hideonishimura
Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–5500 is missing:
- 5277 Brisbane, 5289 Niemela
Meanings of minor planet names: 5501–6000 is missing:
- 5508 Gomyou, 5784 Yoron, 5821 Yukiomaeda, 5851 Inagawa, 5877 Toshimaihara, 5917 Chibasai, 5931 Zhvanetskij
Meanings of minor planet names: 6001–6500 is missing:
- 6180 Bystritskaya
Meanings of minor planet names: 6501–7000 is missing:
- 6536 Vysochinska, 6641 Bobross
Meanings of minor planet names: 7001–7500 is missing:
- 7356 Casagrande, 7365 Sejong, 7461 Kachmokiam
Meanings of minor planet names: 7501–8000 is missing:
- 7741 Fedoseev, 7897 Bohuška
Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–8500 is missing:
- 8117 Yuanlongping, 8134 Minin, 8142 Zolotov, 8145 Valujki, 8149 Ruff
Meanings of minor planet names: 8501–9000 is missing:
- 8530 Korbokkur
Meanings of minor planet names: 9501–10000 is missing:
- 9523 Torino
Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000 is missing:
- 10108 Tomlinson, 10116 Robertfranz, 10117 Tanikawa, 10142 Sakka, 10143 Kamogawa, 10146 Mukaitadashi, 10152 Ukichiro, 10160 Totoro, 10197 Senigalliesi, 10207 Comeniana, 10209 Izanaki, 10218 Bierstadt, 10283 Cromer, 10305 Grignard, 10617 Takumi, 10626 Zajíc, 10658 Gretadevries, 10664 Phemios, 10669 Herfordia, 10670 Seminozhenko, 10671 Mazurova, 10672 Kostyukova, 10675 Kharlamov, 10676 Jamesmcdanell, 10683 Carter, 10684 Babkina
Meanings of minor planet names: 11001–12000 is missing:
- 11059 Nulliusinverba, 11288 Okunohosomichi, 11295 Gustaflarsson, 11307 Erikolsson, 11361 Orbinskij, 11507 Danpascu, 11515 Oshijyo, 11856 Nicolabonev, 11907 Näränen, 11926 Orinoco, 11984 Manet
Meanings of minor planet names: 12001–13000 is missing:
- 12159 Bettybiegel, 12160 Karelwakker, 12161 Avienius, 12162 Bilderdijk, 12171 Johannink, 12172 Niekdekort, 12229 Paulsson, 12286 Poiseuille, 12358 Azzurra, 12408 Fujioka, 12432 Usuda, 12456 Genichiaraki, 12469 Katsuura, 12512 Split, 12541 Makarska, 12581 Rovinj, 12615 Mendesdeleon, 12623 Tawaddud, 12624 Mariacunitia, 12625 Koopman, 12626 Timmerman, 12627 Maryedwards, 12746 Yumeginga, 12819 Susumutakahasi, 12850 Axelmunthe, 12911 Goodhue, 12935 Zhengzhemin
Meanings of minor planet names: 13001–14000 is missing:
- 13003 Dickbeasley, 13017 Owakenoomi, 13037 Potosi, 13044 Wannes, 13045 Vermandere, 13053 Bertrandrussell, 13064 Haemhouts, 13069 Umbertoeco, 13079 Toots, 13079 Toots, 13097 Lamoraal, 13109 Berzelius, 13112 Montmorency, 13113 Williamyeats, 13114 Isabelgodin, 13115 Jeangodin, 13140 Shinchukai, 13156 Mannoucyo, 13163 Koyamachuya, 13178 Catalan, 13179 Johncochrane, 13188 Okinawa, 13209 Arnhem, 13213 Maclaurin, 13214 Chirikov, 13244 Dannymeyer, 13253 Stejneger, 13408 Deadoklestic, 13493 Lockwood, 13561 Kudogou, 13564 Kodomomiraikan, 13565 Yotakanashi, 13567 Urabe, 13576 Gotoyoshi, 13577 Ukawa, 13582 Tominari, 13605 Nakamuraminoru, 13608 Andosatoru, 13641 de Lesseps, 13650 Perimedes, 13654 Masuda, 13672 Tarski, 13679 Shinanogawa, 13686 Kongozan, 13787 Nagaishi, 13918 Tsukinada, 13978 Hiwasa
Meanings of minor planet names: 14001–15000 is missing:
- 14046 Keikai, 14339 Knorre, 14491 Hitachiomiya, 14492 Bistar, 14515 Koichisato, 14728 Schuchardt, 14739 Edgarchavez, 14818 Mindeli, 14819 Nikolaylaverov
Meanings of minor planet names: 15001–16000 is missing:
- 15007 Edoardopozio, 15028 Soushiyou, 15148 Michaelmaryott, 15199 Rodnyanskaya, 15212 Yaroslavl', 15246 Kumeta, 15248 Hidekazu, 15250 Nishiyamahiro, 15267 Kolyma, 15268 Wendelinefroger, 15295 Tante Riek, 15360 Moncalvo, 15368 Katsuji, 15407 Udakiyoo, 15669 Pshenichner, 15702 Olegkotov, 15785 de Villegas, 15917 Rosahavel, 15925 Rokycany
Meanings of minor planet names: 16001–17000 is missing:
- 16150 Clinch, 16368 Città di Alba, 16395 Ioannpravednyj, 16414 Le Procope, 16419 Kovalev, 16444 Godefroy, 16516 Efremlevitan, 16524 Hausmann, 16560 Daitor, 16711 Ka-Dar, 16869 Košinár
Meanings of minor planet names: 17001–18000 is missing:
- 17156 Kennethseitz, 17251 Vondracek, 17446 Mopaku, 17452 Amurreka, 17465 Inawashiroko, 17501 Tetsuro, 17502 Manabeseiji
Meanings of minor planet names: 18001–19000 is missing:
- 18161 Koshiishi, 18287 Verkin, 18294 Rudenko, 18335 San Cassiano, 18493 Demoleon, 18639 Aoyunzhiyuanzhe, 18731 Vil'bakirov, 18996 Torasan
Meanings of minor planet names: 19001–20000 is missing:
- 19132 Le Clézio, 19235 van Schurman, 19348 Cueca, 19353 Pierrethierry, 19366 Sudingqiang, 19386 Axelcronstedt, 19398 Creedence, 19400 Emileclaus, 19872 Chendonghua, 19873 Chentao, 19874 Liudongyan, 19919 Pogorelov
Meanings of minor planet names: 21001–22000 is missing:
- 21073 Darksky, 21160 Saveriolombardi, 21192 Seccisergio, 21284 Pandion, 21301 Zanin
Meanings of minor planet names: 22001–23000 is missing:
- 22032 Mikekoop, 22105 Pirko, 22184 Rudolfveltman, 22253 Sivers, 22429 Jurašek, 22612 Dandibner, 22613 Callander, 22616 Bogolyubov, 22617 Vidphananu, 22645 Rotblat, 22647 Lévi-Strauss, 22686 Mishchenko, 22706 Ganguly, 22723 Edlopez, 22724 Byatt, 22725 Drabble, 22730 Jacobhurwitz, 22736 Kamitaki, 22744 Esterantonucci, 22783 Teng, 22855 Donnajones
Meanings of minor planet names: 23001–24000 is missing:
- 23244 Lafayette, 23259 Miwadagakuen, 23401 Brodskaya, 23403 Boudewijnbuch, 23404 Bomans, 23409 Derzhavin, 23549 Epicles, 23571 Zuaboni, 23648 Kolář
Meanings of minor planet names: 24001–25000 is missing:
- 24087 Ciambetti, 24647 Maksimachev, 24754 Zellyfry, 24856 Messidoro, 24919 Teruyoshi
Meanings of minor planet names: 25001–26000 is missing:
- 25125 Brodallan, 25175 Lukeandraka, 25176 Thomasaunins, 25178 Shreebose, 25180 Kenyonconlin, 25182 Siddhawan, 25183 Grantfisher, 25184 Taylorgaines, 25189 Glockner, 25190 Thomasgoodin, 25191 Rachelouise, 25193 Taliagreene, 25198 Kylienicole, 25199 Jiahegu, 25212 Ayushgupta, 25256 Imbrie-Moore, 25257 Elizmakarron, 25264 Erickeen, 25266 Taylorkinyon, 25290 Vibhuti, 25294 Johnlaberee, 25298 Fionapaine, 25309 Chrisauer, 25312 Asiapossenti, 25321 Rohitsingh, 25322 Rebeccajean, 25326 Lawrencesun, 25333 Britwenger, 25348 Wisniowiecki, 25354 Zdasiuk, 25365 Bernreuter, 25366 Maureenbobo, 25367 Cicek, 25368 Gailcolwell, 25369 Dawndonovan, 25370 Karenfletch, 25371 Frangaley, 25372 Shanagarza, 25373 Gorsch, 25374 Harbrucker, 25376 Christikeen, 25377 Rolaberee, 25378 Erinlambert, 25381 Jerrynelson, 25402 Angelanorse, 25403 Carlapiazza, 25404 Shansample, 25405 Jeffwidder, 25406 Debwysocki, 25412 Arbesfeld, 25413 Dorischen, 25414 Cherkassky, 25415 Jocelyn, 25416 Chyanwen, 25417 Coquillette, 25418 Deshmukh, 25421 Gafaran, 25424 Gunasekaran, 25425 Chelsealynn, 25427 Kratchmarov, 25428 Lakhanpal, 25430 Ericlarson, 25432 Josepherli, 25455 Anissamak, 25456 Caitlinmann, 25457 Mariannamao, 25462 Haydenmetsky, 25464 Maxrabinovich, 25465 Rajagopalan, 25468 Ramakrishna, 25469 Ransohoff, 25475 Lizrao, 25476 Sealfon, 25477 Preyashah, 25478 Shrock, 25479 Ericshyu, 25481 Willjaysun, 25482 Tallapragada, 25483 Trusheim, 25486 Michaelwham, 25488 Figueiredo, 25490 Kevinkelly, 25492 Firnberg, 25495 Michaelroddy, 25497 Brauerman, 25509 Rodwong, 25510 Donvincent, 25512 Anncomins, 25513 Weseley, 25514 Lisawu, 25515 Briancarey, 25516 Davidknight, 25517 Davidlau, 25531 Lessek, 25538 Markcarlson, 25539 Roberthelm, 25541 Greathouse, 25542 Garabedian, 25543 Fruen, 25544 Renerogers, 25549 Jonsauer, 25551 Drewhall, 25552 Gaster, 25553 Ivanlafer, 25554 Jayaranjan, 25555 Ratnavarma, 25560 Chaihaoxi, 25561 Leehyunki, 25562 Limdarren, 25565 Lusiyang, 25566 Panying, 25570 Kesun, 25577 Wangmanqiang, 25580 Xuelai, 25584 Zhangnelson, 25607 Tsengiching, 25608 Hincapie, 25609 Bogantes, 25611 Mabellin, 25612 Yaoskalucia, 25613 Bubenicek, 25614 Jankral, 25615 Votroubek, 25616 Riinuots, 25617 Thomasnesch, 25619 Martonspohn, 25620 Jayaprakash, 25629 Mukherjee, 25630 Sarkar, 25636 Vaishnav, 25639 Fedina, 25640 Klintefelt, 25646 Noniearora, 25648 Baghel, 25650 Shaubakshi, 25652 Maddieball, 25653 Baskaran, 25655 Baupeter, 25656 Bejnood, 25657 Berkowitz, 25658 Bokor, 25659 Liboynton, 25662 Chonofsky, 25663 Nickmycroft, 25669 Kristinrose, 25670 Densley, 25673 Di Mascio, 25674 Kevinellis, 25676 Jesseellison, 25678 Ericfoss, 25679 Andrewguo, 25680 Walterhansen, 25683 Haochenhong, 25685 Katlinhornig, 25686 Stephoskins, 25688 Hritzo, 25689 Duannihuang, 25690 Iredale, 25693 Ishitani, 25695 Eileenjang, 25696 Kylejones, 25697 Kadiyala, 25698 Snehakannan, 25704 Kendrick, 25706 Cekoscielski, 25708 Vedantkumar, 25710 Petelandgren, 25711 Lebovits, 25714 Aprillee, 25715 Lizmariemako, 25717 Ritikmal, 25720 Mallidi, 25721 Anartya, 25722 Evanmarshall, 25723 Shamascharak, 25725 McCormick, 25744 Surajmishra, 25751 Mokshagundam, 25763 Naveenmurali, 25764 Divyanag, 25765 Heatherlynne, 25766 Nosarzewski, 25767 Stevennoyce, 25768 Nussbaum, 25769 Munaoli, 25772 Ashpatra, 25775 Danielpeng, 25781 Rajendra, 25783 Brandontyler, 25793 Chrisanchez, 25798 Reneeschaaf, 25799 Anmaschlegel, 25807 Baharshah, 25813 Savannahshaw, 25814 Preesinghal, 25815 Scottskirlo, 25817 Tahilramani, 25819 Tripathi, 25822 Carolinejune, 25823 Dentrujillo, 25824 Viviantsang, 25832 Van Scoyoc, 25834 Vechinski, 25836 Harishvemuri, 25870 Panchovigil, 25875 Wickramasekara, 25877 Katherinexue, 25878 Sihengyou, 25885 Wiesinger, 25899 Namratanand, 25901 Ericbrooks, 25903 Yuvalcalev, 25907 Capodilupo, 25912 Recawkwell, 25919 Comuniello, 25920 Templeanne, 25927 Jagandelman, 25931 Peterhu, 25933 Ruoyijiang, 25953 Lanairlett, 25962 Yifanli, 25963 Elisalin, 25964 Liudavid, 25965 Masihdas, 25970 Nelakanti, 25972 Pfefferjosh, 25973 Puranik, 25978 Katerudolph, 25981 Shahmirian, 25986 Sunanda, 25987 Katherynshi, 25988 Janesuh, 25992 Benjamensun, 25993 Kevinxu, 25994 Lynnelleye
Meanings of minor planet names: 26001–27000 is missing:
- 26002 Angelayeung, 26004 Loriying, 26007 Lindazhou, 26013 Amandalonzo, 26075 Levitsvet, 26127 Otakasakajyo, 26151 Irinokaigan, 26194 Chasolivier, 26223 Enari, 26232 Antink, 26233 Jimbraun, 26234 Leslibrinson, 26235 Annemaduggan, 26238 Elduval, 26240 Leigheriks, 26243 Sallyfenska, 26246 Mikelake, 26247 Doleonardi, 26248 Longenecker, 26250 Shaneludwig, 26251 Kiranmanne, 26255 Carmarques, 26259 Marzigliano, 26264 McIntyre, 26266 Andrewmerrill, 26267 Nickmorgan, 26268 Nardi, 26269 Marciaprill, 26271 Lindapuster, 26273 Kateschafer, 26291 Terristaples, 26293 Van Muyden, 26295 Vilardi, 26298 Dunweathers, 26300 Herbweiss, 26301 Hellawillis, 26302 Zimolzak, 26307 Friedafein, 26586 Harshaw, 26591 Robertreeves, 26665 Sidjena, 26793 Bolshoi
Meanings of minor planet names: 27001–28000 is missing:
- 27412 Teague, 27658 Dmitrijbagalej, 27827 Ukai, 27855 Giorgilli, 27865 Ludgerfroebel, 27938 Guislain, 27960 Dobiáš, 27967 Beppebianchi
Meanings of minor planet names: 28001–29000 is missing:
- 28341 Bingaman
Meanings of minor planet names: 29001–30000 is missing:
- 29199 Himeji, 29214 Apitzsch, 29249 Hiraizumi, 29250 Helmutmoritz, 29307 Torbernbergman, 29311 Lesire, 29483 Boeker, 29528 Kaplinski, 29568 Gobbi-Belcredi
Meanings of minor planet names: 84001–85000 is missing:
- 84951 Kenwilson
- I say go ahead and redirect them anyways; I don't view such information as important to preserve in the slightest, especially since a quick Google search will give the same thing. No big loss. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 3rd pass using rules #1-7, but relaxed rule #6, is complete. All but ~3 of the above 555 missing-meaning asteroids were redirected. ~3 of them had live AfDs so were not touched.
There should now be ~857 non-redirected asteroid articles numbered > 2000. The Astronomy cleanup listing is now down from 20% of all astro articles being marked for cleanup before I started to 10%.
I also went through all current asteroid redirects, adding ((R to list entry)) to ~3704, and propagating categories on ~45 uncategorized redirects (entirely-uncategorized redirects were actually in the minority). However, this doesn't mean that all redirects have all of their parent article's categories (but the ones I touched do). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Code: To facilitate the redirect process, I made an AWB module to increment and/or decrement any number on a page. I thought I'd share it here: User:Tom.Reding/Inc & Dec AWB Module. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Update 4th pass using the parent Category:Minor planets (instead of the child Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs) added 223 redirects and 1584 "keeps" numbered > 2000.
Of the 1584 keeps were 183 unnamed asteroids numbered > 2000 with only a preliminary designation (no final designation per JPL), and an additional 26 numbered <= 2000, for a total of 209. Therefore, they are without a list to redirect them to (that I know of). If anyone knows if there's a place to redirect these that would be helpful. Otherwise, some of these could actually be proper AfDs (@Boleyn:). I'll separate these 209 in #Summary of Remaining Redirected & Unredirected Asteroid Articles below. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Summary of Remaining Redirected & Unredirected Asteroid Articles
Asteroids in Category:Minor planets
|
# of redirects
|
# of non-redirects
|
Total
|
numbered <= 2000
|
71
|
1851
|
1922
|
numbered > 2000
|
15,594
|
1721*
|
17,315
|
unnumbered
|
2
|
209**
|
211
|
Total
|
15,667
|
3781
|
19,448
|
- Thank you for the number counts. But this is also why I think the largest asteroids of their type (such as 3737 Beckman) should not be re-directed. I have noticed that regardless of size (or absmag), all asteroids at CAT:NN are being sent to AfD. It looks to me like re-directing 80% of the bot created stubs with higher numbered asteroids has fixed the fundamental problem. (I was away from Wikipedia all March and April as I had to deal with multiple family emergencies.) -- Kheider (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, if the diameter was determined using the known (as opposed to assumed) albedo of the asteroid, or if the absmag is unusually bright or dim (and the albedo isn't yet known). To be safe,and easy I did not redirect asteroids with a diameter listed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
*1721 unredirected asteroid articles numbered > 2000
**209 unnumbered, unredirected asteroid articles
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you are NOT declaring open season on near-Earth asteroids which is a whole different concept than bot-generated numbered main-belt asteroids! -- Kheider (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, not specifically. However, there are ~12,500 known NEOs, and if a stub was made which met the criteria set above (links only to JPL/MPC, no non-JPL/MPC information in the article, no diameter measurement, etc.) should they not be redirects? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am assuming none of the unnumbered NEAs were bot-generated. I would think low-numbered NEAs would be notable as they would again be among the largest such asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Going through the 209 unredirected, unnamed asteroids above, only these
8 9 are legitimate redirect candidates: NEOs: 2001 YB5, 2003 BV35, 2003 RW11, 2007 OX, 2013 RH74, not-NEO: 1992 OV2, 2005 SA, 2005 SB, 2007 WX3. None are bot-generated. What are your thoughts on these?
- The first one on the list has numerous good hits with Google: I have crudely updated the article: 2001 YB5. But I agree most of those 8 are probably not very noteworthy. -- Kheider (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- 2001 SG286 and 2002 DH2 were redirected to List of Apollo asteroids by Exoplanetaryscience, for example, which to me is a better alternative to deletion, but that's the only alternative I'm aware of. There are some asteroids which get perturbed and migrate to other named groups, but presumably that would make them notable enough to have that information in the article already (which none have). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- What if, instead of deleting the content and redirecting to the list, the asteroids' content is still kept, but additionally with a redirect. I'm assuming that the main problem with deleting/redirecting these articles is the loss of data on these asteroids, but doing this would remove unnecessary articles from the main part of wikipedia, but still be accessible for later updates by users, and if they achieve notability later, instead of having to revert old edits, one simply has to remove the redirect at the top. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support WP:REDIRECT says "A redirect is a page that has no content itself but sends the reader to another page", but I like the idea as an occasional exception if others here agree, and ((R with possibilities)) can be added to make the intention more clear. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, this is a bit off-topic, but considering you were able to create this list of asteroids, I'm assuming you're using a program to find/make the list. Would it be possible to use a similar program to sort every numbered asteroid into Category:Numbered asteroids? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely! I'm using AWB's category-recursion, tweaking the settings to process the category's articles fully-autonomously, then taking what I need from the log files to make these lists. Do you want a list of all the numbered asteroids in, say, Category:Minor planets for you to then make a bot request to add that category? I have that handy right now. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, if that works. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- In case anyone else is interested: User:Exoplanetaryscience/List of numbered asteroids. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 13:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Certainly better than just deleting other wise usable content. But a lot of deletionists may not like the extra cut&paste work required. I still think the best idea is that for asteroids that have "wiki-defined" borderline notability, just keep the largest 20-50 asteroids of a certain type as that will still eliminate most of them. -- Kheider (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looking through Asteroid spectral types, very few asteroid-type pages list their largest (or any) members. Is there an "easy" way to find/determine/and then list which are the largest 20-50 asteroids of each type, to then make it easier for someone to use this criteria? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, a reasonable compromise. This way, we follow WP:NASTRO, but if the asteroid becomes notable in the future, it is trivial to remake it into an article. However, I think probably only the largest 10 of each type should be considered notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I made a list page of 376 candidates (for now) at User:Tom.Reding/Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates, so we're all on the same page (figuratively & literally), and so we're not doing more work than is needed. Now, have at it! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 07:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If anyone sees some borderline cases, feel free to add them. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 08:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Only ~58 "unchecked" candidates remaining! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
There are some improvements to implement and inconsistencies to iron out in the sea of MP #Rs that Rfassbind and I have been talking about that have built up enough for another run. I'll summarize them here from my talk page for further discussion/FYI:
- Remove uses of ((Redr)): Only affects a small % of MP #Rs; convert to list of
((R from ...))
templates, which are easier to search for, add, and remove than their ((Redr)) counterparts.
- ((NASTRO comment)): Replace the original, hard-coded
<!--Before reverting this redirect into an article, [...]-->
comment with the much nicer, much more obvious, much easier to change ((NASTRO comment)), per WP:NASTRO#Dealing with minor planets. (applicable to ~98–99% of MP #Rs)
- Cat-Renaming Asteroid→Minor planet: Not in this run; much broader scope than intended here.
- Add an empty line after
#REDIRECT [[...]]
: Per all examples on WP:Redirect, WP:REDCAT, ((Redr)), ((R to list entry)), ((R to anchor)), etc., etc. Not sure why, but it is a standard. (for readability) (unknown % of MP #Rs, but guessing >= 50%)
- Finer anchors (increment by #10 or by #1?): Incrementing anchors by #100 MPs is a bit too coarse, and is a relic from when 100-entry subpages existed. Now that each page has 1000 entries, anchors incremented by #10 seems like a good compromise between what exists and adding more text to the List of minor planets pages.
I'd like to hear what more people think about #1 vs. #10, both in terms of page size increase, and in terms of which is more natural/easy to see/aesthetically pleasing/etc.
As for page size increases:
- #1 anchors (
id=001
, id=002
, id=003
, etc.) add:
990 new anchors × 6 bytes/anchor = 5,940 b = 5.801 kB
,
or 0.86% of the current list-page size of ~675 kB.
Also easier/more straight-forward to implement/check/etc.
Will start this today. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Prep done. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- #10 anchors (
id=001
, id=011
, id=021
, etc.) add:
80 new anchors × 6 bytes/anchor = 480 b = 0.469 kB
,
or 0.07% of the current list-page size of ~675 kB.
Not done. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Add #R templates/replace redundant #R templates:
- ((R to anchor)) auto-populates ((R unprintworthy)); ensure the former exists but not the latter, via fix #2.
Now would be a good time to add any others. 'Default' templates can be added at any time to ((NASTRO comment)) (fix #2).
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- For point 4, it is just a recommended style. From WP:REDCAT, For clarity, all category links should be added at the end of the page, after the redirect statement and rcat(s). Use of blank lines between these promotes readability of the code. --Mark viking (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thx Tom for the introduction/summary:
- no Redr-templates. Agreed. However, I'll make an alternative proposal below.
- new NASTRO-comment template: the recently revised template has now a clickable link to WP:NASTRO. Maybe there are some more improvements to make? E.g for those ~2,000 newly created #R, the text passage "before reverting this redirect" does not make a lot of sense.
- category-rename: this is a big one. There are many categories with an unfortunate naming. E.g "Discoverers of asteroids" and "Discoverers of minor planets" (not used in MP#Rs) both make sense but bite each other: what about an astronomer that discovered both main-belt asteroids and trans-Neptunian objects? What about an astronomer that discovered 327 minor planets; who's going to verify each and every item to make sure that all are asteroids?
- Anchors in LOMP (list of minor planets). I'm fine with 1-step rather than 10-step anchors. I've come to the conclusion, that my initial 10-er proposal is unpractical for several reasons... I was simply wrong. Maybe there is an elegant way to set staggered anchors in the LOMP-table, so that the referred table row is not at the uppermost edge of the screen... ? As to the empty 2nd line, the Redr template states "please leave this line blank for emphasis and ease of reading by editors", which makes sense to me.
Proposal, yesterday I was thinking about an integrated NASTRO-comment template (see not so serious example in the sandbox). I feel like we should only have one single template for all MP#Rs, with some additional parameters, so future changes would be much simpler. Of course this somehow might complicate an easy search.. but it would make things so much easier, wouldn't it?! Rfassbind – talk 17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- For #2, I changed ((NASTRO comment))'s
Before reverting this redirect
to Before turning this redirect
(it feels so good having templates around).
- As for an all-inclusive NASTRO/MP#R template, that's an interesting idea worth considering. I'm not familiar enough with template recursion to know what the problems may be. Hopefully others can chime in. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the ((NASTRO comment)), instead of a hardcoded
Before turning this redirect
, we could use a dynamically displayed Before turning '''((bigger|((PAGENAME)))) '''
(see example for recent MP#R 6018 Pierssac). As for the proposed all-in-one NASTRO-template, I don't know if it's feasible, either ("recursion"), but since you're an template-editor, I'm confident you'll figure it out soon. Rfassbind – talk 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- No problems found recursing.
- An all-in-one template would have the 2 'default' R templates (((R to list entry)) & ((R to anchor))). While first going through the MP#Rs there was an incredible amount of inconsistency, and one of those inconsistencies was a missing anchor. We and others have cleaned that up, but I'm worried (albeit a small worry) that pages including the all-in-one template may omit the anchor (i.e. by an editor not familiar with the template or simply careless) leading to miscategorized pages. This can apply to any of the templates we deem 'default'. In other words, having the individual R templates visible makes it easier to see & check the page, but harder to manage (editing many, many pages instead of just 1). If this isn't a concern for you or anyone else, or the pros outweight the cons, then I'll incorporate it into the run. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say an incredible amount of inconsistencies, since we both have invested so much time and energy in the last, say 8 months, to considerably improve minor planet redirects (MP#Rs) and related things (categories and #R-target pages). There are indeed some changes we both have made in the process (such as the usage of the unprintworthy, the anchor, and now the NASTRO-comment template). This is exactly why such an all-in-one template (AIO-tpl) would be of great help, since every time we make up our mind for a better solution we wouldn't need to update 20 thousand redirects.
- However an AIO-tpl should also include about 2000+ avoided double redirects (moved from provisional, title without diacritical marks, incorrect name, alternative spelling) with the corresponding
<!-- Do not categorize this page, to avoid duplication. -->
and an additional name-parameter for the correct name. I think it is not that difficult to create such an AIO-tpl, but we need to agree on that first. Rfassbind – talk 20:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree for adding a parameter for the 'avoid double redirect' comment, perhaps
|do-not-cat=yes
or |dont-cat=yes
? This would then replace the usual NASTRO comment with the "don't cat" one (I like the one you made in the sandbox).
- I don't agree on having another parameter which accepts the correct name, for 2 reasons:
- The correct name should already exist in the appropriate R template (avoided double redirect, incorrect name, etc.), so including it somewhere else is another, and unnecessary, source of error.
- I wouldn't want to include those secondary R templates (avoided double redirect, incorrect name, etc.) in the AIO-tpl (which might otherwise be seen as the next appropriate thing to do), since those are in the minority, and doing so doesn't make managing any easier (i.e. each page still needs to be edited/checked individually for either the R template or for the correct R-template-parameter).
- ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, let's forget about an all-in-one template, that's fine with me. I see you already implemented all missing anchors, well done. If you want me to file a bot-request or adjust the example at WP:DWMP, just let me know. Thx Rfassbind – talk 12:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm starting this today so no need. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Done 21,484 MP #Rs updated, 2924 MP articles skipped. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
See User talk: Tom.Reding#Revise unhelpful potatoes MP#R. Adding it here FYI & for posterity under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive table of asteroids 1 (eventually) to elucidate the immense saga. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)