The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the history of planet numbering should be explained in an article, not via disambiguation pages. But I can't delete
First planet (disambiguation) and all the others via this AfD, because they have not been tagged for deletion. They will need to be nominated separately. Sandstein 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Useless
WP:TWODABS; per
Praemonitus (who reverted me when I added a hatnote at the primary topic pointing to the other topic), Nobody is going to confuse Venus with an archaic model. Note there was a previous mass AfD including this page at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First planet in 2012, which closed as no consensus
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)reply
On purely technical grounds, without checking what else is named "second planet", this is a sort-of primary topic disambiguation, with the main "second planet" being
venus and the subordinate "second planet" being
mercury (planet) and could be dealt with using headnotes. There is a case against the reversion, although that list and the several other 2-entry articles are just crying out for a navbox in a template instead of all of these wordy lists across multiple articles:
@
Uncle G: Please reformat your pseudo-navbox as a list of only the disambiguation pages, using {{
la}}. It's confusing and causes an extra indent on everything after it. Also, if all the dab pages are to be handled in this AfD, they should be AfD tagged. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 02:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
It's not a pseudo navbox. It is a navbox.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Let's not bundle these when the exact reason the previous discussion in 2012 failed was overbundling. Also note that
First planet and
Third planet are at the base title so should be redirected to
Mercury (planet) and
Earth respectively rather than deleted, and I boldly redirected
Eleventh planet (which was previously an article discussing planet observations) to
Planets beyond Neptune before starting discussion.
* Pppery *it has begun... 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes. I wasn't suggesting that we delete the others. But
Special:Permalink/1061374889 says to me that we've lost something with that redirect. I cannot find anywhere else where Wikipedia had that content, not even
planet#history.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Philosophically I can argue that the hatnote violated
WP:HATNOTERULES number 3: Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. The likelihood of somebody looking for "second planet" in the context of the Ptolemaic system and then confusing it with Mars is astronomically small.
Praemonitus (
talk) 03:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The way that I see it is this:
There are three immediately largely useless disambiguation articles that have very little prose content, no useful edit history, and nothing to disambiguate except planets by number:
Second planet (disambiguation),
Fourth planet (disambiguation),
Sixth planet (disambiguation). Their primary topics rightly point to the current heliocentric model numbers, and most of their space is taken up by cumbersome "See also" lists.
I don't think that this current system serves readers well. Yes, until 1845 the
fifth planet (disambiguation) was
Ceres. But explaining this to readers in the form of a maze of cross-linked disambiguation pages seems a poor choice. The reader looking for something other than the main topics for the second, fourth, and sixth planets are best off landing directly at
planet#history, I think. But I think that that means headnotes or some other indication in
venus where to go to find what else, historically, has been the second planet. Similarly for
Mars and
Saturn. The other numbers, with hypothetical planets and whatnot, are bridges we can cross when we come to them; and it doesn't take the deletion tool to clean up those terrible "See also" sections. Again, the best option may be that for anything other than the hypotheticals and outright non-planets, we direct readers who want the other numbering systems straight to
planet#history where there are numbered tables — no navbox, and no massive "See also" lists.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. It says a dab page is appropriate when "Two or more topics that might otherwise bear the same title, when there is no primary topic." I would argue we have no primary topic, and therefore a dab page is appropriate in this case. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a clearer consensus about each of the "foo number planet (disambiguation)" pages.
BD2412T Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BD2412T 04:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I am wondering if there is some scheme by which these can all be merged into a single index-type page, with hatnote referring to sections on that page.
BD2412T 04:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Well we already have
planet#history that has several tables with the different numberings, plus the (approximate) dates when they applied (e.g. until asteroids stopped being recognized as major planets), the details of which I hope
Pppery will pull out of
eleventh planet that xe blanked and add to
planet#history. I did initially think of a common navbox, but as above (having thought through how many rows the navbox would have to have) I came around to the view that
planet#history is where readers should land if they don't want the
second planet primary topic, and not
second planet (disambiguation). The same for
fourth planet (disambiguation) and
sixth planet (disambiguation), which are exactly the same case as here with just two things to disambiguate and they are both planets by number. The other numbers we can handle separately, as and when. They aren't parallel cases, and bundling them was a mistake last time at AFD. These three are the same, and count me as having come around to agreement with
Shhhnotsoloud, although I'd be easy going with redirecting these three disambiguations.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, it doesn't make sense, just makes things more ambiguous.
Artem.G (
talk) 09:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete the lot. Only exists to placate some daft and no longer used numbering system. Even if it did exist, it should be at
second planet, which currently and reasonably links to
Venus. "Second planet" is not a search term that anyone looking for
Mercury would enter.
Stifle (
talk) 10:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the history of planet numbering should be explained in an article, not via disambiguation pages. But I can't delete
First planet (disambiguation) and all the others via this AfD, because they have not been tagged for deletion. They will need to be nominated separately. Sandstein 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Useless
WP:TWODABS; per
Praemonitus (who reverted me when I added a hatnote at the primary topic pointing to the other topic), Nobody is going to confuse Venus with an archaic model. Note there was a previous mass AfD including this page at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First planet in 2012, which closed as no consensus
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)reply
On purely technical grounds, without checking what else is named "second planet", this is a sort-of primary topic disambiguation, with the main "second planet" being
venus and the subordinate "second planet" being
mercury (planet) and could be dealt with using headnotes. There is a case against the reversion, although that list and the several other 2-entry articles are just crying out for a navbox in a template instead of all of these wordy lists across multiple articles:
@
Uncle G: Please reformat your pseudo-navbox as a list of only the disambiguation pages, using {{
la}}. It's confusing and causes an extra indent on everything after it. Also, if all the dab pages are to be handled in this AfD, they should be AfD tagged. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 02:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
It's not a pseudo navbox. It is a navbox.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Let's not bundle these when the exact reason the previous discussion in 2012 failed was overbundling. Also note that
First planet and
Third planet are at the base title so should be redirected to
Mercury (planet) and
Earth respectively rather than deleted, and I boldly redirected
Eleventh planet (which was previously an article discussing planet observations) to
Planets beyond Neptune before starting discussion.
* Pppery *it has begun... 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes. I wasn't suggesting that we delete the others. But
Special:Permalink/1061374889 says to me that we've lost something with that redirect. I cannot find anywhere else where Wikipedia had that content, not even
planet#history.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Philosophically I can argue that the hatnote violated
WP:HATNOTERULES number 3: Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. The likelihood of somebody looking for "second planet" in the context of the Ptolemaic system and then confusing it with Mars is astronomically small.
Praemonitus (
talk) 03:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The way that I see it is this:
There are three immediately largely useless disambiguation articles that have very little prose content, no useful edit history, and nothing to disambiguate except planets by number:
Second planet (disambiguation),
Fourth planet (disambiguation),
Sixth planet (disambiguation). Their primary topics rightly point to the current heliocentric model numbers, and most of their space is taken up by cumbersome "See also" lists.
I don't think that this current system serves readers well. Yes, until 1845 the
fifth planet (disambiguation) was
Ceres. But explaining this to readers in the form of a maze of cross-linked disambiguation pages seems a poor choice. The reader looking for something other than the main topics for the second, fourth, and sixth planets are best off landing directly at
planet#history, I think. But I think that that means headnotes or some other indication in
venus where to go to find what else, historically, has been the second planet. Similarly for
Mars and
Saturn. The other numbers, with hypothetical planets and whatnot, are bridges we can cross when we come to them; and it doesn't take the deletion tool to clean up those terrible "See also" sections. Again, the best option may be that for anything other than the hypotheticals and outright non-planets, we direct readers who want the other numbering systems straight to
planet#history where there are numbered tables — no navbox, and no massive "See also" lists.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. It says a dab page is appropriate when "Two or more topics that might otherwise bear the same title, when there is no primary topic." I would argue we have no primary topic, and therefore a dab page is appropriate in this case. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a clearer consensus about each of the "foo number planet (disambiguation)" pages.
BD2412T Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BD2412T 04:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I am wondering if there is some scheme by which these can all be merged into a single index-type page, with hatnote referring to sections on that page.
BD2412T 04:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Well we already have
planet#history that has several tables with the different numberings, plus the (approximate) dates when they applied (e.g. until asteroids stopped being recognized as major planets), the details of which I hope
Pppery will pull out of
eleventh planet that xe blanked and add to
planet#history. I did initially think of a common navbox, but as above (having thought through how many rows the navbox would have to have) I came around to the view that
planet#history is where readers should land if they don't want the
second planet primary topic, and not
second planet (disambiguation). The same for
fourth planet (disambiguation) and
sixth planet (disambiguation), which are exactly the same case as here with just two things to disambiguate and they are both planets by number. The other numbers we can handle separately, as and when. They aren't parallel cases, and bundling them was a mistake last time at AFD. These three are the same, and count me as having come around to agreement with
Shhhnotsoloud, although I'd be easy going with redirecting these three disambiguations.
Uncle G (
talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, it doesn't make sense, just makes things more ambiguous.
Artem.G (
talk) 09:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete the lot. Only exists to placate some daft and no longer used numbering system. Even if it did exist, it should be at
second planet, which currently and reasonably links to
Venus. "Second planet" is not a search term that anyone looking for
Mercury would enter.
Stifle (
talk) 10:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.