![]() | This page 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. |
I noticed that Category:Great Attractor is a subcategory of Category:Norma Cluster which is a subcategory of Category:Great Attractor. One of these relationships should be broken. The category system is supposed to be a hierarchy. So that if you keep selecting a subcategory, you eventually reach a category without subcategories. Another problem is that there seems to be confusion about which supercluster these belong to. Since I am not an astronomer, I brought these matters here rather than fix them myself. JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (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)
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)
There are quite a few important categories relating to astronomy on wikipedia, and groups of categories. These range from category groups like Category:Astronomical objects discovered in [year], Category:Discoveries by [astronomer], and Category:[spectral type]-type asteroids, to more specific categories like Category:Quasars, Category:Multiple star systems, or Category:Kuiper belt objects. Every one of these categories contains a fairly large amount of objects in it and covers an important topic, but in most of these cases, and in quite a few more, there is no clearly established system or sort order for these objects, and in this discussion I seek to put an end to this, and provide a consensus for the outcome of this.
PROPOSALS:
I would recommend the exact sort format be provided on each category's page, as the sort format could quickly become quickly confusing and conflicting.
These are my proposals, yea or nay? Also, any comments or input? This is still a work in progress, and most of this I have based only on what I have encountered so far on wikipedia. Either way, I believe that this could be immensely helpful for providing meaningful information on Wikipedia, and I hope others will see this too. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
{{DEFAULTSORT}}
the basic question of whether or not such as default-option should be used in the first place is not mentioned in the proposal. Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that such an generic sort-option does potentially more damage than it helps. I suggest its removal from all articles about minor planets using a bot-request. -- Cheers,
Rfassbind
– talk 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer-name>]]
in minor planets articles do not make much sense to me. Why not directly list the bodies in the article about the astronomer? This would also simplify the inconsistent sorting-issue of categories, as mentioned above. For example the article about the astronomer
Nikolai Chernykh already lists his discoveries, while the redundant
Category:Discoveries by Nikolai Chernykh is incomplete (probably 50% of the bodies are missing). While it's easy to create a new category, it is much harder to make sure all articles are added in the correct sorting order. Maybe that's why there are so many incomplete categories...
Rfassbind
– talk 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is my opinion that readers are most likely to search for an article by its title. In the case of minor planets, this means the name, or if there is none, the number. In the case of stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc., this would mean the most commonly used designation, or common name if that is used more. I think that the categories should be arranged so that it is easy for readers to find articles they want, so they should be ordered by name/designation. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think a reasonable course of action is, as expolanetaryscience suggested, to state on each category page exactly how it should be sorted, both for preliminarily-designated objects and for numbered objects, but only if the intended sorting method for each category is obvious. If the category is a mess, we should discuss them individually, preferably on their talk page, but placing a link here ( WT:AST) so that all may participate. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
For the asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designations only (i.e. 1991 BA, not (3708) 1974 FV1), why are we trying to keep preliminary designations ordered by date of discovery in a non-chronological category? Isn't that the job of Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery? Turning "1992 QB1" into "1992 Q001B" seems unnecessarily confusing and could easily be done incorrectly. Any category explicitly or implicity sorted by name ( Category:Minor planets, for example, implies sorting by the object's name), the name of the article should be used (with the rare exception, which these names are not; they are the norm in their number range). This doesn't relate to numbered asteroids, whose sorting proposal I agree with. And even numbered asteroids are not sorted chronologically (they're only "roughly" chronological). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few months since
exoplanetaryscience brought up the
point that most of the
~19,200 numbered asteroids are not contained in
Category:Numbered asteroids (current population = 1,605).
This bot request was made shortly after, but never performed. The archived WT:AST discussion we had alongside the botreq is
here (I'm only concerned with point #1 at the moment); the consensus of which was to add a 0-padded 7-digit sort key to the end ([[Category:Numbered asteroids|0000001]]
) while adding the category to all of the ~19k pages. I'm thinking about taking up this request in the near future (as I did with the then-incomplete request to selectively redirect the many asteroid stubs), so I'll ping all those previously involved to see if any opinions have changed or been added, since I haven't really kept up with WP:AST, nor WP in general, over the last 6 months. [@
Exoplanetaryscience:, @
StringTheory11:, @
Kheider:, @
JorisvS:, @
Primefac:, @
Casliber:, @
Headbomb:] ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be adding an extra 0 to the front of any existing {{DEFAULTSORT:000001}}
6-digit entries too. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this won't be as all-encompassing a change as I thought it'd be, {{DEFAULTSORT}}
will remain 0-padded 6-digit, and a similar sortkey will be added to the category, if necessary. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Numbered asteroids is now completely sterilized (in a good way).
~2,100 pages were added (current population = 3,721).
201 minor planet redirects already in the cat had their sortkey changed from alphabetic/non-existent to numeric, instead of removing the cat (sorry).
Unfortunately, there were quite a few more #redirect-worthy minor planets than I expected... I'd say between 200 and 500, while I was expecting maybe 100. But, at least now they're easier to find :) ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
While working for a while on the minor planet redirects, and with
considerable
prodding from
exoplanetaryscience, I finally made an AWB rule-set which grabs discovery year, month, and day from the article text or from the infobox parameter |discovered=
(in that order, and, if both exist, checks for agreement (
text wrong,
text & infobox wrong)) and adds the corresponding YYYYMMDD sortkey, which is the sole sortkey-format I've seen for these categories. I want to run this on all pages contained in the 255 subcategories of
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery in the near future, so I figured I'd warn everyone. There will invariably be another shortlist of exceptions, but it'll be a lot easier to go through that once the easy-to-fix cases are taken care of.
Also, I'm tempted to put a note on this parent-category, and the 255 subcategories, explicitly stating the sortkey format, before I start. How about we come to an agreement on
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery first, then I'll propagate? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: 24% of existing articles needed fixing: ~1,261 edits made to the 21,485 pages in this category, ~16,215 of which are #redirects (inoperable due to missing text), leaving ~5,270 articles.
The shortlist of exceptions found, which should be fixed manually, are:
[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>|?]]
, which were only touched if they:Discovered by blah blah and [[blah]] on 2000/5/05
or |discovered=2000/5/05
)I also found a few pages whose only category is this one, i.e. 170906 Coluche, leading me to do some cat-arithmetic. Since Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery should include all Category:Minor planets, I found 3,986 Category:Minor planets pages not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, and 1,969 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery not in Category:Minor planets (though, at most, only 300 are not minor planets), so more maintenance is necessary. This will also help process the minor planet redirects and help populate the Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Update 2: Of the 3,986 not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, only 66 needed the addition; 96 were #redirects, and the other 3,824 were terrestrial objects (recursion often leads you into weird places). Of the 1,969 not in Category:Minor planets, only 92 are minor planets, and are all redirects, so I'll propagate their categories from redirection, if that's what caused the problem. Aside from these 92, the shortlist above, and barring any stray uncategorized pages, I think I've done pretty much all I can. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to tackle this very soon, at least in part.
For the numbered minor planets only, I will check for, and soft-handedly enforce the logic: (DEFAULTSORT || Category sortkey) == 0-padded 6-digit (0p6d), in the following ways:
{{DEFAULTSORT:
" is absent from the text, I will add {{DEFAULTSORT:<0p6d>}}
, for 3 reasons:That should account for all permutations.
I'll take care of the preliminary designation asteroids later, maybe, after we come to a firm consensus. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Of the 579 subcategories of Category:Minor planets, I see 23 asteroid-containing cats that should be sorted by name, which can be summed up with these 6:
for reference. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer>]]
if explicitly stated in the text.[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>]]
if %%pagename%%
includes <prelim designation>, or if |discovered=
or the text includes the discovery year.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if {{
Beltasteroid-stub}}, or similar, exist, and none of the 42 main-belt-family cats exist on the page.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if an asteroid-family orphan (and after double-checking JPL).~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a fairly large uncle-category which appears on most minor planet pages: 177 subcats, 7,637 unique pages, 9,522 non-unique pages, only 1 cat deep. Either someone has gone through a lot of trouble to sort ~66% by prelim, or no one decided to (or had the energy/desire/ability to) challenge the {{DEFAULTSORT:YYYY WW#}}
convention, until now. Either way, here's a summary of the 8 most-populated subcats, representing 42.5% of all categorized pages, and how they're sorted.
Subcat | Entries | Composition | Sort method | Prelim | Name | # |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Approx) | ||||||
Category:Discoveries by Hiroshi Kaneda | 652 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95.5% by prelim, 3.5% by name, 1% by # | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Seiji Ueda | 652 | "" | "" | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Henry E. Holt | 631 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95% by prelim, 4% by name, 1% by # | 599 | 25 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Henri Debehogne | 623 | ~95% #+prelim, ~5% #+name | 87% by prelim, 12% by name, 1% by # | 455 | 75 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Robert H. McNaught | 399 | 90 #+prelim, 10% #+name | 85% by prelim, 9.3% by name, 5.7% by "(" | 339 | 37 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Karl Wilhelm Reinmuth | 381 | >98% #+name, <2% #+prelim | 63% by name, 37% by # | 0 | 240 | 141 |
Category:Discoveries by Eric Walter Elst | 372 | ~20% #+prelim, ~80% #+name | 88% by name, 12% by prelim | 45 | 327 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Edward L. G. Bowell | 339 | 99.7% #+name | 99.7% by name | 0 | 338 | 0 |
Total | 4,049 | 2,684 (66%) | 1,088 (27%) | 167 (4%) |
What I'm about to do is pretty much a 1-way street right now, at least if/until AWB implements a $pagetitle$
feature, or the like, which I've recently
requested here (but I'm half convinced I'm simply throwing my request into a
black hole, since I have ~12 still-open requests from a year ago). Grabbing the numeric or name portion of MPs is easy, but as soon as we're allowed to use {{
mp}}
for the page, it gets really, really hard to make a reliable regex pattern to always get the page name and nothing but the page name, which would need to be operated on several times to get back to how it is. That's why I want to be very careful, and certain, about doing this.
%%pagename%%
, thankfully, exists! It was just not easily found in the AWB documentation. 2-way street established; hesitation diminished. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)I think we all prefer to sort all of these subcats in the same way, whatever it is. Personally, I agree with exoplanetaryscience's view that asteroids in these cats should be sorted by #, if possible. I just want to be absolutely sure that we all agree on this. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designationsabove, regarding (seemingly) needless duplication of chronological sorting: replace "chronological" with "numeric". Therefore, I agree.
17,500 entries. I went through the first few-dozen pages to find ~25% sorted by #, ~25% sorted by prelim, and ~50% sorted by name, (ugh):
17 pages under heading "0": 17*200 =~3,400 (vast majority are #+name, and sorted by #) 23 pages under heading "1": 23*200 =~4,600 (vast majority are #+prelim, and sorted by prelim) ~1 page under heading "2": 1*200 = ~200 (50/50 #+prelim/#-name: #+prelim are sorted by prelim, #+name are sorted by #) ~½ page under heading "3-9": = ~100 (mostly #+name, sorted by #) 41.5 total pgs under heading "0-9": =~8,300 (~47.5% of category) ~46 pages under headings "A-Z": 17,500-8,300 = 9,200 (~52.5% of category) (nearly all are #+name, and nearly all sorted by name)
I've also requested at Template talk:Large category TOC numeric that 1 more 0-padded level be added, so that 0p6d cats can be looked through in steps of 1,000, instead of steps of 10,000.
I'm thinking about putting the non-family-member, prelim-only pages in a child Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids, since there are comparatively so few pages of them.
Going 1 step further, I could make the child: Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids, leaving all the #+named in Category:Main-belt asteroids? I like this the more I think about it. What about everyone else? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Überrun complete! Thank you all for being patient while I blew up your watchlists.
Category/Template | Before | After | Change (Improvement) |
---|---|---|---|
[[
Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids]]
|
0 | 3,934 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids]]
|
0 | 3 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
17,501 | 14,973 | –2,528 |
Additions to [[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
– | – | +1,415 (10.5%) |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
177 | 233 | +56 (32%) |
Unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
7,637 | 7,909 | +272 (3.6%) |
Non-unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
9,522 | 9,816 | +294 (3.1%) |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by institution]]
|
0 | 13 | – |
{{
MinorPlanets Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
~260 | 54 | −206 (79%) |
{{
MinorPlanets_Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
840 | 218 | −622 (74%) |
{{
MinorPlanets Navigator}} → {{
Minor planets navigator}}
|
? | 2 | – |
All numbered asteroids (named & unnamed) should now be sorted properly. ~17,600 edits made, 72 categories created, and 24 "(<number>) <name>" asteroids had their categories stripped to avoid duplication. All new categories, and most existing ones, have a sortkey note at the top either explicitly stating their sort convention for asteroids, or a note pointing to their parent, which has the explicit convention, lest they drift in the future.
Very minor exceptions are 1) between 50-75 Category:Numbered asteroids are on #REDIRECT pages (1.8% of that category), and 2) 110 and 316 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery with either a "?" or empty sortkey, respectively. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done (again). Of these 1,321 'Low-Stub' #Rs: 1,197 were rebannered as 'NA-Redirect', and 124 banners were removed on duplicate #Rs (32 were numbered, named MPs, 92 were preliminary MPs). 'Low-Stubs' should now be completely void of #redirects. Also, 973 MP #Rs were found and had their categories propagated from before they were #redirected (so they can be found more easily). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I started a disussion on its talk page, Category talk:Minor planet redirects#How important is this category?. Basically, I'm asking whether we want this relatively-small cat (619 redirects) to be: 1) emptied, then deleted, 2) filled, or 3) left alone and incomplete? Please reply there. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
To let Category:Palomar–Leiden survey conform to the Category:Discoveries by institution hierarchy, its contents are being moved (and expanded) into Category:Discoveries by PLS. The sortkey for Category:Palomar–Leiden survey is its preliminary P-L designation, which is removed from the article's title when given a name, and (hopefully) added to/kept in the article text (standard for all MPs, as far as I can tell). The sortkey for all other Category:Discoveries by institution child categories is 0-padded 6-digit (maybe because their survey designations are either hard to find, or complicated).
My question is, do we want to:
? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
With help from Rfassbind, all objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. The hierarchy can be seen starting at Category:Asteroid surveys, Category:Astronomical surveys, and Category:Palomar Observatory. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Yamaneko Group of Comet Observers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Asteroids named as an award, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Category to be created & subcats populated soon with both MP articles and MP #Rs, based on suggestion from
Rfassbind &
discussion, barring any objections.
hildren include, but aren't limited to:
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I noticed that Category:Great Attractor is a subcategory of Category:Norma Cluster which is a subcategory of Category:Great Attractor. One of these relationships should be broken. The category system is supposed to be a hierarchy. So that if you keep selecting a subcategory, you eventually reach a category without subcategories. Another problem is that there seems to be confusion about which supercluster these belong to. Since I am not an astronomer, I brought these matters here rather than fix them myself. JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (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)
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)
There are quite a few important categories relating to astronomy on wikipedia, and groups of categories. These range from category groups like Category:Astronomical objects discovered in [year], Category:Discoveries by [astronomer], and Category:[spectral type]-type asteroids, to more specific categories like Category:Quasars, Category:Multiple star systems, or Category:Kuiper belt objects. Every one of these categories contains a fairly large amount of objects in it and covers an important topic, but in most of these cases, and in quite a few more, there is no clearly established system or sort order for these objects, and in this discussion I seek to put an end to this, and provide a consensus for the outcome of this.
PROPOSALS:
I would recommend the exact sort format be provided on each category's page, as the sort format could quickly become quickly confusing and conflicting.
These are my proposals, yea or nay? Also, any comments or input? This is still a work in progress, and most of this I have based only on what I have encountered so far on wikipedia. Either way, I believe that this could be immensely helpful for providing meaningful information on Wikipedia, and I hope others will see this too. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
{{DEFAULTSORT}}
the basic question of whether or not such as default-option should be used in the first place is not mentioned in the proposal. Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that such an generic sort-option does potentially more damage than it helps. I suggest its removal from all articles about minor planets using a bot-request. -- Cheers,
Rfassbind
– talk 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer-name>]]
in minor planets articles do not make much sense to me. Why not directly list the bodies in the article about the astronomer? This would also simplify the inconsistent sorting-issue of categories, as mentioned above. For example the article about the astronomer
Nikolai Chernykh already lists his discoveries, while the redundant
Category:Discoveries by Nikolai Chernykh is incomplete (probably 50% of the bodies are missing). While it's easy to create a new category, it is much harder to make sure all articles are added in the correct sorting order. Maybe that's why there are so many incomplete categories...
Rfassbind
– talk 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is my opinion that readers are most likely to search for an article by its title. In the case of minor planets, this means the name, or if there is none, the number. In the case of stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc., this would mean the most commonly used designation, or common name if that is used more. I think that the categories should be arranged so that it is easy for readers to find articles they want, so they should be ordered by name/designation. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think a reasonable course of action is, as expolanetaryscience suggested, to state on each category page exactly how it should be sorted, both for preliminarily-designated objects and for numbered objects, but only if the intended sorting method for each category is obvious. If the category is a mess, we should discuss them individually, preferably on their talk page, but placing a link here ( WT:AST) so that all may participate. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
For the asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designations only (i.e. 1991 BA, not (3708) 1974 FV1), why are we trying to keep preliminary designations ordered by date of discovery in a non-chronological category? Isn't that the job of Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery? Turning "1992 QB1" into "1992 Q001B" seems unnecessarily confusing and could easily be done incorrectly. Any category explicitly or implicity sorted by name ( Category:Minor planets, for example, implies sorting by the object's name), the name of the article should be used (with the rare exception, which these names are not; they are the norm in their number range). This doesn't relate to numbered asteroids, whose sorting proposal I agree with. And even numbered asteroids are not sorted chronologically (they're only "roughly" chronological). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few months since
exoplanetaryscience brought up the
point that most of the
~19,200 numbered asteroids are not contained in
Category:Numbered asteroids (current population = 1,605).
This bot request was made shortly after, but never performed. The archived WT:AST discussion we had alongside the botreq is
here (I'm only concerned with point #1 at the moment); the consensus of which was to add a 0-padded 7-digit sort key to the end ([[Category:Numbered asteroids|0000001]]
) while adding the category to all of the ~19k pages. I'm thinking about taking up this request in the near future (as I did with the then-incomplete request to selectively redirect the many asteroid stubs), so I'll ping all those previously involved to see if any opinions have changed or been added, since I haven't really kept up with WP:AST, nor WP in general, over the last 6 months. [@
Exoplanetaryscience:, @
StringTheory11:, @
Kheider:, @
JorisvS:, @
Primefac:, @
Casliber:, @
Headbomb:] ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be adding an extra 0 to the front of any existing {{DEFAULTSORT:000001}}
6-digit entries too. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this won't be as all-encompassing a change as I thought it'd be, {{DEFAULTSORT}}
will remain 0-padded 6-digit, and a similar sortkey will be added to the category, if necessary. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Numbered asteroids is now completely sterilized (in a good way).
~2,100 pages were added (current population = 3,721).
201 minor planet redirects already in the cat had their sortkey changed from alphabetic/non-existent to numeric, instead of removing the cat (sorry).
Unfortunately, there were quite a few more #redirect-worthy minor planets than I expected... I'd say between 200 and 500, while I was expecting maybe 100. But, at least now they're easier to find :) ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
While working for a while on the minor planet redirects, and with
considerable
prodding from
exoplanetaryscience, I finally made an AWB rule-set which grabs discovery year, month, and day from the article text or from the infobox parameter |discovered=
(in that order, and, if both exist, checks for agreement (
text wrong,
text & infobox wrong)) and adds the corresponding YYYYMMDD sortkey, which is the sole sortkey-format I've seen for these categories. I want to run this on all pages contained in the 255 subcategories of
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery in the near future, so I figured I'd warn everyone. There will invariably be another shortlist of exceptions, but it'll be a lot easier to go through that once the easy-to-fix cases are taken care of.
Also, I'm tempted to put a note on this parent-category, and the 255 subcategories, explicitly stating the sortkey format, before I start. How about we come to an agreement on
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery first, then I'll propagate? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: 24% of existing articles needed fixing: ~1,261 edits made to the 21,485 pages in this category, ~16,215 of which are #redirects (inoperable due to missing text), leaving ~5,270 articles.
The shortlist of exceptions found, which should be fixed manually, are:
[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>|?]]
, which were only touched if they:Discovered by blah blah and [[blah]] on 2000/5/05
or |discovered=2000/5/05
)I also found a few pages whose only category is this one, i.e. 170906 Coluche, leading me to do some cat-arithmetic. Since Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery should include all Category:Minor planets, I found 3,986 Category:Minor planets pages not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, and 1,969 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery not in Category:Minor planets (though, at most, only 300 are not minor planets), so more maintenance is necessary. This will also help process the minor planet redirects and help populate the Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Update 2: Of the 3,986 not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, only 66 needed the addition; 96 were #redirects, and the other 3,824 were terrestrial objects (recursion often leads you into weird places). Of the 1,969 not in Category:Minor planets, only 92 are minor planets, and are all redirects, so I'll propagate their categories from redirection, if that's what caused the problem. Aside from these 92, the shortlist above, and barring any stray uncategorized pages, I think I've done pretty much all I can. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to tackle this very soon, at least in part.
For the numbered minor planets only, I will check for, and soft-handedly enforce the logic: (DEFAULTSORT || Category sortkey) == 0-padded 6-digit (0p6d), in the following ways:
{{DEFAULTSORT:
" is absent from the text, I will add {{DEFAULTSORT:<0p6d>}}
, for 3 reasons:That should account for all permutations.
I'll take care of the preliminary designation asteroids later, maybe, after we come to a firm consensus. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Of the 579 subcategories of Category:Minor planets, I see 23 asteroid-containing cats that should be sorted by name, which can be summed up with these 6:
for reference. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer>]]
if explicitly stated in the text.[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>]]
if %%pagename%%
includes <prelim designation>, or if |discovered=
or the text includes the discovery year.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if {{
Beltasteroid-stub}}, or similar, exist, and none of the 42 main-belt-family cats exist on the page.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if an asteroid-family orphan (and after double-checking JPL).~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a fairly large uncle-category which appears on most minor planet pages: 177 subcats, 7,637 unique pages, 9,522 non-unique pages, only 1 cat deep. Either someone has gone through a lot of trouble to sort ~66% by prelim, or no one decided to (or had the energy/desire/ability to) challenge the {{DEFAULTSORT:YYYY WW#}}
convention, until now. Either way, here's a summary of the 8 most-populated subcats, representing 42.5% of all categorized pages, and how they're sorted.
Subcat | Entries | Composition | Sort method | Prelim | Name | # |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Approx) | ||||||
Category:Discoveries by Hiroshi Kaneda | 652 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95.5% by prelim, 3.5% by name, 1% by # | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Seiji Ueda | 652 | "" | "" | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Henry E. Holt | 631 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95% by prelim, 4% by name, 1% by # | 599 | 25 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Henri Debehogne | 623 | ~95% #+prelim, ~5% #+name | 87% by prelim, 12% by name, 1% by # | 455 | 75 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Robert H. McNaught | 399 | 90 #+prelim, 10% #+name | 85% by prelim, 9.3% by name, 5.7% by "(" | 339 | 37 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Karl Wilhelm Reinmuth | 381 | >98% #+name, <2% #+prelim | 63% by name, 37% by # | 0 | 240 | 141 |
Category:Discoveries by Eric Walter Elst | 372 | ~20% #+prelim, ~80% #+name | 88% by name, 12% by prelim | 45 | 327 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Edward L. G. Bowell | 339 | 99.7% #+name | 99.7% by name | 0 | 338 | 0 |
Total | 4,049 | 2,684 (66%) | 1,088 (27%) | 167 (4%) |
What I'm about to do is pretty much a 1-way street right now, at least if/until AWB implements a $pagetitle$
feature, or the like, which I've recently
requested here (but I'm half convinced I'm simply throwing my request into a
black hole, since I have ~12 still-open requests from a year ago). Grabbing the numeric or name portion of MPs is easy, but as soon as we're allowed to use {{
mp}}
for the page, it gets really, really hard to make a reliable regex pattern to always get the page name and nothing but the page name, which would need to be operated on several times to get back to how it is. That's why I want to be very careful, and certain, about doing this.
%%pagename%%
, thankfully, exists! It was just not easily found in the AWB documentation. 2-way street established; hesitation diminished. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)I think we all prefer to sort all of these subcats in the same way, whatever it is. Personally, I agree with exoplanetaryscience's view that asteroids in these cats should be sorted by #, if possible. I just want to be absolutely sure that we all agree on this. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designationsabove, regarding (seemingly) needless duplication of chronological sorting: replace "chronological" with "numeric". Therefore, I agree.
17,500 entries. I went through the first few-dozen pages to find ~25% sorted by #, ~25% sorted by prelim, and ~50% sorted by name, (ugh):
17 pages under heading "0": 17*200 =~3,400 (vast majority are #+name, and sorted by #) 23 pages under heading "1": 23*200 =~4,600 (vast majority are #+prelim, and sorted by prelim) ~1 page under heading "2": 1*200 = ~200 (50/50 #+prelim/#-name: #+prelim are sorted by prelim, #+name are sorted by #) ~½ page under heading "3-9": = ~100 (mostly #+name, sorted by #) 41.5 total pgs under heading "0-9": =~8,300 (~47.5% of category) ~46 pages under headings "A-Z": 17,500-8,300 = 9,200 (~52.5% of category) (nearly all are #+name, and nearly all sorted by name)
I've also requested at Template talk:Large category TOC numeric that 1 more 0-padded level be added, so that 0p6d cats can be looked through in steps of 1,000, instead of steps of 10,000.
I'm thinking about putting the non-family-member, prelim-only pages in a child Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids, since there are comparatively so few pages of them.
Going 1 step further, I could make the child: Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids, leaving all the #+named in Category:Main-belt asteroids? I like this the more I think about it. What about everyone else? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Überrun complete! Thank you all for being patient while I blew up your watchlists.
Category/Template | Before | After | Change (Improvement) |
---|---|---|---|
[[
Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids]]
|
0 | 3,934 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids]]
|
0 | 3 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
17,501 | 14,973 | –2,528 |
Additions to [[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
– | – | +1,415 (10.5%) |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
177 | 233 | +56 (32%) |
Unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
7,637 | 7,909 | +272 (3.6%) |
Non-unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
9,522 | 9,816 | +294 (3.1%) |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by institution]]
|
0 | 13 | – |
{{
MinorPlanets Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
~260 | 54 | −206 (79%) |
{{
MinorPlanets_Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
840 | 218 | −622 (74%) |
{{
MinorPlanets Navigator}} → {{
Minor planets navigator}}
|
? | 2 | – |
All numbered asteroids (named & unnamed) should now be sorted properly. ~17,600 edits made, 72 categories created, and 24 "(<number>) <name>" asteroids had their categories stripped to avoid duplication. All new categories, and most existing ones, have a sortkey note at the top either explicitly stating their sort convention for asteroids, or a note pointing to their parent, which has the explicit convention, lest they drift in the future.
Very minor exceptions are 1) between 50-75 Category:Numbered asteroids are on #REDIRECT pages (1.8% of that category), and 2) 110 and 316 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery with either a "?" or empty sortkey, respectively. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done (again). Of these 1,321 'Low-Stub' #Rs: 1,197 were rebannered as 'NA-Redirect', and 124 banners were removed on duplicate #Rs (32 were numbered, named MPs, 92 were preliminary MPs). 'Low-Stubs' should now be completely void of #redirects. Also, 973 MP #Rs were found and had their categories propagated from before they were #redirected (so they can be found more easily). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I started a disussion on its talk page, Category talk:Minor planet redirects#How important is this category?. Basically, I'm asking whether we want this relatively-small cat (619 redirects) to be: 1) emptied, then deleted, 2) filled, or 3) left alone and incomplete? Please reply there. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
To let Category:Palomar–Leiden survey conform to the Category:Discoveries by institution hierarchy, its contents are being moved (and expanded) into Category:Discoveries by PLS. The sortkey for Category:Palomar–Leiden survey is its preliminary P-L designation, which is removed from the article's title when given a name, and (hopefully) added to/kept in the article text (standard for all MPs, as far as I can tell). The sortkey for all other Category:Discoveries by institution child categories is 0-padded 6-digit (maybe because their survey designations are either hard to find, or complicated).
My question is, do we want to:
? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
With help from Rfassbind, all objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. The hierarchy can be seen starting at Category:Asteroid surveys, Category:Astronomical surveys, and Category:Palomar Observatory. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Yamaneko Group of Comet Observers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Asteroids named as an award, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Category to be created & subcats populated soon with both MP articles and MP #Rs, based on suggestion from
Rfassbind &
discussion, barring any objections.
hildren include, but aren't limited to:
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)