![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
StringTheory11 made a bot request (never performed and aspects previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here) with the following criteria (verbatim):
I can filter articles in AWB which meet criteria 1, 3, 4, but not #2 (I think).
If y'all want, I can do this semi-automatically, or I can use a different criteria #2v2:
which doesn't restrict pages to those created by ClueBot II or Merovingian, but maintains a similar spirit to the original request, I think. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
But remember that if placed in a list, MoS tells us to never allow the linking to go circular and link back to it's page of origin. "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on." They can be redlinked "IF" it is likely to have a stand-alone article created in the future. But no links back to itself. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've seen several asteroid redirects which kept the original article's categories (i.e. Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1990, Category:Discoveries by Kin Endate, Category:Discoveries by Kazuro Watanabe). These redirects are in the minority, but I can see why they'd be useful to someone searching through them. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects says generally, no, but maybe, sometimes. Should I keep all categories when I make the redirect or just get rid of them as usual? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
unless there are dedicated list articles in place: I'm redirecting all asteroid stubs to pages/locations such as List of minor planets: 9001–10000#101 (I guess that wasn't made clear in this thread). Do you disagree with the categorization of all these redirects? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 1st pass on the ~16,500 #redirect candidate asteroid stubs is complete. ~8,240 redirects were made. Exceptions to the above criteria were made on a case-by-case basis, for example: 2307 Garuda, 17543 Sosva, 18155 Jasonschuler, 18809 Meileawertz. This has brought down the WikiProject Astronomy cleanup listing and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 dramatically!
Proposal: I noticed the potential for a few small expansions of the orignal #redirect criteria. Once I started with an edit summary (..."2) main-body data duplicated on the list page"...) I wanted it to hold true for the entire run. Now, with the original criteria fulfilled, I think the following 3 reasonable modifications (rules) can be added (assuming the page contains no novel information):
5) Pages with orbital parameter data from the JPL database written into the article text (i.e. orbital period like 23315_Navinbrian and 28516 Möbius, or with several parameters like (5903) 1989 AN1). Any page with diameter, mass, density, surface gravity, or escape velocity won't be redirected because those doesn't appear obviously on the JPL link.
6) Pages with namesake information written into the article text (i.e. xxx was named after yyy, xxx is Latin for yyy, etc.), which already reside in list form at Meanings of minor planet names.
7) Pages with specifically these 3 external links: 1) to the JPL database (rule #1), 2) to the Minor Planet Center database (like http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/NumberedMPs005001.html), which is basically a duplicate of the info on the #redirect lists and/or the JPL database, and 3) to Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, which is the primary source for the Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–2500 family of pages (see top of that page).
Is there a concensus to include some or all of rules 5, 6, 7 in a subsequent run? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 13:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 2nd pass using rules #1-7 is complete. ~2790 redirects were made. Of the 16,444 asteroids numbered > 2000, 15,035 are now redirects. The 555 missing-meanings asteroids will be delt with later (next Tuesday). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Towards the beginning of the 2nd pass I saw that some asteroid pages which included the discoverer's information did not have the corresponding category. I figured out an easy way to make 431 AWB rules to made sure that asteroids which contained variants of "discovered by <name>" included one (or more) of the 431 corresponding "Category: Discoveries by <name>". I wish I had seen this opportunity sooner, but I applied it to all non-redirects at the time (~4100) and only made 41 additions. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
While going through the asteroids, I found that there are many Meanings of minor planet names which exist in Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (Google Books link) but not in the list pages. If someone here would want to put in and wikilink some of the missing meanings, that would be very helpful. Only a small phrase is necessary for each entry (i.e. 3905 Doppler: Christian Doppler, Austrian mathematician and physicist). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 19:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
<s>
what you've done. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Meanings of minor planet names: 3501–4000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 4501–5000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–5500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 5501–6000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 6001–6500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 6501–7000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 7001–7500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 7501–8000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–8500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 8501–9000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 9501–10000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 11001–12000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 12001–13000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 13001–14000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 14001–15000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 15001–16000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 16001–17000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 17001–18000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 18001–19000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 19001–20000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 21001–22000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 22001–23000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 23001–24000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 24001–25000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 25001–26000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 26001–27000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 27001–28000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 28001–29000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 29001–30000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 84001–85000 is missing:
Update: 3rd pass using rules #1-7, but relaxed rule #6, is complete. All but ~3 of the above 555 missing-meaning asteroids were redirected. ~3 of them had live AfDs so were not touched.
There should now be ~857 non-redirected asteroid articles numbered > 2000. The Astronomy cleanup listing is now down from 20% of all astro articles being marked for cleanup before I started to 10%.
I also went through all current asteroid redirects, adding {{ R to list entry}} to ~3704, and propagating categories on ~45 uncategorized redirects (entirely-uncategorized redirects were actually in the minority). However, this doesn't mean that all redirects have all of their parent article's categories (but the ones I touched do). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Code: To facilitate the redirect process, I made an AWB module to increment and/or decrement any number on a page. I thought I'd share it here: User:Tom.Reding/Inc & Dec AWB Module. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Update 4th pass using the parent Category:Minor planets (instead of the child Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs) added 223 redirects and 1584 "keeps" numbered > 2000.
Of the 1584 keeps were 183 unnamed asteroids numbered > 2000 with only a preliminary designation (no final designation per JPL), and an additional 26 numbered <= 2000, for a total of 209. Therefore, they are without a list to redirect them to (that I know of). If anyone knows if there's a place to redirect these that would be helpful. Otherwise, some of these could actually be proper AfDs (@ Boleyn:). I'll separate these 209 in #Summary of Remaining Redirected & Unredirected Asteroid Articles below. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Asteroids in Category:Minor planets | # of redirects | # of non-redirects | Total |
---|---|---|---|
numbered <= 2000 | 71 | 1851 | 1922 |
numbered > 2000 | 15,594 | 1721* | 17,315 |
unnumbered | 2 | 209** | 211 |
Total | 15,667 | 3781 | 19,448 |
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Proposed Changes. WikiProject Astronomy's input is requested. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for KOI-1686.01 to be moved to KOI-1686. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Certainly anyone who has done searches into asteroids' provisional designations for wikipedia or otherwise has noticed that a large portion (if not all of) of the first discovered asteroids have multiple designations from before there were easy ways to discover if the object you're observing is already known or not. Even some of the first asteroids have multiple designations. Ceres is additionally known as A899 OF and 1943 XB. Astraea is known as 1969 SE. However only one date is included in the Category:Astronomical objects discovered in [year], so I propose that asteroids discovered multiple times, and given multiple designations, be either sorted into a separate category, for instance Category:Asteroids rediscovered in [year], or something similar. Or, alternatively, be sorted into multiple discovery year categories. Additionally, while I'm on the topic, a number of asteroids discovered after around #300 are listed as being discovered multiple times, but a true date of discovery is included because after observations on the previous dates, it was lost. Should its discovery date noted on the article be the most recent one of which sufficient observational data was found to have it not be considered a lost asteroid, the first discovery date displayed, or should both discovery dates be listed? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 21:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The
Bot Request folks need WikiProject Astronomy to endorse putting the remaining ~18,708 numbered asteroids that aren't in [[
Category:Numbered asteroids]]
into that category, which only contains 529 of the ~19,237 numbered asteroids at the moment. Yea/nay? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 14:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the concern is actually over whether or not there is concensus for how to sort the pages that will be in Category:Numbered asteroids, so that multiple changes don't have to be made to so many articles. To help, I've gone through the numbered asteroids in Category:Minor planets and Category:Numbered asteroids and found:
Numbered Asteroids in Category: | Category:Minor planets | Category:Numbered asteroids |
---|---|---|
Pages that use {{DefaultSort:<alphanumeric>}}
|
16,429 (85.4%) | 539 (95.6%) |
Pages that use {{DefaultSort:<numbers only, w or w/o "()">}}
|
1,477 (7.7%) | 25 (4.4%) |
Pages without "{{DefaultSort "
|
1,331 (6.9%) | 0 |
Total | 19,237 | 564 |
There are other categories such as
Category:Asteroids named for people for the named asteroids, which is probably why there are 12,335 using {{DefaultSort:<name>}}
. Therefore, most straight-forward solution I see is to (with a bot request or 2):
[[Category:Numbered asteroids|<a 0-padded 6-digit number>]]
on all current and future additions to this category. 11 of the 564 pages currently use this sortkey.[[Category:Asteroids named for people|<the non-numeric portion of the asteroid's name>]]
on all current and future additions to these types of categories which rely on name.What're everyone's thoughts on this? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Are we in agreement with 6 digits for point #2?
Regarding point #3 (using the name in a cat's sortkey), I guess we should agree on which categories should have this done. All categories starting with [[Category:Asteroids named ...]]
(there are
14) and [[Category:Minor planets named ...]]
(there are
2)? Anything else? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Prompted by some recent news stories, I started an article on chaotic rotation. But it could use a more careful introduction and a clearer explanation. The article [1] discusses properties of the shape of a moon that contribute to it, and some of the math involved, and I won't claim to understand all of it - it would be nice if someone can dig into the theoretical foundations. Wnt ( talk) 19:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
StringTheory11 made a bot request (never performed and aspects previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here) with the following criteria (verbatim):
I can filter articles in AWB which meet criteria 1, 3, 4, but not #2 (I think).
If y'all want, I can do this semi-automatically, or I can use a different criteria #2v2:
which doesn't restrict pages to those created by ClueBot II or Merovingian, but maintains a similar spirit to the original request, I think. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
But remember that if placed in a list, MoS tells us to never allow the linking to go circular and link back to it's page of origin. "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on." They can be redlinked "IF" it is likely to have a stand-alone article created in the future. But no links back to itself. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've seen several asteroid redirects which kept the original article's categories (i.e. Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1990, Category:Discoveries by Kin Endate, Category:Discoveries by Kazuro Watanabe). These redirects are in the minority, but I can see why they'd be useful to someone searching through them. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects says generally, no, but maybe, sometimes. Should I keep all categories when I make the redirect or just get rid of them as usual? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
unless there are dedicated list articles in place: I'm redirecting all asteroid stubs to pages/locations such as List of minor planets: 9001–10000#101 (I guess that wasn't made clear in this thread). Do you disagree with the categorization of all these redirects? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 1st pass on the ~16,500 #redirect candidate asteroid stubs is complete. ~8,240 redirects were made. Exceptions to the above criteria were made on a case-by-case basis, for example: 2307 Garuda, 17543 Sosva, 18155 Jasonschuler, 18809 Meileawertz. This has brought down the WikiProject Astronomy cleanup listing and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 dramatically!
Proposal: I noticed the potential for a few small expansions of the orignal #redirect criteria. Once I started with an edit summary (..."2) main-body data duplicated on the list page"...) I wanted it to hold true for the entire run. Now, with the original criteria fulfilled, I think the following 3 reasonable modifications (rules) can be added (assuming the page contains no novel information):
5) Pages with orbital parameter data from the JPL database written into the article text (i.e. orbital period like 23315_Navinbrian and 28516 Möbius, or with several parameters like (5903) 1989 AN1). Any page with diameter, mass, density, surface gravity, or escape velocity won't be redirected because those doesn't appear obviously on the JPL link.
6) Pages with namesake information written into the article text (i.e. xxx was named after yyy, xxx is Latin for yyy, etc.), which already reside in list form at Meanings of minor planet names.
7) Pages with specifically these 3 external links: 1) to the JPL database (rule #1), 2) to the Minor Planet Center database (like http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/NumberedMPs005001.html), which is basically a duplicate of the info on the #redirect lists and/or the JPL database, and 3) to Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, which is the primary source for the Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–2500 family of pages (see top of that page).
Is there a concensus to include some or all of rules 5, 6, 7 in a subsequent run? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 13:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: 2nd pass using rules #1-7 is complete. ~2790 redirects were made. Of the 16,444 asteroids numbered > 2000, 15,035 are now redirects. The 555 missing-meanings asteroids will be delt with later (next Tuesday). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Towards the beginning of the 2nd pass I saw that some asteroid pages which included the discoverer's information did not have the corresponding category. I figured out an easy way to make 431 AWB rules to made sure that asteroids which contained variants of "discovered by <name>" included one (or more) of the 431 corresponding "Category: Discoveries by <name>". I wish I had seen this opportunity sooner, but I applied it to all non-redirects at the time (~4100) and only made 41 additions. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
While going through the asteroids, I found that there are many Meanings of minor planet names which exist in Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (Google Books link) but not in the list pages. If someone here would want to put in and wikilink some of the missing meanings, that would be very helpful. Only a small phrase is necessary for each entry (i.e. 3905 Doppler: Christian Doppler, Austrian mathematician and physicist). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 19:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
<s>
what you've done. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Meanings of minor planet names: 3501–4000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 4501–5000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–5500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 5501–6000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 6001–6500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 6501–7000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 7001–7500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 7501–8000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–8500 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 8501–9000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 9501–10000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 11001–12000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 12001–13000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 13001–14000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 14001–15000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 15001–16000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 16001–17000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 17001–18000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 18001–19000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 19001–20000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 21001–22000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 22001–23000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 23001–24000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 24001–25000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 25001–26000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 26001–27000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 27001–28000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 28001–29000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 29001–30000 is missing:
Meanings of minor planet names: 84001–85000 is missing:
Update: 3rd pass using rules #1-7, but relaxed rule #6, is complete. All but ~3 of the above 555 missing-meaning asteroids were redirected. ~3 of them had live AfDs so were not touched.
There should now be ~857 non-redirected asteroid articles numbered > 2000. The Astronomy cleanup listing is now down from 20% of all astro articles being marked for cleanup before I started to 10%.
I also went through all current asteroid redirects, adding {{ R to list entry}} to ~3704, and propagating categories on ~45 uncategorized redirects (entirely-uncategorized redirects were actually in the minority). However, this doesn't mean that all redirects have all of their parent article's categories (but the ones I touched do). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Code: To facilitate the redirect process, I made an AWB module to increment and/or decrement any number on a page. I thought I'd share it here: User:Tom.Reding/Inc & Dec AWB Module. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Update 4th pass using the parent Category:Minor planets (instead of the child Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs) added 223 redirects and 1584 "keeps" numbered > 2000.
Of the 1584 keeps were 183 unnamed asteroids numbered > 2000 with only a preliminary designation (no final designation per JPL), and an additional 26 numbered <= 2000, for a total of 209. Therefore, they are without a list to redirect them to (that I know of). If anyone knows if there's a place to redirect these that would be helpful. Otherwise, some of these could actually be proper AfDs (@ Boleyn:). I'll separate these 209 in #Summary of Remaining Redirected & Unredirected Asteroid Articles below. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Asteroids in Category:Minor planets | # of redirects | # of non-redirects | Total |
---|---|---|---|
numbered <= 2000 | 71 | 1851 | 1922 |
numbered > 2000 | 15,594 | 1721* | 17,315 |
unnumbered | 2 | 209** | 211 |
Total | 15,667 | 3781 | 19,448 |
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Proposed Changes. WikiProject Astronomy's input is requested. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for KOI-1686.01 to be moved to KOI-1686. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Certainly anyone who has done searches into asteroids' provisional designations for wikipedia or otherwise has noticed that a large portion (if not all of) of the first discovered asteroids have multiple designations from before there were easy ways to discover if the object you're observing is already known or not. Even some of the first asteroids have multiple designations. Ceres is additionally known as A899 OF and 1943 XB. Astraea is known as 1969 SE. However only one date is included in the Category:Astronomical objects discovered in [year], so I propose that asteroids discovered multiple times, and given multiple designations, be either sorted into a separate category, for instance Category:Asteroids rediscovered in [year], or something similar. Or, alternatively, be sorted into multiple discovery year categories. Additionally, while I'm on the topic, a number of asteroids discovered after around #300 are listed as being discovered multiple times, but a true date of discovery is included because after observations on the previous dates, it was lost. Should its discovery date noted on the article be the most recent one of which sufficient observational data was found to have it not be considered a lost asteroid, the first discovery date displayed, or should both discovery dates be listed? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 21:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The
Bot Request folks need WikiProject Astronomy to endorse putting the remaining ~18,708 numbered asteroids that aren't in [[
Category:Numbered asteroids]]
into that category, which only contains 529 of the ~19,237 numbered asteroids at the moment. Yea/nay? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 14:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the concern is actually over whether or not there is concensus for how to sort the pages that will be in Category:Numbered asteroids, so that multiple changes don't have to be made to so many articles. To help, I've gone through the numbered asteroids in Category:Minor planets and Category:Numbered asteroids and found:
Numbered Asteroids in Category: | Category:Minor planets | Category:Numbered asteroids |
---|---|---|
Pages that use {{DefaultSort:<alphanumeric>}}
|
16,429 (85.4%) | 539 (95.6%) |
Pages that use {{DefaultSort:<numbers only, w or w/o "()">}}
|
1,477 (7.7%) | 25 (4.4%) |
Pages without "{{DefaultSort "
|
1,331 (6.9%) | 0 |
Total | 19,237 | 564 |
There are other categories such as
Category:Asteroids named for people for the named asteroids, which is probably why there are 12,335 using {{DefaultSort:<name>}}
. Therefore, most straight-forward solution I see is to (with a bot request or 2):
[[Category:Numbered asteroids|<a 0-padded 6-digit number>]]
on all current and future additions to this category. 11 of the 564 pages currently use this sortkey.[[Category:Asteroids named for people|<the non-numeric portion of the asteroid's name>]]
on all current and future additions to these types of categories which rely on name.What're everyone's thoughts on this? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Are we in agreement with 6 digits for point #2?
Regarding point #3 (using the name in a cat's sortkey), I guess we should agree on which categories should have this done. All categories starting with [[Category:Asteroids named ...]]
(there are
14) and [[Category:Minor planets named ...]]
(there are
2)? Anything else? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Prompted by some recent news stories, I started an article on chaotic rotation. But it could use a more careful introduction and a clearer explanation. The article [1] discusses properties of the shape of a moon that contribute to it, and some of the math involved, and I won't claim to understand all of it - it would be nice if someone can dig into the theoretical foundations. Wnt ( talk) 19:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)