Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive table of asteroids 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asteroid stubs

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)

ANI: Minor planets articles

The discussion has been archived here. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll: Automated stub redirection

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)

Articles for Redirect

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
  1. 10443 van der Pol
  2. 11027 Astaf'ev
  3. 11072 Hiraoka
  4. 11118 Modra
  5. 11496 Grass
  6. 11509 Thersilochos
  7. 11836 Eileen
  8. 11868 Kleinrichert
  9. 11978 Makotomasako
  10. 12016 Green
  11. 12071 Davykim
  12. 12238 Actor
  13. 1233 Kobresia
  14. 1242 Zambesia
  15. 1243 Pamela
  16. 1244 Deira
  17. 1249 Rutherfordia
  18. 1250 Galanthus
  19. 12527 Anneraugh
  20. 1255 Schilowa
  21. 1261 Legia
  22. 1267 Geertruida
  23. 1281 Jeanne
  24. 12845 Crick
  25. 12895 Balbastre
  26. 1291 Phryne
  27. 13014 Hasslacher
  28. 13154 Petermrva
  29. 13260 Sabadell
  30. 1328 Devota
  31. 1337 Gerarda
  32. 1340 Yvette
  33. 1346 Gotha
  34. 1347 Patria
  35. 13482 Igorfedorov
  36. 1349 Bechuana
  37. 13533 Junili
  38. 1354 Botha
  39. 1356 Nyanza
  40. 1364 Safara
  41. 1366 Piccolo
  42. 1368 Numidia
  43. 13732 Woodall
  44. 1378 Leonce
  45. 1379 Lomonosowa
  46. 13806 Darmstrong
  47. 1382 Gerti
  48. 1389 Onnie
  49. 13906 Shunda
  50. 1392 Pierre
  51. 13921 Sgarbini
  52. 1393 Sofala
  53. 1397 Umtata
  54. 13977 Frisch
  55. 1405 Sibelius
  56. 1409 Isko
  57. 14141 Demeautis
  58. 14164 Hennigar
  59. 1419 Danzig
  60. 1425 Tuorla
  61. 1426 Riviera
  62. 1429 Pemba
  63. 1430 Somalia
  64. 1431 Luanda
  65. 14335 Alexosipov
  66. 1434 Margot
  67. 14342 Iglika
  68. 1452 Hunnia
  69. 1460 Haltia
  70. 14643 Morata
  71. 14659 Gregoriana
  72. 1477 Bonsdorffia
  73. 14835 Holdridge
  74. 1496 Turku
  75. 1504 Lappeenranta
  76. 15107 Toepperwein
  77. 1522 Kokkola
  78. 1524 Joensuu
  79. 1532 Inari
  80. 1533 Saimaa
  81. 15350 Naganuma
  82. 15374 Teta
  83. 1540 Kevola
  84. 15415 Rika
  85. 1543 Bourgeois
  86. 1576 Fabiola
  87. 1585 Union
  88. 1609 Brenda
  89. 1611 Beyer
  90. 1628 Strobel
  91. 1644 Rafita
  92. 1646 Rosseland
  93. 1648 Shajna
  94. 1665 Gaby
  95. 1669 Dagmar
  96. 1672 Gezelle
  97. 1682 Karel
  98. 1688 Wilkens
  99. 17035 Velichko
  100. 1707 Chantal
  101. 17079 Lavrovsky
  102. 1709 Ukraina
  103. 1710 Gothard
  104. 1712 Angola
  105. 1718 Namibia
  106. 17198 Gorjup
  107. 1720 Niels
  108. 1722 Goffin
  109. 1731 Smuts
  110. 1735 ITA
  111. 1753 Mieke
  112. 1754 Cunningham
  113. 1757 Porvoo
  114. 1759 Kienle
  115. 17683 Kanagawa
  116. 1789 Dobrovolsky
  117. 1800 Aguilar
  118. 1801 Titicaca
  119. 1803 Zwicky
  120. 1804 Chebotarev
  121. 1805 Dirikis
  122. 1837 Osita
  123. 1842 Hynek
  124. 1873 Agenor
  125. 1877 Marsden
  126. 1879 Broederstroom
  127. 18874 Raoulbehrend
  128. 1897 Hind
  129. 1902 Shaposhnikov
  130. 1907 Rudneva
  131. 1928 Summa
  132. 1933 Tinchen
  133. 19379 Labrecque
  134. 1939 Loretta
  135. 1941 Wild
  136. 1946 Walraven
  137. 1956 Artek
  138. 1957 Angara
  139. 1960 Guisan
  140. 1961 Dufour
  141. 19763 Klimesh
  142. 1995 Hajek
  143. 19982 Barbaradoore
  144. 2003 Harding
  145. 2013 Tucapel
  146. 2017 Wesson
  147. 2049 Grietje
  148. 2054 Gawain
  149. 20571 Tiamorrison
  150. 2080 Jihlava
  151. 2084 Okayama
  152. 20898 Fountainhills
  153. 2091 Sampo
  154. 2109 Dhotel
  155. 2111 Tselina
  156. 2113 Ehrdni
  157. 2139 Makharadze
  158. 2140 Kemerovo
  159. 21436 Chaoyichi
  160. 2156 Kate
  161. 21609 Williamcaleb
  162. 21652 Vasishtha
  163. 21705 Subinmin
  164. 2175 Andrea Doria
  165. 2186 Keldysh
  166. 2187 La Silla
  167. 2197 Shanghai
  168. 22338 Janemojo
  169. 2253 Espinette
  170. 2259 Sofievka
  171. 22603 Davidoconnor
  172. 2274 Ehrsson
  173. 2276 Warck
  174. 22776 Matossian
  175. 2285 Ron Helin
  176. 2292 Seili
  177. 2293 Guernica
  178. 22988 Jimmyhom
  179. 2301 Whitford
  180. 2302 Florya
  181. 2304 Slavia
  182. 2323 Zverev
  183. 2338 Bokhan
  184. 2339 Anacreon
  185. 2364 Seillier
  186. 23712 Willpatrick
  187. 2381 Landi
  188. 2385 Mustel
  189. 2398 Jilin
  190. 24101 Cassini
  191. 2415 Ganesa
  192. 2416 Sharonov
  193. 2422 Perovskaya
  194. 2433 Sootiyo
  195. 2442 Corbett
  196. 2443 Tomeileen
  197. 24643 MacCready
  198. 2474 Ruby
  199. 2477 Biryukov
  200. 2480 Papanov
  201. 2483 Guinevere
  202. 2490 Bussolini
  203. 2523 Ryba
  204. 2524 Budovicium
  205. 2529 Rockwell Kent
  206. 2543 Machado
  207. 2545 Verbiest
  208. 2563 Boyarchuk
  209. 2572 Annschnell
  210. 2591 Dworetsky
  211. 2624 Samitchell
  212. 2637 Bobrovnikoff
  213. 2649 Oongaq
  214. 2669 Shostakovich
  215. 2687 Tortali
  216. 26879 Haines
  217. 2713 Luxembourg
  218. 2714 Matti
  219. 2760 Kacha
  220. 2774 Tenojoki
  221. 2779 Mary
  222. 2783 Chernyshevskij
  223. 2785 Sedov
  224. 2794 Kulik
  225. 2796 Kron
  226. 2832 Lada
  227. 2862 Vavilov
  228. 2880 Nihondaira
  229. 2893 Peiroos
  230. 2895 Memnon
  231. 2896 Preiss
  232. 2937 Gibbs
  233. 2939 Coconino
  234. 2942 Cordie
  235. 2943 Heinrich
  236. 2945 Zanstra
  237. 2960 Ohtaki
  238. 2981 Chagall
  239. 2991 Bilbo
  240. 2993 Wendy
  241. 2995 Taratuta
  242. 3005 Pervictoralex
  243. 3025 Higson
  244. 3052 Herzen
  245. 3068 Khanina
  246. 3076 Garber
  247. 3080 Moisseiev
  248. 3099 Hergenrother
  249. 3101 Goldberger
  250. 3109 Machin
  251. 3111 Misuzu
  252. 3116 Goodricke
  253. 3133 Sendai
  254. 3134 Kostinsky
  255. 3141 Buchar
  256. 3176 Paolicchi
  257. 3178 Yoshitsune
  258. 3186 Manuilova
  259. 31956 Wald
  260. 3212 Agricola
  261. 3247 Di Martino
  262. 3267 Glo
  263. 3268 De Sanctis
  264. 3284 Niebuhr
  265. 3290 Azabu
  266. 3300 McGlasson
  267. 3332 Raksha
  268. 3370 Kohsai
  269. 3402 Wisdom
  270. 3403 Tammy
  271. 3444 Stepanian
  272. 3485 Barucci
  273. 35062 Sakuranosyou
  274. 3514 Hooke
  275. 3525 Paul
  276. 3557 Sokolsky
  277. 3590 Holst
  278. 3597 Kakkuri
  279. 3617 Eicher
  280. 3631 Sigyn
  281. 3637 O'Meara
  282. 3638 Davis
  283. 3651 Friedman
  284. 3657 Ermolova
  285. 3675 Kemstach
  286. 3685 Derdenye
  287. 3724 Annenskij
  288. 3725 Valsecchi
  289. 3729 Yangzhou
  290. 3731 Hancock
  291. 3761 Romanskaya
  292. 3785 Kitami
  293. 3790 Raywilson
  294. 3794 Sthenelos
  295. 3801 Thrasymedes
  296. 3807 Pagels
  297. 3811 Karma
  298. 3843 OISCA
  299. 3855 Pasasymphonia
  300. 3872 Akirafujii
  301. 3880 Kaiserman
  302. 3888 Hoyt
  303. 3906 Chao
  304. 3918 Brel
  305. 3923 Radzievskij
  306. 3924 Birch
  307. 3935 Toatenmongakkai
  308. 3936 Elst
  309. 3953 Perth
  310. 3960 Chaliubieju
  311. 3968 Koptelov
  312. 39741 Komm
  313. 3986 Rozhkovskij
  314. 4007 Euryalos
  315. 4008 Corbin
  316. 4045 Lowengrub
  317. 4057 Demophon
  318. 4085 Weir
  319. 4112 Hrabal
  320. 4162 SAF
  321. 4169 Celsius
  322. 4172 Rochefort
  323. 4174 Pikulia
  324. 4190 Kvasnica
  325. 4196 Shuya
  326. 4201 Orosz
  327. 4204 Barsig
  328. 4214 Veralynn
  329. 4224 Susa
  330. 4226 Damiaan
  331. 4255 Spacewatch
  332. 4263 Abashiri
  333. 4289 Biwako
  334. 4294 Horatius
  335. 4308 Magarach
  336. 4317 Garibaldi
  337. 4323 Hortulus
  338. 4423 Golden
  339. 4457 van Gogh
  340. 4467 Kaidanovskij
  341. 4498 Shinkoyama
  342. 4502 Elizabethann
  343. 4505 Okamura
  344. 4509 Gorbatskij
  345. 4703 Kagoshima
  346. 4712 Iwaizumi
  347. 4722 Agelaos
  348. 4741 Leskov
  349. 4754 Panthoos
  350. 4773 Hayakawa
  351. 4791 Iphidamas
  352. 4792 Lykaon
  353. 4806 Miho
  354. 4816 Connelly
  355. 4827 Dares
  356. 4828 Misenus
  357. 4832 Palinurus
  358. 4833 Meges
  359. 4836 Medon
  360. 4863 Yasutani
  361. 4867 Polites
  362. 4894 Ask
  363. 4946 Askalaphus

Let's not leave them here. Where should we put them? Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How this list was created

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)

Minor planet stubs

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)

Notability of asteroid stubs

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)

Minor planets

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)

Minor planet redirection bot?

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)

Meanings of minor planet names

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)

Minor planet redirects from March 2014

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):

  1. Revert these ~300 redirects, restoring the stub articles?
  2. Do nothing?
  3. 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) checkY
  • asteroid stubs created by either ClueBot II or Merovingian checkY
  • asteroid stubs < 2000 bytes (with only 15 exceptions, the largest being 3469 b) checkY
  • 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)

Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000

StringTheory11 made a bot request (never performed and aspects previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here) with the following criteria (verbatim):

  1. Article has one or no external links.
  2. Article was created by the users ClueBot II or Merovingian
  3. Article is less than 2000 bytes
  4. 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)
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)

  ~ 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)

Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates

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)

MP #R cleanup

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:

  1. 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.
  2. {{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)
  3. Cat-Renaming Asteroid→Minor planet: Not in this run; much broader scope than intended here.
  4. 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%)
  5. 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. #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)
    2. #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)
  6. Add #R templates/replace redundant #R templates:
    1. {{R to anchor}} auto-populates {{R unprintworthy}}; ensure the former exists but not the latter, via fix #2.
    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:

  1. no Redr-templates. Agreed. However, I'll make an alternative proposal below.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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)

Template:Partial minor planet designation created

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_table_of_asteroids_1&oldid=1162395753"