Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:{{la|Meanings of minor planet names: 508001–509000}} |
:{{la|Meanings of minor planet names: 508001–509000}} |
||
:{{la|Meanings of minor planet names: 509001–510000}} |
:{{la|Meanings of minor planet names: 509001–510000}} |
||
:+Full list of 542 pages [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000#List|here]] |
|||
Follow up to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000]]. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_planets:_500001%E2%80%93501000&diff=903138423&oldid=903129622], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them. |
Follow up to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000]]. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_planets:_500001%E2%80%93501000&diff=903138423&oldid=903129622], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them. |
Revision as of 03:52, 6 July 2019
Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 501001–502000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 502001–503000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 503001–504000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 504001–505000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 505001–506000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 506001–507000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 507001–508000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 508001–509000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meanings of minor planet names: 509001–510000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- +Full list of 542 pages here
Follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [1], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them.
These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied. Lower-numbered lists like Meanings of minor planet names: 333001–334000 have some items, but the etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources. These are otherwise redundant to List_of_minor_planets:_333001–334000#508 which has the same links to the JPL database. Such narrow number ranges are also unnecessary, compare to List of named minor planets: 400000–999999.Reywas92Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge all of them from 001 to 599,999 - Considering the very large number of pages, it probably made sense for someone to create them as a batch instead of having to individually update templates, directories, etc as new names are added. Minor planets can be named up to 10 years after discovery so it's theoretically possible that some of these could be filled. However, it makes much more sense to simply add the meaning to the main "list of minor planets 500,001-501,000" article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note - I've posted the related copyright concerns at copyright problems noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons already discussed in the AFD for this four days ago. I have contacted everyone who participated in that AFD but not shown up here yet, to inform them about the repeat discussion. Dream Focus 12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging, I'm sure they will be interested in this discussion as well. Please note that the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 recommended that this set of pages be nominated separately because participants may not have given them their full attention. –dlthewave ☎ 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't notice them or I would've contacted them too. I just looked for where keep, delete, or merge was written and copied the name of the person from there. I also forgot about the pinging system, that would've been easier than copy and pasting a notice on everyone's talk page. Dream Focus 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep These are part of a large set and it would be disruptive to delete particular links in the chain. Any restructuring should be done by considering the overall set, not just its weakest links. See WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Concerning WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, the pages in this nomination are empty so there's no content to preserve. There's no reason to maintain blank pages even if you have unlimited paper.
- I can't speak for the nominator, but I had initially chosen a set of ten pages to avoid the extra effort of tagging hundreds of other pages. We do need to look at the set as a whole, and hopefully whatever consensus is reached here will serve as a starting point for further discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- What we would be preserving is the structure as a framework for future updates. These are all sublists – part of a single logical structure. Given that these components exist now, there needs to be a justification or reason for deletion and we don't seem to have one; just a lack of understanding. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete All of these are empty lists, not to mention the fact that we don't even have an effective way of knowing who wrote what little text is there, when -- why are we even having this discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Merge or Redirect. Disagree about the etymology lists being redundant to the minor planet lists (focus is different). Repeating what I said in the previous AfD, maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, there are only 21922 named minor planets), but the occasional one does show up (right now there appear to be four). Supposedly the number of named minor planets has been growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year. I looked at the four meanings-of blurbs above 500000 (510045, 514107, 516560, 518523), and they all seem to have been copy-pasted from JPL directly. But I also took a look at a few lower-numbered meanings of blurbs, and here it looks like there was at least an effort to shorten and reword the content from the source (e.g. 4201-4210). Not sure what happened between then and now. Ahiijny (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note on page sizes, for perspective: The 2001-3000 meanings of page, where all 1000 bodies in that number range are named, has a page size of ~150 kB. Since there are currently ~22 thousand named minor planets, then that means at the moment, we most likely have ~150×22 kB = 3300 kB of article content to distribute across some number of subpages. Ahiijny (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yet there's still no reason the 'Named for' column can't go in the 'Citation' column of List of minor planets: 2001–3000 – the other columns are completely redundant and that info would fit just fine. Reywas92Talk 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note on page sizes, for perspective: The 2001-3000 meanings of page, where all 1000 bodies in that number range are named, has a page size of ~150 kB. Since there are currently ~22 thousand named minor planets, then that means at the moment, we most likely have ~150×22 kB = 3300 kB of article content to distribute across some number of subpages. Ahiijny (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the ping, I am also concerned about deleting articles in a chain. However I am only an amateur at this subject. The articles seem to have been created in 2017, in all that time they haven't been populated with any information so there does seem to be a problem with the articles at present. I really can't put any weight to deleting or keeping here. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (or Merge, if needed) - As part of a larger set, it's important to keep the list complete. Since there's a lot of subpages, the larger numbered ones can probably be merged together so we don't have empty ones. We could split/merge them like the named list does (...like List of named minor planets: 400000–999999). The way those pages do it is:
- 1–999 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8K 9K 10K 20K 30K 40K 50K 60K 70K 80K 90K 100K 150K 200K 250K 300K 350K 400K
- ...which could work! Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete these are empty lists that don't serve the reader at all. I don't mind having a list of planet meanings, but we have to be absolutely sure they're not copied from the JPL and have other sources available, but it makes no sense to have a directory structure without any files inside per WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is essentially the same as an empty category. I would be in favour of deleting all of them if they're just copied from the JPL on copyvio grounds, without any evidence for or against. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: The nomination is unclear and, at best, woefully inadequate.
- "
These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied.
" - This concern was addressed in the June 2019 AfD via the transclusion of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 3#Meanings of minor planet names: completely empty lists discussion, and other comments in the June 2019 AfD itself, giving the rationale for their creation. This rationale applies to both 'List of minor planets' and 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists. - "
[T]he etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources.
" - This is the rationale that was potentially-insufficiently discussed in the June 2019 AfD. However, only 11 articles were nominated, out of all possible ~600 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists which would be affected.
- I invite the nom to find whole descriptions that were copy & pasted from the NASA hosted/funded sites — which are public domain anyway. In fact, even briefer synopses of the etymologies listed there are listed in the associated Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, their use in the articles is beneficial, because they take the only relevant portion of the NASA site (which could have dozens upon dozens of pages of unrelated text), condense it, and provide useful wikilinks. This is a net positive for the Wiki, with no negative. Then, if the reader wishes to delve further, the external link is available.
not covered by tertiary sources.
- WP:NASTRO applies to the individual articles created about each of the listed asteroids, not the lists as a whole; see WP:NASTRO##Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: If you have secondary and tertiary sources on these topics, please use them to expand the articles, because currently they are empty. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- "