Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Meanings of minor planet names: completely empty lists

I was browsing a bit and came across dozens, if not over a hundred of completely empty lists. These lists contain literally zero items. I am talking about the articles in the category Meanings of minor planet names: 494001–495000. Take, for example, Meanings of minor planet names: 419001–420000 494001–495000, 461001–462000, 514001–515000, and 523001–524000. Many only contain one or two named minor planets. Surely, this is not a preferable situation? I believe that, right now, we could have a list for "Meanings of minor planet names: 500000–599999" and it would be reasonably short. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The full list of lists is at Meanings of minor planet names. I'd say that anything that doesn't have at least one entry should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A "list" with only one or two entries is hardly a list at all either, I would say, hence why I suggested merging them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 23:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that a local consensus here would likely be enough to G6/uncontroversially delete the completely empty ones. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anyone complaining about the deletion of empty pages; with the exception of 516k the entire 500k+ pages are empty. I've cross-posted this to WT:AST but if no one says anything in the next week or so I'll just go ahead and G6 'em all as blank/unnecessary. I'll probably AFD the 516k just to be safe, though a redirect to the list might suffice. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

They are placeholders, due to the randomness at which number receives a name. There are, and possibly forever will be, unpopulated named-regions in the numbered-MP landscape. So the only problem I see is with the navigation headers, which need to cross progressively larger 'unpopulated valleys' of pages to hop from inhabited island to island at the higher numbers.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are no named MPs above a certain page, then I don't see any issue deleting those pages (which can be refunded in the future of course).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair points re: island hopping. But you'd be okay with deleting everything above 516k, since they're all completely empty? Primefac (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind, in case he is planning another batch update, or if there is an MPC update coming up in the near future (they are quarterly?).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

MPC batches come out each full moon, with some exceptional months without MPCs announced in advance. I don't really see much of a difference between the last unnamed island and the ones that fall between names; I would favour keeping them all, even if the last few are completely empty, simply because then the start of redlinks shows how far numbers have been assigned. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Primefac and Maplestrip: yes you are correct, there are plenty of empty lists. While such empty lists are not a "beautiful" solution, they are consistent with the overall minor-plant project and the best solution I can imagine. I created them so that other editors can easily add new naming-citations, without the need of creating a new list first (probably copy/pasting it from an existing list without remembering all the small little details that need to be changed).

As stated before by Tom.Reding, the naming of minor planets has increasingly become random in terms of their number (e.g. new naming per 25 Sep 2018 with 516560 Annapolisroyal being the highest numbered one in that batch). Historically, only low-numbered bodies were named (current distribution statistics), but that has already started to change and it will intensify considerably in the near future.

I don't want to change anyone's mind, I have already learnt that this is hardly possible, but if you really want to create a "mega-list" like the proposed "500000–599999" (actually that should be "500001–600000"), you might also want to consider changes in Template:MoMP, and amending the last column in the List of minor planets, e.g. List of minor planets: 516001–517000#560, because as soon as "500000–599999" will be split into, say, "500000–549999" and "550000–599999" due its growing size, more and more inconsistent cross-references will appear elsewhere. Rfassbind – talk 10:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for checking InSight page against B-class criteria

With recent attention and developments in the page, I'm confident it could be upgraded to B-class, or nearly b-class (with one or two criteria unchecked). Unfortunately, I don't have the skill or knowledge to properly assess the article. Nickrulercreator (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback at Kuiper belt

Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Kuiper belt#Definition improvement to discuss improvements to the first sentence at this Featured article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)