First of all, I think the filters should also exclude asteroids mentioned as being centaurs or jupiter trojans. I don't believe TNOs would apply in this case, as most of them are far beyond your highest numeric inclusion. Additionally, perhaps asteroids in certain asteroid families should be included?
for the template, I would also suggest adding the discovery date of the object as I have found it useful to add that to show the date it was discovered compared to other objects discovered that same year. I have already done so for nearly all objects discovered since ~2006, and before ~1900. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC) discovered date added to template
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom, in this discussion, I obviously have misunderstood a comment by you about the usage of Category:Numbered asteroids in redirected articles (quote: 201 minor planet redirects already in the cat had their sortkey changed from alphabetic/non-existent to numeric, instead of removing the cat (sorry).), so I have already removed that said category from about half of these 201 redir-articles, before I read your following post:
The 201 categorized redirects were done intentionally, so there's no need to change anything. I'd rather fix an existing category on a redirect than to remove the cat. Otherwise, this would send a mixed message to future editors, or the cat might be lost if/when the redirect is reverted, if the cat was added to the redirect. Keeping Category:Numbered asteroids clean of redirects is not a particularly worthwhile task, especially for those articles bouncing in and out of redirect; it's best just to keep the category on the page ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have great difficulties to follow your "mixed signal" sent to future editors and the "bouncing in-and-out article" arguments. All I see is that >90% of all redirects do not have this category, and that the category's name should probably be changed from "Category:Numbered asteroids" to something like "Category:Numbered asteroid articles" in order to make sense. Well I don't know. I just want you to know that I stopped removing this category from the remaining 100+ redirects until further clarification. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 08:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
While everything is possible, almost all minor planets numbered between 9,001 and 10,000 are still regarded as notable. This statistically implausible density of notable minor planets could be further revised (I see you already redirected 5 of them). If you want me to, I'll complete your Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates and redirect those articles, for which no coverage is available, i.e. the non-notable ones. Just let me know. Rfassbind – talk 11:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox planet}}
. So remove the empty params first, then add those < 2000 b to the list. That is how they got though... ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Added the 27 pages tagged with "(x)" (redirects) to the shortlist. I left the 12 "(revise)" alone, for you to expand. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Tom, many/most minor planet articles still use a footer template with the outdated alias {{
MinorPlanets_Footer}}
instead of the {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
. The move/renaming of this template already
took place back in 2007, but somehow, nobody cared to run a bot and update the template's new name in the thousands of articles using it. Wouldn't you be the right man for such a task? Cheers,
Rfassbind
– talk 12:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I just noticed your new parent category Category:Discoveries by institution, containing the new subcats Category:Discoveries by LINEAR and Category:Discoveries by LONEOS. Just to let you know that there is also a category Category:Asteroid surveys (created in 2008). It contains mostly articles about surveys, but also the subcat Category:Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research with discoveries (asteroid articles), as well as the listing Category:Palomar–Leiden survey with all P-L designated asteroids.
These older categories are confusing, because they do not clearly make a distinction between the listing of articles about the survey and the listing of discovered asteroids by the survey. Obviously there is already a redundancy ( Category:Discoveries by LINEAR Category:Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research). Of course, what you're doing is sound and consistent. At the moment I struggle a bit to distinguish discoveries by "Institutions", "Observatories" and "Surveys" in combination with the categories about them/discoveries by them.
I have tons of articles/redirs to add to these categories, but there is no hurry. Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the redundancies and mention that some distinctions need to be clarified. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 13:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It's just that LONEOS and LINEAR are also surveys (to me), and the Palomar Leiden Survey has follow-up campaigns (Palomar-Leiden Trojan survey), with the custom provisional designation " 4835 T-1" (for which no cat exits), while the sortkey for the prime PLS campaing is not appropriate. I'll get back as soon as I have wrapped my head around the topic more closely. Sometimes I feel like torching all old categories and start from scratch (i.e. your category and new one) would be much simpler... Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 16:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I think the filters should also exclude asteroids mentioned as being centaurs or jupiter trojans. I don't believe TNOs would apply in this case, as most of them are far beyond your highest numeric inclusion. Additionally, perhaps asteroids in certain asteroid families should be included?
for the template, I would also suggest adding the discovery date of the object as I have found it useful to add that to show the date it was discovered compared to other objects discovered that same year. I have already done so for nearly all objects discovered since ~2006, and before ~1900. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC) discovered date added to template
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom, in this discussion, I obviously have misunderstood a comment by you about the usage of Category:Numbered asteroids in redirected articles (quote: 201 minor planet redirects already in the cat had their sortkey changed from alphabetic/non-existent to numeric, instead of removing the cat (sorry).), so I have already removed that said category from about half of these 201 redir-articles, before I read your following post:
The 201 categorized redirects were done intentionally, so there's no need to change anything. I'd rather fix an existing category on a redirect than to remove the cat. Otherwise, this would send a mixed message to future editors, or the cat might be lost if/when the redirect is reverted, if the cat was added to the redirect. Keeping Category:Numbered asteroids clean of redirects is not a particularly worthwhile task, especially for those articles bouncing in and out of redirect; it's best just to keep the category on the page ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have great difficulties to follow your "mixed signal" sent to future editors and the "bouncing in-and-out article" arguments. All I see is that >90% of all redirects do not have this category, and that the category's name should probably be changed from "Category:Numbered asteroids" to something like "Category:Numbered asteroid articles" in order to make sense. Well I don't know. I just want you to know that I stopped removing this category from the remaining 100+ redirects until further clarification. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 08:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
While everything is possible, almost all minor planets numbered between 9,001 and 10,000 are still regarded as notable. This statistically implausible density of notable minor planets could be further revised (I see you already redirected 5 of them). If you want me to, I'll complete your Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates and redirect those articles, for which no coverage is available, i.e. the non-notable ones. Just let me know. Rfassbind – talk 11:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox planet}}
. So remove the empty params first, then add those < 2000 b to the list. That is how they got though... ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Added the 27 pages tagged with "(x)" (redirects) to the shortlist. I left the 12 "(revise)" alone, for you to expand. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Tom, many/most minor planet articles still use a footer template with the outdated alias {{
MinorPlanets_Footer}}
instead of the {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
. The move/renaming of this template already
took place back in 2007, but somehow, nobody cared to run a bot and update the template's new name in the thousands of articles using it. Wouldn't you be the right man for such a task? Cheers,
Rfassbind
– talk 12:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I just noticed your new parent category Category:Discoveries by institution, containing the new subcats Category:Discoveries by LINEAR and Category:Discoveries by LONEOS. Just to let you know that there is also a category Category:Asteroid surveys (created in 2008). It contains mostly articles about surveys, but also the subcat Category:Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research with discoveries (asteroid articles), as well as the listing Category:Palomar–Leiden survey with all P-L designated asteroids.
These older categories are confusing, because they do not clearly make a distinction between the listing of articles about the survey and the listing of discovered asteroids by the survey. Obviously there is already a redundancy ( Category:Discoveries by LINEAR Category:Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research). Of course, what you're doing is sound and consistent. At the moment I struggle a bit to distinguish discoveries by "Institutions", "Observatories" and "Surveys" in combination with the categories about them/discoveries by them.
I have tons of articles/redirs to add to these categories, but there is no hurry. Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the redundancies and mention that some distinctions need to be clarified. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 13:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It's just that LONEOS and LINEAR are also surveys (to me), and the Palomar Leiden Survey has follow-up campaigns (Palomar-Leiden Trojan survey), with the custom provisional designation " 4835 T-1" (for which no cat exits), while the sortkey for the prime PLS campaing is not appropriate. I'll get back as soon as I have wrapped my head around the topic more closely. Sometimes I feel like torching all old categories and start from scratch (i.e. your category and new one) would be much simpler... Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 16:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)