131:
168:
77:
53:
22:
439:; I am redirecting them to the list article where the exact same information is present, and where there is often only one reference to a database entry. At current, they all fail GNG. If you want to improve them, by all means go for it, but if you revert simply for the sake of reverting I will waste everyone's time and send them all to AFD to formally get them redirected.
87:
772:
417:, I'd ask you to stop deleting crater articles, didn't know you were doing that. Not as much pretty pictures but encyclopedic pictures of the craters, images which define the topic and focus attention on the individual geological feature. How many have you done (I don't have more than a few on my watch list)? Thanks.
838:
Yes, I think "presumed" may be a poor word choice. One of the most common uses of this word in the US is in the phrase "presumed innocent" which means innocent unless proved otherwise. So "presumed to be notable" could be interpreted as meaning notable unless proven not notable, which suggests normal
743:
Most of the articles on future eclipses are just stubs that will mostly remain stubs even after the event. I agree with the above comments that only notable (described in multiple sources, etc etc) eclipses should have separate articles, though I'm impressed by the enthusiastic editor(s) who created
1031:
When you say "articles passing through WP:AfD still need to satisfy GNG, so there wouldn't be any benefit" is that intended to be a repetition of your opinion that it is not an override of GNG, or as a reason why you hold that opinion? Because as a reason, it is circular: you are saying it does not
990:
Different SNGs have different purposes. Some override GNG. Some strengthen GNG. Some defer to GNG and merely provide guidance for what sorts of things might pass. Which kind is this? My reading of it is to override GNG in a limited way – to provide automatic notability for all stars up to magnitude
926:
with the remark that, "remove misleading text in note. GNG isn't relevant in this case". The lead paragraph of this guideline says that this, "is a subject-specific supplement to the general notability guideline". Hence, it does not override the GNG. To say an article is "presumed notable" does not
468:
If a page does not meet GNG, it should not be kept; redirection at least allows for editors to have a platform to expand should there be a future opportunity. I will (out of courtesy) temporarily stop redirecting these pages, but so far there is no indication that a sub-stub referenced to a single
453:
A redirect is a delete of a full article, just redirected. Doing this to crater pages doesn't help the encyclopedia but in my opinion harms it. I'm not going to have you do a long term AfD series over this but will respectfully ask that you consider stopping those redirects of named craters. That
350:
and prefer the status quo of articles on named features, such as named craters on the Moon, Mercury, and elsewhere, remaining safe and not subject to mass deletion (this change could easily be misunderstood to mean that hundreds of named crater articles would no longer be of notable topics). This
728:
Yes I agree, but only for historical solar eclipses. Many of these eclipse articles just present paragraphs of boilerplate information. If there is no historical record or eclipse expedition published then it likely isn't notable. Future eclipses require a different criteria, such as whether the
968:
These criteria below are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that
Knowledge (XXG) should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria.
399:
I would also argue that these pages will not necessarily be deleted; I've been slowly converting a lot of these sub-stubs into redirects to the main crater list articles; since the information is already in the table, there really isn't any information lost (other than pretty pictures).
269:, and the 'scope' section gives some examples of what does and doesn't fall into that class (the list of examples was mostly in place in 2011, with only minor revisions since). It does not specifically mention geologic features on Solar System bodies (craters, mountains etc., see
857:
I have no fundamental objection to simplifying that nutshell, but the suggested wording is duplicative, because coverage in reliable independent sources is criterion 3. And if you remove that, it becomes uselessly short. Regarding 'presumed', that word has been there
1137:
1032:
override GNG because it does not override GNG. Going to AfD does not make any difference to what notability criterion is applicable; AfD participants can and regularly do handle cases where notability is determined for reasons independent of GNG (for example
351:
seems at first glance to be a simple change but it could end up to be a profound one, especially if someone takes it to mind to use it to delete many hundreds of named crater pages (in which case the revert seems justified and better for the encyclopedia).
1093:
At this point I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. The removed comment was just a guide concerning the likelihood of notability for very faint naked eye stars. I'm still not clear why it was necessary to have it removed.
892:"In a nutshell" means an explanation in a few words. An explanation that is basically "read the page for the information", without even trying to make a summary, is useless as a "in a nutshell" explanation and adds nothing.
188:
177:
1017:). That way editors will hopefully spend time more productively on this class of object. The word "presumed" was never meant to indicate an automatic override of GNG; it just indicates a high likelihood.
1054:
Fair enough. But I see nothing in the guide that overrides the GNG. We aren't providing any criteria about when an article shouldn't be written (beyond the GNG); only when it is likely to be notable.
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
820:
The current statement is accurate. I'm starting to think the word 'presumed' is being abused. It just means it's likely to be notable, but it's still subject to the same requirement to satisfy
1127:
1132:
512:. Please discuss it there instead. I'm not proposing making any change to the scope of this guideline - just making the phrasing clearer. It already doesn't apply to craters.
1013:
still need to satisfy GNG, so there wouldn't be any benefit. It's more of a guide to astronomical objects that are more likely to be notable (and less likely to be sent to
270:
930:
I've found many (fainter) stars visible to the naked to lack notability. If the warning is considered misleading, then the lowest magnitude should be changed to 5.0.
140:
63:
969:
However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that
Knowledge (XXG) should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film.
875:
Yes, the same word has been used in several other topical notability guides. Some of those "nutshell" statements are quite a bit longer than this one.
1122:
1117:
952:"if your interpretation were correct, there would be no point in listing any criteria other than criterion #3, and no point in having an SNG at all"
509:
274:
548:
If you disregard the Moon, only one of the current criteria would work properly with this class of features, so there's no benefit in a merger.
606:
100:
58:
688:
684:
273:), though it seems clear to me that those are not 'objects' so are implicitly excluded. I think we should make that explicit, as
797:
33:
1036:
despite that not being an official guideline) or where GNG is insufficient and notability demands a higher bar (for example
711:
793:
700:
237:
695:. I'm aware this guideline is about astronomical objects, but it seemed the most relevant talk page for my purposes.
637:
It has been a week and consensus seems clear. Could an uninvolved user close this discussion and assess the outcome?
680:
810:
173:
216:
1073:
1045:
996:
601:
1103:
1077:
1063:
1049:
1026:
1000:
985:
939:
901:
884:
870:
848:
833:
814:
753:
738:
723:
704:
660:
645:
631:
612:
582:
561:
542:
520:
482:
463:
448:
426:
409:
374:
360:
342:
325:
308:
293:
39:
220:
868:
696:
672:
643:
580:
518:
291:
785:
692:
508:
What to do with existing crater articles is an entirely different discussion, which is already underway at
897:
538:
1099:
1059:
1022:
981:
935:
880:
829:
806:
734:
557:
370:
321:
1033:
919:
Beware that stars fainter than magnitude 5.0 often lack significant coverage, and thus may not satisfy
844:
459:
454:
change really isn't needed and does little more than remove long-term pages from main space. Thanks.
422:
356:
282:
1069:
1041:
992:
946:
781:
589:
338:
266:
145:
676:
863:
719:
656:
638:
627:
575:
574:. That project seems to be inactive, so is in no position to develop a new notability guideline.
513:
478:
444:
405:
365:
I'm not sure I follow your logic. This guideline does not "protect" articles from a mass delete.
304:
286:
222:
1037:
962:
567:
130:
893:
749:
534:
277:
that isn't universally understood. Extraterrestrial geologic features are instead subject to
1095:
1055:
1018:
977:
931:
876:
825:
730:
622:) finds their own guideline uncontroversial, then there is no need for an RFC to change it.
553:
366:
317:
218:
167:
92:
1014:
1010:
1006:
958:
920:
821:
675:, which lists hundreds of past and future eclipses, a large number of which surely have no
619:
571:
549:
278:
840:
455:
418:
352:
764:
I think that the "nutshell" part could be rewritten to something more accurate, such as
334:
1111:
912:
715:
714:
on my user talk; it will be an uphill battle to merge or delete many of these pages.
652:
623:
474:
440:
414:
401:
300:
745:
1138:
Pages within the scope of WikiProject
Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
82:
588:
You could have made this an RfC. Everyone needs to know about this update. –
105:
76:
52:
510:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject
Astronomy#Notability for Martian craters
469:
database entry meets GNG, which means that it should not be kept, so
651:
I'm involved, but it's a clear result, so I restored your version.
566:
A guideline for planetary features would be within the purview of
533:
And what about incorporating those features into this guideline?
316:: it's a bit of a pedantic point, but I'm okay with the change.
265:
The notability guideline specifically states that it applies to
766:
223:
161:
15:
333:
if it's made clear that such topics are subject to GNG only.
129:
792:
of this guideline, or has received significant coverage in
683:
would be better than an inordinate number of articles like
473:
I will restart if the consensus on this does not change.
679:
in RS? I would surely think that a mass merge into e.g.
965:
guide. It's criteria includes the following paragraph:
957:
I disgree with your interpretation, because overriding
859:
432:
259:
255:
961:
is not the point of a SNG. Compare, for example, the
435:(the As are on the "older" page). I will reiterate,
976:I believe we should provide that level of clarity.
1128:Project-Class Astronomy articles of NA-importance
991:5.0 – and to defer to GNG for anything fainter. —
271:lists of geological features of the Solar System
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
231:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
144:, which collaborates on articles related to
104:, which collaborates on articles related to
1133:Project-Class Astronomical objects articles
927:negate the requirement to satisfy the GNG.
949:David Eppstein reverted with the comment:
860:since this page became a guideline in 2011
729:shadow passes over populated land masses.
382:
47:
915:Danbloch removed the following sentence,
839:notability requirements might not apply.
49:
744:all these articles and maps for them.
281:, while those on Earth are covered by
241:when more than 4 sections are present.
114:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astronomy
7:
1005:No I don't see it as an override of
21:
19:
262:so I'm starting a discussion here.
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
258:would be uncontroversial, but it
235:may be automatically archived by
98:This page is within the scope of
1123:NA-importance Astronomy articles
1118:Project-Class Astronomy articles
770:
689:Solar eclipse of August 31, 1970
685:Solar eclipse of October 4, 2051
166:
141:WikiProject Astronomical objects
85:
75:
51:
20:
681:List of partial solar eclipses
117:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
789:
754:19:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
739:15:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
724:21:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
705:18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
661:13:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
646:12:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
632:09:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
613:09:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
583:11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
562:01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
543:17:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
521:11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
483:11:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
464:11:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
449:11:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
427:10:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
410:08:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
375:04:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
361:03:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
343:22:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
326:17:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
309:08:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
294:08:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
1009:: articles passing through
1154:
138:This page is supported by
1104:14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1078:06:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1064:03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1050:01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1027:01:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1001:16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
986:13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
940:04:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
902:04:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
137:
70:
46:
1068:Is there a difference? —
885:14:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
871:13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
849:23:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
834:22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
815:21:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
778:This page in a nutshell:
673:Template:Solar eclipses
285:. Does anyone object?
618:If the local project (
437:I am not deleting them
238:Lowercase sigmabot III
134:
697:~~ AirshipJungleman29
133:
101:WikiProject Astronomy
907:Naked eye visibility
677:significant coverage
552:works just as well.
267:astronomical objects
146:astronomical objects
64:Astronomical objects
798:independent sources
782:astronomical object
108:on Knowledge (XXG).
784:is presumed to be
710:I concur, but see
135:
120:Astronomy articles
34:content assessment
804:
803:
502:
501:
250:Geologic features
245:
244:
160:
159:
156:
155:
152:
151:
1145:
807:InTheAstronomy32
774:
773:
767:
760:Rewrite nutshell
609:
604:
383:
240:
224:
170:
162:
122:
121:
118:
115:
112:
95:
93:Astronomy portal
90:
89:
88:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1108:
1107:
909:
771:
762:
712:this discussion
669:
607:
602:
531:
503:
388:
252:
236:
225:
219:
182:
119:
116:
113:
110:
109:
91:
86:
84:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1151:
1149:
1141:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1110:
1109:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1070:David Eppstein
1042:David Eppstein
993:David Eppstein
973:
972:
971:
970:
955:
954:
953:
924:
923:
908:
905:
890:
889:
888:
887:
854:
853:
852:
851:
802:
801:
775:
761:
758:
757:
756:
741:
726:
668:
665:
664:
663:
635:
634:
586:
585:
564:
530:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
431:About 60 from
390:
389:
386:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
345:
328:
311:
251:
248:
243:
242:
230:
227:
226:
221:
217:
215:
212:
211:
184:
183:
171:
165:
158:
157:
154:
153:
150:
149:
136:
126:
125:
123:
97:
96:
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1150:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
967:
966:
964:
960:
956:
951:
950:
948:
944:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
928:
922:
918:
917:
916:
914:
906:
904:
903:
899:
895:
886:
882:
878:
874:
873:
872:
869:
867:
866:
865:Modest Genius
861:
856:
855:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:
769:
768:
765:
759:
755:
751:
747:
742:
740:
736:
732:
727:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:
707:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:WP:PAGEDECIDE
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:I just found
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
642:
641:
640:Modest Genius
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
605:
599:
598:
595:
592:
584:
581:
579:
578:
577:Modest Genius
573:
569:
565:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
528:
522:
519:
517:
516:
515:Modest Genius
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
385:
384:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
349:
346:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
292:
290:
289:
288:Modest Genius
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
261:
257:
249:
247:
239:
234:
229:
228:
214:
213:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
186:
185:
181:
179:
175:
169:
164:
163:
147:
143:
142:
132:
128:
127:
124:
107:
103:
102:
94:
83:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1092:
929:
925:
910:
894:Cambalachero
891:
864:
805:
788:if meet any
777:
763:
670:
639:
636:
596:
593:
590:
587:
576:
535:Cambalachero
532:
514:
470:
436:
347:
330:
313:
299:Fine by me.
287:
264:
260:was reverted
253:
246:
232:
187:
172:
139:
99:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
1096:Praemonitus
1056:Praemonitus
1034:WP:NSPECIES
1019:Praemonitus
978:Praemonitus
932:Praemonitus
877:Praemonitus
826:Praemonitus
731:Praemonitus
691:, etc. See
554:Praemonitus
367:Praemonitus
318:Praemonitus
1112:Categories
841:PopePompus
790:§ Criteria
529:Discussion
471:eventually
456:Randy Kryn
419:Randy Kryn
353:Randy Kryn
283:WP:GEOLAND
275:it appears
254:I thought
387:Off topic
335:JoelleJay
256:this edit
111:Astronomy
106:Astronomy
59:Astronomy
1038:WP:NCORP
963:WP:NFILM
794:reliable
716:Primefac
667:Eclipses
653:Primefac
624:Primefac
568:WP:SOLAR
475:Primefac
441:Primefac
415:Primefac
402:Primefac
301:Primefac
233:365 days
174:Archives
945:Editor
911:Editor
786:notable
746:Artem.G
591:Laundry
331:Support
314:Support
1015:WP:AfD
1011:WP:AfD
1007:WP:GNG
959:WP:GNG
921:WP:GNG
822:WP:GNG
620:WP:AST
572:WP:AST
570:, not
550:WP:GNG
348:Oppose
279:WP:GNG
36:scale.
594:Pizza
189:Index
178:index
28:This
1100:talk
1074:talk
1060:talk
1046:talk
1040:). —
1023:talk
997:talk
982:talk
936:talk
898:talk
881:talk
845:talk
830:talk
811:talk
796:and
750:talk
735:talk
720:talk
701:talk
657:talk
628:talk
558:talk
539:talk
479:talk
460:talk
445:talk
423:talk
406:talk
371:talk
357:talk
339:talk
322:talk
305:talk
780:An
433:A-C
1114::
1102:)
1076:)
1062:)
1048:)
1025:)
999:)
984:)
938:)
900:)
883:)
862:.
847:)
832:)
824:.
813:)
752:)
737:)
722:)
703:)
687:,
659:)
630:)
611:)
608:c̄
597:03
560:)
541:)
481:)
462:)
447:)
425:)
408:)
373:)
359:)
341:)
324:)
307:)
206:,
202:,
198:,
194:,
62::
1098:(
1072:(
1058:(
1044:(
1021:(
995:(
980:(
947:
934:(
913:
896:(
879:(
843:(
828:(
809:(
800:.
748:(
733:(
718:(
699:(
655:(
626:(
603:d
600:(
556:(
537:(
477:(
458:(
443:(
421:(
404:(
369:(
355:(
337:(
320:(
303:(
208:5
204:4
200:3
196:2
192:1
180:)
176:(
148:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
