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)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrectly labeled figure on Antitail page

I came across a few related articles here describing so-called "Type I" and "Type II" cometary tails. In all cases I found in article text, the tails are described correctly:

• Type I tails are the ion-driven tails oriented in a straight line away from the sun.
• Type II tails are dusty and often curved.

A useful reference for this material can be found here (and may even be open access): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ARA&A...6..267B

The antitail article here has a figure where the tail labels are swapped (curved dust tail is incorrectly labeled "Type I" and straight ion tail is incorrectly labeled "Type II"). If this had been a text error I would have added a correction myself. Reproducing the figure would take more time than I have at the moment, hence this report instead. I wasn't sure how/whether to mark this figure as misleading in the article itself (I'm new to Wikipedia editing) and couldn't readily find information on best practices. Sivs422 (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sivs422, you should contact the image creator first; they might still have the original image and can quickly update it. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FAR for Ceres

I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor planets: 500001–501000 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Moon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Solar System for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jupiter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jupiter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Mars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of images of surface of Venus

Discuss at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Images of the surface of Venus. A2soup (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Round up

@Drbogdan:, @JorisvS: @WolfmanSF:, @Ruslik0:, @Ckatz:, @Urhixidur:, @Kheider:, @Materialscientist:, @Deuar:, @The Enlightened:, @Ryulong: @The Singing Badger:, @Edisonwhite:, @RJHall:. @Agmartin:, @Jehochman:, @J mareeswaran:, @Kwamikagami:, @Nrco0e:, @Tomruen:, @Renerpho:, @Eurocommuter:, @Pinethicket:.

Just trying to see who is still active in this Wikiproject. There are ongoing issues, particularly regarding the impending Ceres (dwarf planet) FAR. I want to know who is ready to take these things on, because otherwise it's time to declare this project inactive. Serendi^podous 01:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am here. Just spending most of my time on Near-Earth asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still here, but too busy at the moment. Don't count on me for this issue. Renerpho (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Still kicking, but going on holiday tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching. After the Planet Nine FAC I've been resting. It was a lot of work. Jehochman ^Talk 12:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I will try to help. :) Ruslik_Zero 16:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm here at least, but not very active this summer! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My time is rather limited these days, but I'll try to keep up on what is happening. Ckatz^chat_spy 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent expansions at Solar System

Solar System is a featured article, but it's recently received a few expansions of stub-like quality. Could also be giving undue weight to certain objects over others. Additional eyes are required. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Planetary science mission costs

The Planetary Science Institute has recently released detailed costs for all NASA planetary science missions (all numbers are in millions of US dollars). There are headline totals for each mission, and comparisons by year, celestial object and funding stream. Detailed annual budgets for each mission are given, before and after inflation adjustment. This could be a valuable source for dozens of articles. Modest Genius ^talk 11:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Surface features by space objects

I was searching for Russian names on planets, moons etc and I was thinking maybe a template like Template:Surface features of space objects would be useful, so I created it, and I've added it to List of geological features on Mercury. What do you think, is it useful? Shall I add it to more lists like List of geological features on Mercury - Avram25 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)