Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposal for new asteroid notability definitions

Since the Notability guidelines have been added for minor planets, there's been quite a bit of discussion on what actually defines an asteroid as notable, or not, and by the description included in WP:NASTRO, it might appear that only about 1000 or so of the 20000+ asteroid articles would pass NASTRO (only 5%). As such, the effort to remove all other asteroid articles would be pointless. As such I propose a new definition of Asteroid notability: All asteroids with a name assigned to them, and/or making frequent close approaches (<0.1 AU) to Eart, and/or orbiting outside the conventionally described Asteroid Belt, and with an uncertainty parameter above (below) 9. This leaves most of the asteroids failing WP:NASTRO and waiting to be deleted (which is an extremely long waiting list) accepted, while not including asteroids with poorly-determined orbits, completely non-notable numbered asteroids in the asteroid belt (like (6618) 1936 SO). In addition, it allows the inclusion of recently-discovered objects, and objects which are on their own notable, but belong to a group so large that they alone do not have any particular study to them. How does this sound? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Attaching a name to an asteroid doesn't render it notable, per WP:INHERITED. So retaining named asteroids would fly in the face of WP:NOTE, which this guideline is supposed to supplement. I'm not clear that the remainder of the proposal is particularly helpful. For example, recent discovery does not make an asteroid notable. Praemonitus (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Well currently there are around 700,000 known asteroids in the solar system, ~99% of which were discovered in the last two decades. Beyond these, very few asteroids are named. My purpose for keeping named asteroids isn't necessarily relating to WP:INHERITED because it's not whether the names are notable that makes the asteroids important, but rather the fact that current qualifications for asteroid notability are quite vague in comparison, and a 'named' qualification would provide a more meaningful difference, as it is implied that in naming the asteroid that sufficient study of it over other asteroids was made on it. Additionally, I was not saying that an asteroid is notable simply because it was discovered recently, but the current WP:NASTRO qualifications say nothing about notability of asteroids because of anything about them themselves, but rather whether they were studied by anything of note, so technically WP:NASTRO itself violates WP:INHERITED. By its definitions, a particularly large asteroid orbiting in the Kuiper Belt isn't notable unless people happen to notice it and it starts appearing on news websites. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid size does matter

I am one of the original NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. From roughly 2004 to around 2008, more than 19,000 main-belt asteroid articles were created by bots and this lead some Wikipedians to despise asteroid stubs. (15,000+ of these are now re-directs.) When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. There are about 500 main-belt asteroids more than 50 km in diameter and main-belt asteroids more than ~50km in diameter should deserve an article as they are much less WP:Run-of-the-mill. (For an example of when orbits are important, asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article.) It is potentially damaging to the project to delete/re-direct 50km main-belt asteroids when Wikipedia still has numerous computer-generated stubs about main-belt asteroids that are much less than ~10km in diameter. Re-directing larger objects makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article as they will not know how to undo a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest amending NASTRO Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical_objects)#Dealing with minor planets to state, "Main-belt asteroids more than 50km in diameter are more notable for their size. For example, 3754 Kathleen is the last numbered main-belt asteroid to be listed in the JPL SBDB as more than 50km in diameter. Smaller main-belt asteroids may be notable for other reasons." NASTRO currently does not say anything very useful about what criteria should be used by the layperson to better determine which bot generated main-belt asteroid articles are likely to be more notable. There also has been a large number of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts by Boleyn (talk) since April. I fear some people may use this to make a WP:POINT and AFD is not cleanup. The astronomy project needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. -- Kheider (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the following qualifications should be mandatory for the inclusion of asteroids, and any asteroid articles with at least one or two of these criteria can not be, unless under speciall circumstances, deleted.
  • at least 50 kilometers in diameter
  • Asteroids with an Earth MOID of less than 1 lunar distance
  • Asteroids with (as you said) a 0.01% chance of impacting the Earth
  • PHAs that will pass within 5 LD of Earth in the near future (~50 years)
  • All asteroids that are known to make a close approach of less than 1 LD in the future that have been observed at least one opposition prior to this close approach.
  • Asteroids with known spectral types, diameters, masses, moons, occultation observations, or rotation periods.
  • Asteroids in unusual orbits with sufficient orbital certainty that the unusual nature of their orbits are nearly certain
  • All TNOs larger than 20 kilometers
  • All TNOs with high inclinations/eccentricities
  • All TNOs relatively certain to be members of the Haumea family
  • All Jupiter Trojans larger than 20 kilometers
  • All non-jupiter planetary trojans of any size
  • Main-belt asteroids that have been imaged by a spacecraft with sufficient detail to resolve to more than a couple of pixels
  • Main-belt asteroids that have been discovered, subsequently lost, and rediscovered more than 30 years later.
  • Any object that has a higher than 0.1% chance of impacting another object in the future
  • All asteroids that are likely members of a confirmed asteroid family.
  • All asteroids that mark a milestone discovery
  • All of the first 1000 numbered asteroids.
exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't get this. If an article only gets created by a bot, it seems obvious to me that the subject of the article is very unlikely to be notable. Also, defining notability guidelines in terms of the size, orbit, or anything else about any object is clearly inconsistent with WP:N. What's wrong with a simple application of WP:GNG? In particular, an object must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be notable. Any object that doesn't meet that guideline should be in a list, possibly with a redirect, rather than its own article. The secondary source requirement would knock out the vast majority of asteroids. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, some of the asteroid articles (especially lower numbered ones) created by a bot are notable even if a human did not create a wiki-article before a bot did. Secondly, significant coverage is poorly defined. Can an article in the News media count as significant coverage? There needs to be some kind of simple rule(s) that will keep non-astro Wikipedians from causing the appearance of disruptive behavior. The asteroids that seem to be causing 99% of Wikipedia's laments are main-belt asteroid articles created by bots. Having some kind of a lowered bound on the diameter would help prevent excessive re-directs. Obviously a main-belt asteroid may be notable for other reasons. -- Kheider (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issue with that would be that 99% of asteroids currently with articles would fail that. Except for perhaps a few hundred, essentially every asteroid with anything of note wouldn't be included unless someone happened to notice it and make a magazine article out of it. Of course WP:GNG would work well for people, places, things, and ideas on Earth, because those are well-represented and there's a more specific defining line between notability and non-notability in them, but of all the nearly 5 million articles on wikipedia, only a small portion of them are asteroids, a smaller portion of which would qualify by your standards. Why shouldn't a 50 kilometer wide asteroid have an article, and a Football player for the Kiel Baltic Hurricanes or an Ephemeral stream or A city with not even 500 people living in it should? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"...every asteroid with anything of note..." implies these asteroids have been noted, so where? It doesn't matter whether it was a magazine article, or if it was a detailed individual study from a scientific journal. If the coverage was significant enough, which NASTRO does define, then I'm not clear why asteroids should be held to a different standard than other objects on this regard. I have no problem with 99% of the asteroids with articles failing GNG and being deleted. However, I agree with Kheider that we should perhaps update NASTRO with a specific minimum standard to help alleviate the problems at AfD - NOT the big list Exoplanetaryscience provided because it's too long and many will overlap - but something more like Kheider's suggested size minimum since it would encompass nearly all the big asteroids and the ones that have been studied extensively. All the others can pass or fall on NASTRO's other criteria, or GNG alone as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That could work very well. My list was simply a preliminary idea of all the asteroids that wouldn't qualify otherwise using notability qualifications based on the level of study of an asteroid. However I think if any asteroid's article can say anything more than "[asteroid] is an asteroid in [orbit] discovered on [date] by [person/survey]" at least deserves consideration for an article. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there even such a problem with asteroids that most of their articles must be deleted? Besides being stubs, which I wasn't aware was that much of a problem considering most articles on wikipedia are stubs, the majority of them include useful information, and while often slightly repetitive, will it harm anyone to have them there? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But the examples you provide are instructive. I think it's fair to say that, at the least, Oliver Beeck's notability is not established sufficiently in the article to survive an AfD. Ash Fork, Arizona, on the other hand, has a number of references which specifically discuss it (not just include it in a list, eg the Census), so it plainly does meet WP:GNG. I just don't see why we should enshrine a guideline that is far, far more inclusive for asteroids than anything else. Designing criteria that are based on some fact about the asteroid instead of coverage in reliable sources is plainly against Wikipedia policy (not guidelines). If there isn't a source that is primarily about the asteroid, it shouldn't have its own article here either. If there is a source about an asteroid, then it survives. Easy enough. How is a size-based minimum for notability based on coverage in sources?
I'm not really involved in asteroid articles, so I've said my piece and will probably drop out. But I encourage you to think about whether the process you're following for determining notability is following sources or conducting original research; to me, it seems awfully hard to argue that a criterion based on some trait of the object rather than coverage in sources is anything but original research. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The JPL small body database very seldom includes size information for small "main-belt asteroids" (MBAs) and only 2038 MBAs (of 616000 MBAs) have JPL size data. 3754 Kathleen is the last numbered MBA known to be more than 50km in diameter. The 1000s of main-belt asteroid articles created by bots is the source of the whole Wikipedia asteroid controversy. There are those like Chrisrus that simply want to delete as many asteroid article as they can. So I am asking for support for my 50km MBA-size idea to help clean-up the mess created by bots many years ago without harming the project. -- Kheider (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a size cutoff like 50 km can be a useful criterion in cleaning up after a bot. (Who approved a bot to create articles in the first place? That certainly sounds like it shouldn't have been done.) But it seems to me like it should just be a shortcut and that the fundamental criterion established in a guideline like this one should be closely related to WP:GNG. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that non-astro Wikipedians seem to be deciding what low numbered asteroids show be re-directed, and I do not think that is in this projects best interest. Different bots auto-created 10,000+ articles from around 2004 through 2008 (of which most were main-belt asteroids). Until this guide was created there was no way for Wikipedians to attack any asteroid stub as they were all treated as inherent notability. At least currently, Wikipedia should not be re-directing main belt asteroids that are more than 50 km in diameter when there are still many thousand main-belt stubs for asteroids less than ~10km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, this is a guideline to supplement WP:Notability, not to override it. Whatever is presented here is mainly useful as a filter for satisfying the notability guideline. The guideline is based on how much attention a subject has gained from the world—not from how important you may deem it. The size of an asteroid doesn't matter if it isn't accompanied by significant coverage. If the object is important to astronomy, then shouldn't it have received more coverage? Praemonitus (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you group studies by notable or non-notable astronomers are not written with Wikipedia:Notability in mind. Certainly the size of an asteroid should be considered when arbitrarily determining borderline cases as the larger asteroids of each type are not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Wikipedia needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water just because some people may want to re-direct as many bot-created numbered asteroids as possible. -- Kheider (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose adding large numbers of arbitrary and ad-hoc numerical criteria to this standard. The main basis for notability should be what it always has been: has someone actually taken note of the object, as evidenced by reliable sources that cover the object in-depth. A number is not a source and does not convey notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes without consensus

  • Oppose I repeatedly find disgusting your attempt to assert ownership of this article. You do not decide what it says, and your contributions at its inception, whatever they were, have no bearing on the merits of your argument. This set of diffs here over the past week, [1], while you were attempting to use the text you added to the policy as support in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald is without a doubt disruptive editing. Your assumptions about other editors' interest in Astronomy are baseless and irrelevant. ― Padenton|✉   20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You find trying to have a conversation with me disgusting? Thanks. I have been in involved in NASTRO with numerous editors for more than 3 years. I do not know of many (if any) editors that find working with me to be disgusting. You might have better luck if you pretend to be friendly. Please do NOT revert my edits to NASTRO as I did not change anything that is not accepted practice for the last 12 months or more. Most of my edits were to better explain existing policy. What specific practice/policy do you think I changed? I do not recall adding any requirement to NASTRO about asteroids more than 50km in diameter. You might also want to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000. -- Kheider (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
[2] These changes have no support from consensus. You made these changes so that you could claim it as policy supporting your claims in the AfD linked above. A few editors support in a wikiproject talk page, do not equal consensus for policy/guideline changes. ― Padenton|✉   00:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So again, where am I harming the guide or changing accepted practice? -- Kheider (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The proper venue for these discussions is a centralized location, not a wikiproject or someone's talk page. ― Padenton|✉   00:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So in other words, you have no good rebuttal to my comments and you now know my edits were in good faith and did no harm to the guide? -- Kheider (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The burden is on you to prove consensus exists for your changes. ― Padenton|✉   01:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: you are the one who has started this edit war trying to remove content that is the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and exists to clarify the policy, incorrectly spelling minor-planet designations and using contractions ("isn't") in the process. Your behavior is just ridiculous, instead of starting a civil discussion, you do this: [3] (even though you're the one with more reverts) and [4]. --JorisvS (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@JorisvS: I did start a discussion, it's above. I see no such consensus on the Wikiproject talk page, where exactly in that massive discussion is it, as I've now looked through it multiple times. Furthermore, WikiProject talk pages aren't the place to discuss modifying a notability guideline. It's not a centralized location. You can modify the Wikiproject with that consensus if you'd like. Furthermore, pushing these edits through in order to use the new text of the guideline to support your claims in an AfD is very disruptive, I can't imagine anyone who would think that is legitimate editing. ― Padenton|✉   15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There hasn't been a formal discussion with the intent to improve this page, but the situation has been discussed in the first few (current) sections on that talk page, which began when a large number of minor planets went up for deletion. Kheider's edits are either simple clarifications/more information on something (such as JPL's database), or based on unanimity in that discussion: 1) that those above the number 2000 meeting several criteria can be redirected without further discussion, which also means that for those below 2000, one should still initiate a discussion (a RfD an AfD would do); 2) not nominating more than 10 per day is simply to keep the volume manageable for other editors. I don't see what can be controversial about this, and you have yet to make your point why you believe it is. As for a centralized place for discussion, it can't be more centralized than the relevant WikiProject! --JorisvS (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's called unilaterally making changes to guidelines without reaching consensus. You just admitted that there was no discussion of these changes on here or even at your wikiproject. WP:RFD is also the wrong location to handle changing articles to redirects. RFD is for things that are already redirects, not making articles into redirects. Articles being nominated to be changed to redirects are supposed to be taken to WP:AFD. You and Kheider don't get to decide some arbitrary limit as to how many get nominated. I have already said multiple times why it is controversial, here and at ANI. The implication of a size cutoff (when NASTCRIT already contradicts it by setting the threshold as ever viewable by the naked eye), implying that any light curve or occultation study would grant notability, and the unilateral creation of a limit. All specifically changed with the intent of using it to argue against someone in an AfD, not even an hour later, with absolutely no admitting that it was recently added to the policy by Kheider. You ask me, that is among the worst things an editor can do at Wikipedia. Wikiprojects, regardless of how relevant to a notability guideline or a policy, are never a centralized location for changing anything except that specific WikiProject. The guideline doesn't belong to the wikiproject and the wikiproject doesn't get to change the guideline at every whim. And again, there is no discussion of these changes there. ― Padenton|✉   13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This is meant to be a guide and not explaining the policy in anyway is not helpful to the casual observer. This is why I explained for the casual reader how small 99 XF255 is even though small asteroids can be notable for other reasons. Not once have I argued at a AfD to keep an object because of a lightcurve or occultation study. As a matter of fact, I have made fun of David for wanting to keep an object because it was part of a 2 object lightcurve study and he thought it had an interesting (but common) inclination. So can you show me where any of my NASTRO edits were used to support ANY of my "Keep" votes. And yes in a AfD I have the right to support an object if I believe it is more notable for its size or rotation period. -- Kheider (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: you're misreading what I've said. I said there wasn't a formal discussion, but there was certainly a discussion about it, it just originated as a series of AfDs (and I made a typo above, I meant AfD there). Kheider simply took that discussion and polished this page based on that. You came here when the discussion was already old and Kheider's edits were stable, but then insisted on reverting it and cried foul everywhere you could. Instead, simply initiating a discussion about the content would have sufficed. If you actually disagree with any part of the changes (you seem to focus on the number 2000, but it is still not clear to me if (and if so, how) you disagree with it), we can still simply discuss it. But it should focus on the content. --JorisvS (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94

Lukeno94, you are aware that my clean-up and expanded explanations of NASTRO have received support from Praemonitus, StringTheory11, JorisvS, and have been general consensus for quite some time. If anything is new, it would be the 10 AfDs a day rule, which Boleyn found reasonable when Praemonitus made the request. So why are reverting several improvements that the Astro project seems to be in favor of? -- Kheider (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The grammatical cleanups were reinstated by me. If you want to change the reasoning behind the example asteroid again, I'm not going to object. But the two users who posted here clearly objected to your changes, and it is this page where people need to have the discussion, not elsewhere. Also, just because Boleyn is happy with a suggestion does not mean that you get to then throw it in to a guideline on your own whim, particularly not one that would be inappropriate... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And let me be another to oppose this, specifically the size cut off and the limit on AfD/day. We can certainly use a size cut off in the cleanup of bot-created stubs, but exceeding a certain size certainly is no guarantee of notability. And if we suddenly decide to mass-AfD a bunch of articles because they are just way too annoying to deal with on a one-by-one basis (provided they meet certain criteria like below a certain size, bot-created, no or nearly no refs provided, etc...), what's wrong with that? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Headbomb, what size cut-off are you talking about? I never added the 50km cutoff. Are you talking about how I explained the small size of 99 XF255 or are you talking about the idea that numbered asteroids below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing? I would like to re-add the explanation about 99 XF255 that says, "since it is a less than 5km in diameter main-belt asteroid of which hundreds of thousands of such small main-belt asteroids are known." Obviously, there is a reason so many small objects are not notable and I think a better explanation should be in the guide. -- Kheider (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The "since it's <5 km" implies that it's not notable because of it's small size. Size has nothing to do with notability on Wikipedia. Here's a counter example 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko of something < 5 km" that gathered significant scientific and mainstream coverage. The criteria for notability has always been coverage in reliable sources. That is the difference between 99 XF255 and 67P. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
But among the main-belt asteroids size is half of the game since the orbits are confined to the main-belt by definition. 67P is a planet crossing comet. Obviously, small near-Earth asteroids like 99942 Apophis at only 300 meters in diameter can be very notable. I assumed 1999 XF255 was picked at random to demonstrate that "it is 1 of 400,000+ meaningless very small main-belt objects". Perhaps the guide would be better picking on a non-notable 60km main-belt asteroid as an example? I just think it is better to explain why something is not studied more. Perhaps my written description would be better than writing nothing, "since it is 1 of 400,000+ meaningless very small main-belt objects", then size would not need to come up. -- Kheider (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

The three main results of this discussion (and previous ones, see this and links therein) are as follows:
  1. Asteroids #1-2000 should be discussed before being redirected. Asteroids #2000+, maybe be redirected per WP:BRD after a good-faith search to establish notability has failed to do so.
  2. Asteroid deletion discussions should be limited to under 10/day as to not overwhelm WP:AFD and editors
  3. While asteroids size will positively correlate with notability, as large asteroids are in general easier to observe and will have been discovered earlier, size does not in itself guarantee notability.
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone feel free to add to this list. I'll cross-post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy for visibility.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects have been notified.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss asteroids numbered <= 2000 prior to redirect

Limit the number of asteroid AfDs per day

  • Support. To not overwhelm those investigating notability. 10 seems like a reasonable number to start with.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I agree with this under general circumstances, but if a specific group/type of asteroids are being redirected/deleted, more should be allowed. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: 10/day keeps from overwhelming volunteers. Obviously a special bot-request can be made to clean-up messes created by other bots. -- Kheider (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as above: To prevent other editors from being overwhelmed. --JorisvS (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. 10/day seems about the limit for editors who want to stay involved but don't want to spend all of their Wikipedia time on this one topic. I note that this is the number of AfDs, not the number of asteroids, so if for some reason a group AfD is appropriate it would count only as one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, so that it is possible to do research to figure out if the asteroids are actually notable, without having to devote an unreasonable amount of time to the issue. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This'll help keep the workload down, for all of us. Fine w/ 10/day also. ― Padenton|✉   20:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: has been a rule of etiquette to just go at a reasonable pace with these. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose: I'm fine with putting a limit on nominations concerning manually created articles, but I don't see a good reason limit deletion of bot-created articles that haven't been significantly edited and have no sources beyond those that the bot put in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- 10 AfDs a day seems a reasonable number. Of course, a bundled AfD containing several asteroids would still only count as one. Reyk YO! 23:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and any bundling counts towards the total, ie an AFD with 10 listed would prevent any new AFD listings for asteroids. But best to have no bundling. I have seen quite a few article get deleted due to collateral damage from bundling. Voters do not look at all the articles listed and then others get deleted without any real consideration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: even ten a day is bordering on too many. But it will have to do. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep all articles on asteroids above a certain diameter

  • Conditional Support. If the resulting list of large asteroids contains a small % (0~9%) of articles that legitimately fail WP:NASTRO and present no new information beyond the JPL/MPC databases. Size and/or mass in-and-of-itself can make astronomical objects notable; see List of largest known stars, List of most massive black holes, List of most massive known stars. However, I can't speak to what value that size cutoff should be.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes sense. I would suggest sizes that vary for each orbital category, depending on the number of objects of that category above that size. Perhaps all NEOs with an earth MOID of less than 0.1 AU above 1 kilometer, all earth-crossing objects in general above 10, all mars-crossing asteroids above ~20 kilometers, all main belt asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and TNOs above 50. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It makes sense to keep articles on the largest bodies in each orbital category. Moreover, these will typically be sufficiently studied anyway. I don't have strong ideas above where the cut-off should be. --JorisvS (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If a reliable source gives us a list of particularly large asteroids, we can use it as a source to show that an asteroid is notable for its size, and then we don't need to encode the specific size threshold in our own notability rules. If we don't have a source, but only a number in a database that might be above or below some arbitrary threshold, we don't have notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose except for the very largest (e.g. the 100 largest of all and 5 largest of each type), rather than a specific size cutoff. These are the only asteroids that I think are truly notable for their size alone. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: But the size limit gets more difficult to define for each orbital category unless we just define a rule for the old bot-generated articles and let the others articles stand on there own merits. Often times the size of a small asteroid has to be estimated based on the absmag and that estimate could off by a factor of 2. There are only ~12 NEOs more than ~10km in diameter, otherwise we would probably go extinct more frequently. :) NEOs should be judged on how close they came/will come to Earth, impact probabilities, and sources. One could use 15km for a Mars-crosser (again too many of these and we go extinct), 70km (up from my old 50km) for a main-belt asteroid/Jupiter trojan. -- Kheider (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, almost all of these articles are stubs with few sources and little purpose. There's little hope for expansion unless there's interest in them, so I think keeping them should remain based on the amount of coverage. The articles we've been redirecting have been far less useful than if the various attributes in their infoboxes was in a large table (might be a bit overkill, I dunno, we should at least get more info in those tables than we currently have). To me, I think that would be a lot more useful to anyone than individual articles for each, even the largest. The problem I have with this is size is no guarantee there will be a decent number of studies focusing on the asteroid. Watching the AfDs on these, the past couple weeks, I've seen a lot of minor planets where someone voted keep based on its size, yet the consensus was for redirect because there was no significant coverage in sources. There were plenty that were large and also had plenty of sources as well, which were easily decided keep. I would be okay with StringTheory11's alternative. ― Padenton|✉   20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment While it says that you would keep all asteroid articles above a certain size, perhaps it would be more sensible to simply require a discussion before redirecting them? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Perfectly fine with Exoplanetaryscience's alternative. ― Padenton|✉   21:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure - GNG should suffice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While size is somewhat related to notability, I don't care what size an object has. If there's no coverage, it's not notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- clearly a larger asteroid is more likely to be notable, but I wouldn't want to make that into a hard rule. Reyk YO! 23:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a bit of an arbitrary characteristic. Instead we need to have enough written about the asteroid to make an article. This is much harder to determine than just looking at one figure (eg sequence, diameter, brightness, mass) but it is what contributes to a worthwhile article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I do support StringTheory's and exoplanetaryscience's suggestions above, which should probably be their own separate proposed changes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: while I understand the motivation, it doesn't fit with the criteria for notability on Wikipedia. The ability to write an informative article of suitable depth on Wikipedia is directly related to the quantity and quality of reliable sources available. Without those sources, you're left with adding redundant material, padding sentences, and/or OR. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notability is notability. If significant coverage can't be established, then size doesn't matter ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bulk-ish deletion or merge/redirection of minor planet sub-stubs: is a manual search for notability really necessary?

(Moved here from Wikipedia_talk:Minor_planet_articles_that_might_fail_NASTRO)

Looks like we have a bunch of tiny asteroid stubs created by bots that should get deleted or merged. IANAAdmin but if we want to do what are basically (trivial) merges (into "list of minor planets") and not WP:AFD's, does anyone really need to bother performing a manual Google search for notable sources for each of these tiny little stubs?

Per WP:MERGE: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic."

Per WP:PM: "mergers that are so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object..." "...it is not necessary to propose a merger at all. You should boldly do the merger now, without formally proposing it. (In the event that someone unexpectedly objects, then the merger can be undone easily, and you can formally propose the merger for discussion at that time.)"

An alternative thought is that, if we can get the co-operation of the owner of whichever bot created all these little stubs, we might be able to delete many of them without a manual notability check under "author requests deletion" WP:CSD#G7.

All IMHO of course. Chrisrus noted this might conflict with WP:NASTRO, so I brought the discussion here. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I know ClueBot II created a lot of them. I've unceremoniously redirected lots of these, but I generally check the history and talk pages first, so I was interested to see ClueBot II of all things involved. I think you'd be surprised, though, how many are not bot created. So many are just articles with identical text, save for the catalog name, that it's pretty easy to create these by hand - even just a few fingers: "ctrl-v, click. ctrl-v, click. ctrl-v, click. ctrl-v, click. ctrl-v, click." See what I did there? ;-) The thought of asking the bot master to agree to an author requested delete is interesting, but my first (cynical) thought is that whomever programmed the bot to create lots of stubs isn't going to be too concerned with deleting them. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Any asteroid numbered below 5000 should be left alone during a mass re-direct since they are on average the largest asteroids and the ones most likely to be of interest to amateur astronomers. I also suggest only re-directing the numerous main-belt asteroids at this time and leaving near-Earth asteroids alone. But I know Chrisrus just wants to delete and/or merge as many articles as he can. -- Kheider (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. AstroCog (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete only those that fail NASTRO/GNG. NASTRO is a new guideline, and set up a system that seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out to have some problems and unnecessary requirements. I tried and the botsmen found holes in NASTRO. GNG is that if the article doesn't contain proof of notablity in the form of mention in WPRSes, it should be deleted. Bots can check for any sign of such notability and set it aside. We shouldn't have to perform notability checks for referents that don't already contain cause for notability in their articles. Chrisrus (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
We can solve this problem quickly and easily by deleting List of Minor Planets. We already have a List of Notable Minor Planets, so there is nothing for LOMP to do but collect those that aren't notable. Therefore LOMP should be deleted with ramifications for NASTRO, which refers to it in a few places. This would eliminate the need for redirects. Chrisrus (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
If List of minor planets did not exist, then all the re-directs would probably have to go through AfDs as the article content would no longer be publicly reviewable. As you have been told many times, List of notable asteroids does not include every notable asteroid. Extremists are the exact reason I am leery of changes to NASTRO. Tom.Reding has solved most of the problem by recently re-directing 11,585 asteroid stubs (with a consensus.) -- Kheider (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Can I get an explicit second opinion (besides myself) as to whether merging into a list article, without a manual search for WP:RS, is acceptable according to WP:NASTRO? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think the answer you your question immediately above is "no, it is not acceptable according to NASTRO". Before redirecting a stub NASTRO gives guidance that "a good-faith search has been done to locate supporting references". But I think the proposal in this section is that we should not abide by the guidance in NASTRO as it is presently stated. Whether that would be wise is a somewhat different question. Can you clarify (to someone who only occasionally passes through the asteroid belt), when you say "merge", do you really mean "redirect"? Please link me somewhere to avoid duplicating any discussion. Thincat (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
To be a bit less pedantic, in terms of general WP policy and guidelines I believe that redirecting without an RS check may well be OK. The guidance is at WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT and does not suggest any need to search for references. The main requirement is to avoid arguments(!). Thincat (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no other significant discussion that I know of, the Wikipedia_talk:Minor_planet_articles_that_might_fail_NASTRO) discussion was just "this should be discussed on NASTRO". I was hoping the community that created WP:NASTRO would immediately say "of course you don't have to search for notability for bot-created stubs, that's clearly not the spirit of NASTRO", but if not then I'll formally ask for WP:NASTRO to add to the policy to explicitly address the current situation one way or the other. IMHO we should either decide that it's not worth deleting the articles, in which case WP:NASTRO should basically say "don't bother the admins by AfD'ing a single minor planet; there's an infinite more where that came from and you're just wasting everyone's time" (more politely than that of course), or it should address how to bulk-delete these if someone ends up wanting to bulk-delete them. (I should add that I don't know how to count how many stubs there actually are; it's possible there aren't very many and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as the question of "is this a merge, or a blank-and-redirect", I don't know what the difference is; it sounds like it's a moot point as neither requires a manual search for notable sources. I think the WP:NASTRO example is subtly incorrect if it classifies this as a straight delete rather than a merge or redirect, since 100% of the information in the article is already in the "list of minor planets" article that it's being merged into. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
My personal view (with more experience of deletion policy than asteroids) is that to send them to AfD without checking is (strictly) contrary to AfD procedures (WP:BEFORE). To redirect or merge is OK. So, if there is rough consensus here (however informal) to redirect or merge (perhaps turning a blind eye on NASTRO) that would not incur the wrath of the gods. Thincat (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WP:MERGE v. WP:REDIRECT. The former at one point says "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary". If you think everything relevant in the stub is already in the target, a merge can become merely a redirection. Thincat (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NASTRO is a notability guideline, so other guidelines/policies/philosophies(?) may come into play when considering a bulk merge/redirect/deletion. I'm of the opinion that if you were to boldy carry out such an action, say, on main-belt asteroids above 5000 (as Kheider suggested above), you wouldn't get much pushback. My gut tells me that, even so, you'd probably want to announce this action at WP:Astronomical Objects, or the talk page for List of minor planets, and be nice about it. For myself, I generally look at them on a case by case basis. If the article's a stub, has only 1 ref to the JPL database, and hasn't been edited by a non-BOT in months-to-years, I've got no qualms about creating a redirect. I ain't gonna cry if somebody redirects or deletes the bulk of stubs for the rocks occupying the higher number lists. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
My experience has been that references for asteroids past 1,000 become increasingly difficult to come by. There are exceptions, of course, but if you stick to bare bones articles for minor planets over 5,000 you'll be fairly safe. The exceptions can always be re-created without undue difficulty. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability of geographic (or other) features on astronomical objects

What decides whether e.g. a crater on Mars deserves an article? WP:NGEO? If the crater has an official name, the text after Named natural features applies? --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that tell us that there needs to be enough information in the sources to write an article. We could apply WP:GNG to this. So that mere appearances in a table of info in a publication is not enough. But instead there should have been substantial information written - eg over a page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don’t know what practice, if any, has been adopted, but using the geography guideline, in the absence of any specific to astronomical objects, seems perfectly reasonable to me—letting “geo-” stand for “seleno-”, “areo-”, &c., as the case may be. If all that can be said about the subject is something like X is a {dimensions) (feature) at (coordinates) on (body), IMO it shouldn’t deserve an article.—Odysseus1479 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Something to consider: more or less all features with an official name will have an etymology available - i.e. what they are named after. Many features with official names will also have high-resolution images available of them; which is a form of detailed description.
Here's an example of what I just mentioned: Lycus Sulci (current version). In the article text, there is only the most basic information, but the feature has been studied by several instruments. In this case, there might be more information available from reliable sources that can be incorporated (like the official captions of the images); but imagine that there isn't - just the detailed images. What then? --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A named geographical feature is no more notable than a named asteroid. I'd say there may be a somewhat higher likelihood of a geographical feature being notable if it is observable directly from Earth, but that would mainly limit it to near side lunar features. Praemonitus (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, notability depends on whether someone notable as published something WP:RS about the referent. That is all. It's that simple. Chrisrus (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Headbomb unapproved changes to DWMP

On 1 June 2015 Headbomb removed the "notability tag" statement that has been a long-standing part of NASTRO's "dealing with minor planets" since 2012. I have discussed the matter on his talk page and have not achieved any middle ground. As I have been repeatedly told the last couple of weeks, change(s) in the NASTRO guide require a vote. -- Kheider (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does it require a vote? Nothing in astronomy requires a vote. It's all evidence, reason, and verifiable fact. Similarly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the changes should be reverted, revert them and make your case as to why. These guidelines need to be brought in line with WP:GNG and its procedures simplified and made practicable. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Tom.Reding has recently done a bot re-direct for an additional 8,240+2790+555 (11,585) asteroids that has been in the pipeline for years. Currently 15,000 of 19,000 asteroids are re-directs as most of them should be. Now that most of the asteroid problem is dealt with, I do not see why NASTRO should make it easier for someone to be willy nilly with re-directs and take the problem to the other extreme. -- Kheider (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: I oppose the change as editors can always be bold and work outside the guide, but I have yet to see anyone actually merge content from the asteroids being re-directed to the actual list articles. The list articles do not even contain a comment column. For questionable asteroids that say more than, "Asteroid X was discovered on Y by Z", it is more respectful to place a notability tag before re-directing the article to an almost meaningless list. -- Kheider (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Headbomb's change. What we're arguing about here is a supposed requirement that one can only redirect articles that already have a notability tag emplaced, which Headbomb removed. It is over-bureaucratic WP:CREEP and far in excess of the (nonexistent) requirements for boldly redirecting any other kind of article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with myself, per David Eppstein. It is utterly silly to require that asteroid articles be tagged for notability before one is allowed to redirect them. Asteroid articles aren't anymore special than any other class of articles out there. If you do a search, and can't find sources establishing notability, you can redirect per WP:BOLD. Just as you can anywhere else on Wikipedia. What the !vote above was about is to ensure a higher level of scrutiny for Asteroids <2,000, and exclude them from any mass-redirecting operation performed by bots (or similar). If Jimbob thinks Asteroid #243583 is not notable, searches for sources establishing notability but failed to find any, it is perfectly reasonable action for Jimbob to redirect the article. As for the argument that this is somehow an 'unapproved change', I'll point to the discussion above where people specifically argued to put a threshold against redirects without discussion below number 2000. That implies we're fine with bold redirects above number 2000. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The whole asteroids numbered below 2000 came up for a vote because I was accused of making "changes without consensus". At this point less than 1% (4,000/685,000=0.006) of minor planets have an article. -- Kheider (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
And indeed you did not have consensus for them at the time, especially when it comes to add a size criteria for anything. What's your point? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Project Astro had informally discussed my changes other than the 10 AfDs/day. The 10 AfD/day came from an editor involved in these very AfDs. Apparently a handful of people seem very annoyed that I described how physically small MBA 1999 XF255 is and assumed that anything larger would be notable. -- Kheider (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Headbomb per David Eppstein and Headbomb. Tags are a courtesy but not required by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. And a change to a redirect is not a deletion; the page history is still there and the change can be undone by any editor (and subsequently discussed) if there's disagreement. Procedural note: WP:CONSENSUS is what matters, not a vote. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: presumably the purpose of the notability tag placement is to give the creator of the article an opportunity to address the concern. But for bot-created articles, this seems pointless. Praemonitus (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Praemonitus. Yes, for human created articles, I think a {{Notability|Astro}} tag should be placed on the article or the user notified on their talk page. Seems to be the civil thing to do. -- Kheider (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Editors of pages have an opportunity to address the concern for redirects after the fact anyway. I agree that in general it's courteous to put up the tag before nominating, but requiring it is unnecessarily bureaucratic. I also really don't see why astronomical objects should have their own bureaucratically-enforced civility requirement that is different from the rest of Wikipedia; just follow WP:FAILN (which, incidentally, suggests the use of a notability tag if you don't want to search for sources yourself). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As this is a guideline rather than a policy, to me the wording should be viewed as a "best practice" rather than a "bureaucratically-enforced civility requirement". Praemonitus (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Requiring discussions for numbered asteroids less than 2000 already makes "special rules" for asteroids and the reason for that is because of the noise created by ~15,000+ bot generated articles that require clean-up. If the list articles did not exist, in theory, all the "deletes" for numbered asteroids > 2000 would have to be discussed at AfDs anyway. - Kheider (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that most would go to WP:PROD and probably avoid AfD altogether. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This also why I wonder if there should at first be a {{Notability|Astro}} tag for questionable asteroids numbered 2000 to 4000 that have not already been re-directed by Tom's bot. Above 4000, articles should have to state what is special about the object or risk a bold re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, what's the problem with a bold redirect? If an editor disagrees, the undo button is always there. Every article has to establish notability. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLAR indicates that approach is acceptable practice for an article that is not notable. It also indicates that a note should be added to the talk page where the article is being redirected. But that seems impractical in this case. Praemonitus (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of redirects despite explicit warning

Thegret123 (talk · contribs), who only edited for two days in June, changed several redirects to articles. In at least one case, that was despite the explicit request not to do so, and made the article worse than it had been before it was a redirect. I reverted that change now (with a heavy heart, since I liked David Eppstein's version or the version by the bot after him), but this user's other edits should be examined, as well. — Sebastian 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest contacting the user directly on their talk page to engage them, because right now I fail to see those 'explicit' request. The user in question may also have not seen your request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you check the diff? It's the text they removed. I don't see the connection you make with "because". Besides, as I wrote, that account is not active anymore. However, you may have a point that it might be polite to inform someone when talking about them. I assumed they would get notified by the link from the template, but now I'm not so sure. If I include your link like this Headbomb (talk · contribs), do you get a notification? Just to be safe, here's a standard link: user:Thegret123. — Sebastian 04:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

NASTCRIT Criterion 1 (visible ordinary stars) interpretation

Criterion 1 states that an object is presumably notable if: "The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. For ordinary stars, this includes any object with an HR catalogue identifier."

In practice, spot checks indicate the typical 6th magnitude star with an HR identifier is fairly unlikely to have non-catalogue academic references. (Examples: HR 856, HR 609, HR 924; while they have from 14 to 40 papers, these papers are at best 'entry in a table with a few dozen rows' and mostly 'entry in a table with thousands of rows'.) Similarly a cursory search doesn't turn up evidence that any of these has been discussed in the news or popular media, etc.

Is it intended that criterion 1 should apply even if all the references are basically entries in a table? If criterion 1 is simply a guideline to whether an object will most likely have the detailed, non-catalogue academic references that actually establish notability, it's probably not a very good one, since most HR catalogue entries don't in fact have these. Willhsmit (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Given there are billions of stars, allowing naked eye visibility limits Wikipedia to about 5600 entries. Your 3 examples are technically dimmer than vmag 6.0 -- Kheider (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
See also the last paragraph of that section. Those criteria do not override WP:N. They merely offer some guidance to things that might establish notability in an astronomical context. Being a bright naked eye star is likely notable in itself, many people will have heard of it and be interested. Being a borderline naked-eye star that nobody has ever heard of and is only identified by a four or six digit catalogue number is not in itself notable. Lithopsian (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
What I'm hearing is that "this includes any object with an HR catalogue identifier" (very approximately vmag 6.5) is probably not quite the guidance that we want to give in the text? Either a somewhat lower vmag number, or something less boolean with a bit of a hint that if it doesn't pass criterion #3 anyway it's probably not bright enough to pass criterion #1? Willhsmit (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Reading between the lines, you seem to be quibbling about one aspect of the definition to try and support your creation of large numbers of pointless stubs. The guidelines state that in addition to one or more of the listed criteria, the object should be "supported through independent reliable sources". Nobody is going to argue about whether a star is magnitude 5.9 or 6.1 if it has a well-written article containing multiple independent references to provide a rounded description. A stub containing a few data values copied from Simbad, at least one of them apparently your own calculation (WP:NOR), shows no sign of notability and helps nobody. Creating hundreds of these stubs is a good way to attract the wrong sort of attention. Lithopsian (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Lithopsian. If a mag 6.3 star is known to be a double, variable, or have a planet then having an article on it seems very reasonable. But stars between mag 6.0 and 6.5 are borderline NASTRO and you should say something "above average" about them. -- Kheider (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Lithopsian, my intention in this thread is not at all to argue that we should keep all those stubs around (I would like to probe whether there is any backing for replacing the already-created stubs with redirects to existing lists before I go ahead and just mark them all db-author, but I didn't want to derail this thread). I perceive you two as reasonably representative of the consensus of the community and I would like to bring the current guideline into line with the consensus of the community. I agree that the guideline is supposed to reflect the consensus rather than vice versa, and right now I don't think it does. I assert that the comment about HR in the text is more likely to mislead than to elucidate, because in practice (i) the consensus is that a typical 6.0-6.5 star does not derive notability from its brightness and visibility alone (ii) presence in HR per se does not seem to be a particularly useful heuristic about whether a star might be notable for other reasons. Does anyone disagree? Willhsmit (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I see now that a wider conversation is already going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, that is probably the right conversation to converge on new wording. Willhsmit (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Redundant "note 3"?

I don't get this edit: Isn't "Important Note 3" a redundant subcase of "Important Note 1", combined with the first sentence "If an astronomical object meets none of these criteria, it may still be notable, provided it meets the conditions of WP:NOTABILITY, though the merits of an article about an astronomical object will rest primarily on material that is verifiable through independent sources."? Is there a specific problem that caused this note to get added? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of this either, and it hasn't been discussed at WT:AST or WT:ASTRO. Pinging @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: for an explanation. Modest Genius talk 16:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Much to my surprise, the guideline before this note was added said nothing about hypothesized planets. It is important to point out that hypothesized planets generally are NOT notable. The problem comes with criteria 2: "The object is listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers...." For example, the KOI catalog is of GREAT interest to amateurs and it by no means comprehensive. Unfortunately, it only contains hypothesized objects. jps (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
In what possible sense is KOI of interest to amateurs? The thousands of stars in it are hardly impressive sights for back-garden telescopes. Modest Genius talk 11:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The KOI catalog is of extreme interest to a very narrow subset of people. I would suggest that a majority of people who describe themselves as amateur astronomers have never even heard of it. Lithopsian (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So that everyone understands the magnitude of this change, we have the Category:Hypothetical astronomical objects hierarchy, which contains 11 categories and 189 pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It does seem redundant, but is it harmful? An explicit mention of hypothetical objects could be helpful given the current level of interest in new discoveries, particularly of exoplanets. Lithopsian (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Catalogues of high historical importance (eg. New General Catalgue)

This phrase has been in the page since the first draft. I would like to propose that it is removed or modified, at the very least that a better example is found. There are around 8,000 objects in the NGC, a high proportion of them utterly non-notable. There has been a flurry of completely pointless stubs recently (eg NGC 6120) that should probably just be deleted, but all NGC objects are automatically considered notable according to this page. I'm struggling to think of a catalogue of high historical importance where we really would want an article about every entry, but if anyone has any ideas. Lithopsian (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The completest catalogue I found is {{Caldwell catalogue}} (100% on WP), but it doesn't satisfy the 'high historical importance' criteria.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose to replace New General Catalogue with Messier Catalogue since it is the best example I could think of for a historical catalogue where every entry really should be automatically considered notable (the Bright Star Catalogue is already quoted in section 1). Then obviously drop Messier Catalogue from the previous clause. I'd like consensus to be positive rather than negative, so do pipe up. Lithopsian (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose that, if only because all NGC objects should have entries and its more or less the best kind of 'historical/high importance' catalogue we have in mind for comparisons. Messier is way more important than NGC, but we want NGC-like levels of importance for notability. When you fall below the NGC, then it's where you might not be a super selective catalogue as far as the notability of individual items are concerned. If you're above the NGC, then you're in no questions about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Athletics ???

Can somebody explain why "athletics" is listed here: Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. How in the world could an astronomical object have effects on athletics? And why is such a specific field listed along such broad categories as society and entertainment, which subsume it anyway? I thought it was a joke edit and was going to remove it without discussion, but it dates back from this 2011 edit by Astrocog. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This recent edit by Rolf h nelson gets rid of the offending material, so I guess that answers the question... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem in First Section

No inherent notability subsection-title repeats twice in the article. Can someone please fix this? I personally don't know what it should be replaced with. Thanks!

Double Plus Ungood (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Does it? Or are you mis-reading "inherited" as "inherent"? Lithopsian (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Might a more liberal policy be adopted for including asteroid articles on the basis of the cultural importance of their names?

Current policy on this Wikiproject is this:

"(i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake)."

Might I gently suggest revising this policy? The scenario I've been thinking about is this:

Famous person (artist, statesman, whatever) is honored by having an asteroid named after him. This is widely considered a great honor (for instance, the cartoonist Randall Munroe seems to have felt almost overwhelmed with gratitude when he received it). So, it's certainly worth putting a mention of the asteroid into the article about the famous person. But what about the asteroid itself? I submit that some readers of the article about the famous person might react, "Oh really? What asteroid? How big is it? Where does it orbit?", etc., and that it is reasonable for WP to satisfy this curiosity. But details like perihelions surely do not belong in a biographical article. Thus, I submit it is reasonable for WP to run articles on asteroids to serve as a kind of back-up when a person of note is given the honor of becoming an asteroid namesake.

If curious for a real example, please consult 7387 Malbil and its history page. In response to my request, editor Rfassbind very kindly both restored the article (which had briefly been deleted) and then improved it substantially. I think the resulting article would fully satisfy the curiosity of a fan of Malcolm Bilson, while not overburdening our article about Bilson himself.

With regard to might be a possible general policy, I suggest something like this:

"==Asteroids in their cultural context=="
Some asteroids are unimportant with regard to their astronomical characteristics but more important for the role they play in human culture or society. For instance, asteroids named for individual persons constitute a permanent and meaningful honor for those individuals; and the naming practices of astronomers who discovered many asteroids often offers a reflection of their times and personal tastes.[1] Thus, it is permissible to include a separate article on individual asteroids that bear some cultural connection of this kind, provided the connection is clearly laid out.

I am curious if this might pass muster with the experts who currently oversee WP's asteroid coverage. Thanks for listening. Opus33 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ One example is Max Wolf's repeated use of the names of operatic heroines, some of them for operas seldom sung today.
Surely this falls under WP:NOTINHERITED? Just because it's named after a famous person doesn't make it famous itself. And if it really is notable, it will pass WP:GNG anyway. So we don't need special pleading to carve out an exception for treating these mostly-non-notable objects differently than others. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia has a long-standing rule that notability is not inherited, for very good reasons. Anyone interested in the properties of those non-notable asteroids can look them up in suitable databases (e.g. JPL). It would not improve this encyclopaedia to add thousands of sub-stubs on non-notable rocks just because someone famous was given a certificate referring to it. Besides, this is a guideline about astronomical notability; if an object is notable for cultural reasons the WP:GNG applies. Modest Genius talk 11:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This is why we have List of minor planets named after people. Descriptions can be expanded. -- Kheider (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes in principle (no comment on the drafting on the proposed amendment above). If an asteroid is named after a famous person or thing, it is more likely to get coverage in the mainstream press. The Wikipedia asteroid would be an example of this. It is also more likely to be searched for, to show up more prominently in search results, and be more accessible and well known to the public, than if its name is unmemorable alpha numeric giberish. And it will be mentioned in our article on the famous person, prompting further interest. James500 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)/Archive_4&oldid=1144235003"