Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000

StringTheory11 made a bot request (never performed and aspects previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here) with the following criteria (verbatim):

  1. Article has one or no external links.
  2. Article was created by the users ClueBot II or Merovingian
  3. Article is less than 2000 bytes
  4. Asteroid is numbered above 2000.

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:

2v2. Article body is a variant of the form "<#####> (<name>) is a <some type of asteroid> asteroid discovered on <date> by <discoverer> at <place name>."

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)

I don't think that the replacement for #2 is ideal, since that would miss anything with an infobox, if I'm understanding correctly. Rather, I think doing it semi-automatically for now would be good, and resubmitting the bot request might be a good idea as well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If the page already only has 1 external link (rule #1), and that link is to the JPL database, then any information in the infobox is either from JPL, or unreferenced. Is that adequate?
If that's insufficient, I can avoid infoboxes with > some minimum, required amount of information (i.e. some list, agreed to here, of non-empty parameters). Pages with infoboxes with < this amount of information can be redirected, as long as they meet criteria 1, 2v2, 3, 4.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: I changed my rule #2 from #2 to #2v2, for referring to later.
You can ignore templates such as infobox when running AWB, so unless there's major dissent I would say go for it Tom.Reding. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to blanket ignore infoboxes - I'll look through the entire page when assessing rule #1.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If I might ask, what is the significance of the number 2000? Why that number? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
See Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive table of asteroids 2 and Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 14#Minor planet redirection bot?. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
So from what I read, 2000 is simply a reasonable but arbitrary number. Basically grandfathered in because of their earlier discovery and because they are the "usually" the largest asteroids. Not always but usually. And those above 2000, for the most part, should not have their own articles and should simply be on the list pages. Exceptions, obviously, will happen to a very few above 2000. Ok, this sounds pretty reasonable but the the countless thousands on the list pages whose articles have been or will be removed or redirected need to be "de-linked" to stop circular traveling. I click on one it it simply leads me back to the same page. That can't happen. A bot may have to be deployed to do the de-linking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, unless it's a regularly-run maintenance bot. As various asteroids gain notoriety and have legitimate pages created for them, someone/something would have to maintain the links on the list page to only point to non-redirects. Without a maintenance bot, I think it's adequate (although certainly not ideal) as-is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  12:51, 8 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)

The WP:MoS isn't written in stone, nor should it be blanket applied (it says so right at the top); there are, of course, exceptions, which this undoubtedly is. What do you think is the best thing to do, independent of the MoS?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It isn't written in stone, but there is nothing special about this case. You cannot have circular links. De-link all asteroids that do not have a separate article. It's as simple as that. If one day a couple of them do get a separate article then we go to the list and link them properly. But a redirect back to the same spot is a disservice to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 13 May 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. Knowledge (XXG):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)

I think including the redirects in the categorization is useful. I've recently created a category for the magnetospheres of planemos, and I've included redirects to sections, because this helps people locate information on these topics for objects whose magnetospheres do not have dedicated articles, which is particularly useful here, I think, because the only moon with a known magnetosphere (Ganymede) does not have one. Keeping the categorization of these asteroid stubs when redirected can have similar uses, unless there are dedicated list articles in place. --JorisvS (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the first part: Great. It's easier to remove existing cats than to find old ones, so keeping them was the safest thing to do, imo. Since my last post I've kept categories as well as the associated {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Later I can find how many uncategorized asteroid redirects exist, and either copy the cats from the last stub version, or make a botreq if it's a lot.
 Done ~100 of my redirects needed their categories propagated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding 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)
No, I don't disagree, because that's not a dedicated list for categories like "minor planets discovered in XXXX", or "discoveries by Y". --JorisvS (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: Aside from not being sortable, minor planets discovered in a certain year can have quite different numbers, and are hence likely to be spread across multiple such pages. And obviously, this is even more probablly the case for their discoverers. --JorisvS (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I see; thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 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)

  • I'd be OK with this. I've never really seen the need to have a multitude of microstub articles containing only information that could be expressed as entries in a table. Reyk YO! 15:13, 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)


Missing Meanings of Minor Planet Names

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)

Trivia about names may be trivial, but it seems a shame to just lose it. Perhaps the bulk wipe should have bypassed articles with edits by non-bots? Or did I miss something? --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If an asteroid page contains variants of "named/dedicated/honored after/for/in/to/for" etc., and no entry or a null entry exists in Meanings of minor planet names, then it doesn't get redirected (though when I started, I assumed all asteroid pages had at least a null entry in the meanings-list, which I found relatively early on not to be true). I'm asking for existing null entries in the list to be turned into a proper entry via a small phrase from Schmadel's DoMPN.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. Missed the List of ... vs. Meanings of ... thing. Maybe there could be a cross-link in the headings of List of minor planets: 12001–13000 to Meanings of minor planet names: 12001–13000 etc. --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that the Meanings link is at the bottom of the List of pages actually.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Below is a list of 555 redirect candidates that are missing a Meanings of minor planet names entry. The information on (probably) each asteroid's page is duplicated on the JPL/MPC databases, but I prefer not to redirect these pages until a complete Meanings entry exists on Knowledge (XXG). Right now, they are distinguished from the redirected asteroid pages which have a Meanings entry, and I prefer to not relax the redirect criteria further, at least for now (unless everyone's ok with redirecting, iif the data exists on JPL/MPC).
If you add the missing pages to a Meanings page, please feel free to strikethrough <s> what you've done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
555 Missing Meanings of Minor Planet Names

Meanings of minor planet names: 3501–4000 is missing:

3524 Schulz, 3810 Aoraki, 3832 Shapiro, 3900 Knežević

Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500 is missing:

4134 Schütz, 4187 Shulnazaria, 4258 Ryazanov

Meanings of minor planet names: 4501–5000 is missing:

4576 Yanotoyohiko, 4632 Udagawa, 4662 Runk, 4663 Falta, 4686 Maisica, 4778 Fuss, 4779 Whitley, 4780 Polina, 4852 Pamjones, 4925 Zhoushan, 4948 Hideonishimura

Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–5500 is missing:

5277 Brisbane, 5289 Niemela

Meanings of minor planet names: 5501–6000 is missing:

5508 Gomyou, 5784 Yoron, 5821 Yukiomaeda, 5851 Inagawa, 5877 Toshimaihara, 5917 Chibasai, 5931 Zhvanetskij

Meanings of minor planet names: 6001–6500 is missing:

6180 Bystritskaya

Meanings of minor planet names: 6501–7000 is missing:

6536 Vysochinska, 6641 Bobross

Meanings of minor planet names: 7001–7500 is missing:

7356 Casagrande, 7365 Sejong, 7461 Kachmokiam

Meanings of minor planet names: 7501–8000 is missing:

7741 Fedoseev, 7897 Bohuška

Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–8500 is missing:

8117 Yuanlongping, 8134 Minin, 8142 Zolotov, 8145 Valujki, 8149 Ruff

Meanings of minor planet names: 8501–9000 is missing:

8530 Korbokkur

Meanings of minor planet names: 9501–10000 is missing:

9523 Torino

Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000 is missing:

10108 Tomlinson, 10116 Robertfranz, 10117 Tanikawa, 10142 Sakka, 10143 Kamogawa, 10146 Mukaitadashi, 10152 Ukichiro, 10160 Totoro, 10197 Senigalliesi, 10207 Comeniana, 10209 Izanaki, 10218 Bierstadt, 10283 Cromer, 10305 Grignard, 10617 Takumi, 10626 Zajíc, 10658 Gretadevries, 10664 Phemios, 10669 Herfordia, 10670 Seminozhenko, 10671 Mazurova, 10672 Kostyukova, 10675 Kharlamov, 10676 Jamesmcdanell, 10683 Carter, 10684 Babkina

Meanings of minor planet names: 11001–12000 is missing:

11059 Nulliusinverba, 11288 Okunohosomichi, 11295 Gustaflarsson, 11307 Erikolsson, 11361 Orbinskij, 11507 Danpascu, 11515 Oshijyo, 11856 Nicolabonev, 11907 Näränen, 11926 Orinoco, 11984 Manet

Meanings of minor planet names: 12001–13000 is missing:

12159 Bettybiegel, 12160 Karelwakker, 12161 Avienius, 12162 Bilderdijk, 12171 Johannink, 12172 Niekdekort, 12229 Paulsson, 12286 Poiseuille, 12358 Azzurra, 12408 Fujioka, 12432 Usuda, 12456 Genichiaraki, 12469 Katsuura, 12512 Split, 12541 Makarska, 12581 Rovinj, 12615 Mendesdeleon, 12623 Tawaddud, 12624 Mariacunitia, 12625 Koopman, 12626 Timmerman, 12627 Maryedwards, 12746 Yumeginga, 12819 Susumutakahasi, 12850 Axelmunthe, 12911 Goodhue, 12935 Zhengzhemin

Meanings of minor planet names: 13001–14000 is missing:

13003 Dickbeasley, 13017 Owakenoomi, 13037 Potosi, 13044 Wannes, 13045 Vermandere, 13053 Bertrandrussell, 13064 Haemhouts, 13069 Umbertoeco, 13079 Toots, 13079 Toots, 13097 Lamoraal, 13109 Berzelius, 13112 Montmorency, 13113 Williamyeats, 13114 Isabelgodin, 13115 Jeangodin, 13140 Shinchukai, 13156 Mannoucyo, 13163 Koyamachuya, 13178 Catalan, 13179 Johncochrane, 13188 Okinawa, 13209 Arnhem, 13213 Maclaurin, 13214 Chirikov, 13244 Dannymeyer, 13253 Stejneger, 13408 Deadoklestic, 13493 Lockwood, 13561 Kudogou, 13564 Kodomomiraikan, 13565 Yotakanashi, 13567 Urabe, 13576 Gotoyoshi, 13577 Ukawa, 13582 Tominari, 13605 Nakamuraminoru, 13608 Andosatoru, 13641 de Lesseps, 13650 Perimedes, 13654 Masuda, 13672 Tarski, 13679 Shinanogawa, 13686 Kongozan, 13787 Nagaishi, 13918 Tsukinada, 13978 Hiwasa

Meanings of minor planet names: 14001–15000 is missing:

14046 Keikai, 14339 Knorre, 14491 Hitachiomiya, 14492 Bistar, 14515 Koichisato, 14728 Schuchardt, 14739 Edgarchavez, 14818 Mindeli, 14819 Nikolaylaverov

Meanings of minor planet names: 15001–16000 is missing:

15007 Edoardopozio, 15028 Soushiyou, 15148 Michaelmaryott, 15199 Rodnyanskaya, 15212 Yaroslavl', 15246 Kumeta, 15248 Hidekazu, 15250 Nishiyamahiro, 15267 Kolyma, 15268 Wendelinefroger, 15295 Tante Riek, 15360 Moncalvo, 15368 Katsuji, 15407 Udakiyoo, 15669 Pshenichner, 15702 Olegkotov, 15785 de Villegas, 15917 Rosahavel, 15925 Rokycany

Meanings of minor planet names: 16001–17000 is missing:

16150 Clinch, 16368 Città di Alba, 16395 Ioannpravednyj, 16414 Le Procope, 16419 Kovalev, 16444 Godefroy, 16516 Efremlevitan, 16524 Hausmann, 16560 Daitor, 16711 Ka-Dar, 16869 Košinár

Meanings of minor planet names: 17001–18000 is missing:

17156 Kennethseitz, 17251 Vondracek, 17446 Mopaku, 17452 Amurreka, 17465 Inawashiroko, 17501 Tetsuro, 17502 Manabeseiji

Meanings of minor planet names: 18001–19000 is missing:

18161 Koshiishi, 18287 Verkin, 18294 Rudenko, 18335 San Cassiano, 18493 Demoleon, 18639 Aoyunzhiyuanzhe, 18731 Vil'bakirov, 18996 Torasan

Meanings of minor planet names: 19001–20000 is missing:

19132 Le Clézio, 19235 van Schurman, 19348 Cueca, 19353 Pierrethierry, 19366 Sudingqiang, 19386 Axelcronstedt, 19398 Creedence, 19400 Emileclaus, 19872 Chendonghua, 19873 Chentao, 19874 Liudongyan, 19919 Pogorelov

Meanings of minor planet names: 21001–22000 is missing:

21073 Darksky, 21160 Saveriolombardi, 21192 Seccisergio, 21284 Pandion, 21301 Zanin

Meanings of minor planet names: 22001–23000 is missing:

22032 Mikekoop, 22105 Pirko, 22184 Rudolfveltman, 22253 Sivers, 22429 Jurašek, 22612 Dandibner, 22613 Callander, 22616 Bogolyubov, 22617 Vidphananu, 22645 Rotblat, 22647 Lévi-Strauss, 22686 Mishchenko, 22706 Ganguly, 22723 Edlopez, 22724 Byatt, 22725 Drabble, 22730 Jacobhurwitz, 22736 Kamitaki, 22744 Esterantonucci, 22783 Teng, 22855 Donnajones

Meanings of minor planet names: 23001–24000 is missing:

23244 Lafayette, 23259 Miwadagakuen, 23401 Brodskaya, 23403 Boudewijnbuch, 23404 Bomans, 23409 Derzhavin, 23549 Epicles, 23571 Zuaboni, 23648 Kolář

Meanings of minor planet names: 24001–25000 is missing:

24087 Ciambetti, 24647 Maksimachev, 24754 Zellyfry, 24856 Messidoro, 24919 Teruyoshi

Meanings of minor planet names: 25001–26000 is missing:

25125 Brodallan, 25175 Lukeandraka, 25176 Thomasaunins, 25178 Shreebose, 25180 Kenyonconlin, 25182 Siddhawan, 25183 Grantfisher, 25184 Taylorgaines, 25189 Glockner, 25190 Thomasgoodin, 25191 Rachelouise, 25193 Taliagreene, 25198 Kylienicole, 25199 Jiahegu, 25212 Ayushgupta, 25256 Imbrie-Moore, 25257 Elizmakarron, 25264 Erickeen, 25266 Taylorkinyon, 25290 Vibhuti, 25294 Johnlaberee, 25298 Fionapaine, 25309 Chrisauer, 25312 Asiapossenti, 25321 Rohitsingh, 25322 Rebeccajean, 25326 Lawrencesun, 25333 Britwenger, 25348 Wisniowiecki, 25354 Zdasiuk, 25365 Bernreuter, 25366 Maureenbobo, 25367 Cicek, 25368 Gailcolwell, 25369 Dawndonovan, 25370 Karenfletch, 25371 Frangaley, 25372 Shanagarza, 25373 Gorsch, 25374 Harbrucker, 25376 Christikeen, 25377 Rolaberee, 25378 Erinlambert, 25381 Jerrynelson, 25402 Angelanorse, 25403 Carlapiazza, 25404 Shansample, 25405 Jeffwidder, 25406 Debwysocki, 25412 Arbesfeld, 25413 Dorischen, 25414 Cherkassky, 25415 Jocelyn, 25416 Chyanwen, 25417 Coquillette, 25418 Deshmukh, 25421 Gafaran, 25424 Gunasekaran, 25425 Chelsealynn, 25427 Kratchmarov, 25428 Lakhanpal, 25430 Ericlarson, 25432 Josepherli, 25455 Anissamak, 25456 Caitlinmann, 25457 Mariannamao, 25462 Haydenmetsky, 25464 Maxrabinovich, 25465 Rajagopalan, 25468 Ramakrishna, 25469 Ransohoff, 25475 Lizrao, 25476 Sealfon, 25477 Preyashah, 25478 Shrock, 25479 Ericshyu, 25481 Willjaysun, 25482 Tallapragada, 25483 Trusheim, 25486 Michaelwham, 25488 Figueiredo, 25490 Kevinkelly, 25492 Firnberg, 25495 Michaelroddy, 25497 Brauerman, 25509 Rodwong, 25510 Donvincent, 25512 Anncomins, 25513 Weseley, 25514 Lisawu, 25515 Briancarey, 25516 Davidknight, 25517 Davidlau, 25531 Lessek, 25538 Markcarlson, 25539 Roberthelm, 25541 Greathouse, 25542 Garabedian, 25543 Fruen, 25544 Renerogers, 25549 Jonsauer, 25551 Drewhall, 25552 Gaster, 25553 Ivanlafer, 25554 Jayaranjan, 25555 Ratnavarma, 25560 Chaihaoxi, 25561 Leehyunki, 25562 Limdarren, 25565 Lusiyang, 25566 Panying, 25570 Kesun, 25577 Wangmanqiang, 25580 Xuelai, 25584 Zhangnelson, 25607 Tsengiching, 25608 Hincapie, 25609 Bogantes, 25611 Mabellin, 25612 Yaoskalucia, 25613 Bubenicek, 25614 Jankral, 25615 Votroubek, 25616 Riinuots, 25617 Thomasnesch, 25619 Martonspohn, 25620 Jayaprakash, 25629 Mukherjee, 25630 Sarkar, 25636 Vaishnav, 25639 Fedina, 25640 Klintefelt, 25646 Noniearora, 25648 Baghel, 25650 Shaubakshi, 25652 Maddieball, 25653 Baskaran, 25655 Baupeter, 25656 Bejnood, 25657 Berkowitz, 25658 Bokor, 25659 Liboynton, 25662 Chonofsky, 25663 Nickmycroft, 25669 Kristinrose, 25670 Densley, 25673 Di Mascio, 25674 Kevinellis, 25676 Jesseellison, 25678 Ericfoss, 25679 Andrewguo, 25680 Walterhansen, 25683 Haochenhong, 25685 Katlinhornig, 25686 Stephoskins, 25688 Hritzo, 25689 Duannihuang, 25690 Iredale, 25693 Ishitani, 25695 Eileenjang, 25696 Kylejones, 25697 Kadiyala, 25698 Snehakannan, 25704 Kendrick, 25706 Cekoscielski, 25708 Vedantkumar, 25710 Petelandgren, 25711 Lebovits, 25714 Aprillee, 25715 Lizmariemako, 25717 Ritikmal, 25720 Mallidi, 25721 Anartya, 25722 Evanmarshall, 25723 Shamascharak, 25725 McCormick, 25744 Surajmishra, 25751 Mokshagundam, 25763 Naveenmurali, 25764 Divyanag, 25765 Heatherlynne, 25766 Nosarzewski, 25767 Stevennoyce, 25768 Nussbaum, 25769 Munaoli, 25772 Ashpatra, 25775 Danielpeng, 25781 Rajendra, 25783 Brandontyler, 25793 Chrisanchez, 25798 Reneeschaaf, 25799 Anmaschlegel, 25807 Baharshah, 25813 Savannahshaw, 25814 Preesinghal, 25815 Scottskirlo, 25817 Tahilramani, 25819 Tripathi, 25822 Carolinejune, 25823 Dentrujillo, 25824 Viviantsang, 25832 Van Scoyoc, 25834 Vechinski, 25836 Harishvemuri, 25870 Panchovigil, 25875 Wickramasekara, 25877 Katherinexue, 25878 Sihengyou, 25885 Wiesinger, 25899 Namratanand, 25901 Ericbrooks, 25903 Yuvalcalev, 25907 Capodilupo, 25912 Recawkwell, 25919 Comuniello, 25920 Templeanne, 25927 Jagandelman, 25931 Peterhu, 25933 Ruoyijiang, 25953 Lanairlett, 25962 Yifanli, 25963 Elisalin, 25964 Liudavid, 25965 Masihdas, 25970 Nelakanti, 25972 Pfefferjosh, 25973 Puranik, 25978 Katerudolph, 25981 Shahmirian, 25986 Sunanda, 25987 Katherynshi, 25988 Janesuh, 25992 Benjamensun, 25993 Kevinxu, 25994 Lynnelleye

Meanings of minor planet names: 26001–27000 is missing:

26002 Angelayeung, 26004 Loriying, 26007 Lindazhou, 26013 Amandalonzo, 26075 Levitsvet, 26127 Otakasakajyo, 26151 Irinokaigan, 26194 Chasolivier, 26223 Enari, 26232 Antink, 26233 Jimbraun, 26234 Leslibrinson, 26235 Annemaduggan, 26238 Elduval, 26240 Leigheriks, 26243 Sallyfenska, 26246 Mikelake, 26247 Doleonardi, 26248 Longenecker, 26250 Shaneludwig, 26251 Kiranmanne, 26255 Carmarques, 26259 Marzigliano, 26264 McIntyre, 26266 Andrewmerrill, 26267 Nickmorgan, 26268 Nardi, 26269 Marciaprill, 26271 Lindapuster, 26273 Kateschafer, 26291 Terristaples, 26293 Van Muyden, 26295 Vilardi, 26298 Dunweathers, 26300 Herbweiss, 26301 Hellawillis, 26302 Zimolzak, 26307 Friedafein, 26586 Harshaw, 26591 Robertreeves, 26665 Sidjena, 26793 Bolshoi

Meanings of minor planet names: 27001–28000 is missing:

27412 Teague, 27658 Dmitrijbagalej, 27827 Ukai, 27855 Giorgilli, 27865 Ludgerfroebel, 27938 Guislain, 27960 Dobiáš, 27967 Beppebianchi

Meanings of minor planet names: 28001–29000 is missing:

28341 Bingaman

Meanings of minor planet names: 29001–30000 is missing:

29199 Himeji, 29214 Apitzsch, 29249 Hiraizumi, 29250 Helmutmoritz, 29307 Torbernbergman, 29311 Lesire, 29483 Boeker, 29528 Kaplinski, 29568 Gobbi-Belcredi

Meanings of minor planet names: 84001–85000 is missing:

84951 Kenwilson
I say go ahead and redirect them anyways; I don't view such information as important to preserve in the slightest, especially since a quick Google search will give the same thing. No big loss. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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)


Summary of Remaining Redirected & Unredirected Asteroid Articles

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
Thank you for the number counts. But this is also why I think the largest asteroids of their type (such as 3737 Beckman) should not be re-directed. I have noticed that regardless of size (or absmag), all asteroids at CAT:NN are being sent to AfD. It looks to me like re-directing 80% of the bot created stubs with higher numbered asteroids has fixed the fundamental problem. (I was away from Knowledge (XXG) all March and April as I had to deal with multiple family emergencies.) -- Kheider (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, if the diameter was determined using the known (as opposed to assumed) albedo of the asteroid, or if the absmag is unusually bright or dim (and the albedo isn't yet known). To be safe, I did not redirect asteroids with a diameter listed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
1721 unredirected asteroid articles numbered > 2000
209 unnumbered, unredirected asteroid articles

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are NOT declaring open season on near-Earth asteroids which is a whole different concept than bot-generated numbered main-belt asteroids! -- Kheider (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No, not specifically. However, there are ~12,500 known NEOs, and if a stub was made which met the criteria set above (links only to JPL/MPC, no non-JPL/MPC information in the article, no diameter measurement, etc.) should they not be redirects?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I am assuming none of the unnumbered NEAs were bot-generated. I would think low-numbered NEAs would be notable as they would again be among the largest such asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Going through the 209 unredirected, unnamed asteroids above, only these 8 9 are legitimate redirect candidates: NEOs: 2001 YB5, 2003 BV35, 2003 RW11, 2007 OX, 2013 RH74, not-NEO: 1992 OV2, 2005 SA, 2005 SB, 2007 WX3. None are bot-generated. What are your thoughts on these?
The first one on the list has numerous good hits with Google: I have crudely updated the article: 2001 YB5. But I agree most of those 8 are probably not very noteworthy. -- Kheider (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
2001 SG286 and 2002 DH2 were redirected to List of Apollo asteroids by Exoplanetaryscience, for example, which to me is a better alternative to deletion, but that's the only alternative I'm aware of. There are some asteroids which get perturbed and migrate to other named groups, but presumably that would make them notable enough to have that information in the article already (which none have).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What if, instead of deleting the content and redirecting to the list, the asteroids' content is still kept, but additionally with a redirect. I'm assuming that the main problem with deleting/redirecting these articles is the loss of data on these asteroids, but doing this would remove unnecessary articles from the main part of wikipedia, but still be accessible for later updates by users, and if they achieve notability later, instead of having to revert old edits, one simply has to remove the redirect at the top. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Support WP:REDIRECT says "A redirect is a page that has no content itself but sends the reader to another page", but I like the idea as an occasional exception if others here agree, and {{R with possibilities}} can be added to make the intention more clear.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, this is a bit off-topic, but considering you were able to create this list of asteroids, I'm assuming you're using a program to find/make the list. Would it be possible to use a similar program to sort every numbered asteroid into Category:Numbered asteroids? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely! I'm using AWB's category-recursion, tweaking the settings to process the category's articles fully-autonomously, then taking what I need from the log files to make these lists. Do you want a list of all the numbered asteroids in, say, Category:Minor planets for you to then make a bot request to add that category? I have that handy right now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if that works. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone else is interested: User:Exoplanetaryscience/List of numbered asteroids.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  13:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Certainly better than just deleting other wise usable content. But a lot of deletionists may not like the extra cut&paste work required. I still think the best idea is that for asteroids that have "wiki-defined" borderline notability, just keep the largest 20-50 asteroids of a certain type as that will still eliminate most of them. -- Kheider (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking through Asteroid spectral types, very few asteroid-type pages list their largest (or any) members. Is there an "easy" way to find/determine/and then list which are the largest 20-50 asteroids of each type, to then make it easier for someone to use this criteria?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Support, a reasonable compromise. This way, we follow WP:NASTRO, but if the asteroid becomes notable in the future, it is trivial to remake it into an article. However, I think probably only the largest 10 of each type should be considered notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to WP:NASTRO

Currently being discussed at Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Proposed Changes. WikiProject Astronomy's input is requested.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

KOI-1686.01 listed at Requested moves

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)

Creation of additional categories for multiple-designation objects

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 , 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 , 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)

Regarding the first part, would ] be sufficient? Then, an interested reader can look up the various designations, which should be in the infobox. The alternative seems a bit clunky.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well my reason for suggesting as described is that when an asteroid has multiple 'discovery' dates, should the first discovery date simply be included, even if it was subsequently lost and rediscovered several decades later? I would simply like to define a definition of which year to include, or whether multiple should be. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
All numbered asteroids have multiple designations. They have their provisional designation, their number, and if they have names, their name. So many have atleast 3 designations. Early asteroids from the period when they were considered planets have many more, such as their astrological sign. -- 65.94.43.89 04:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.43.89 (talk)

The Bot Request folks need WikiProject Astronomy to endorse putting the remaining ~18,708 numbered asteroids that aren't in ] 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)

Sorting Issues

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):

  1. Explicitly use ] on all current and future additions to this category. 11 of the 564 pages currently use this sortkey.
  2. Explicitly use ] on all current and future additions to these types of categories which rely on name.
  3. Not sure how best to handle the {{DefaultSort}} discrepancy. I'd say leave it alone for now, and deal with it after we've sorted out the category sorting (but I naturally prefer using a 0-padded 6-digit number, and since the most important (lowest numbered) asteroids are already {{DefaultSort}}ed this way).

What're everyone's thoughts on this?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it appears your number of objects with numbers instead of names is perhaps(?) incorrectly counted, as nobody had used the 0-padding 6-digit number sort before me, and I find it hard to believe 10 times more asteroids than I had edited are already using this. However, the current sort is to list the name of an asteroid, and if it does not have a name to simply include the provisional designation. As a result, I believe your defaultsort:<number> asteroid listings are off by approximately an order of magnitude. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, in my search I looked for either a number or an A-Z character (case insensitive) after "{{DefaultSort:" (also case-insensitive) with the possibility of spaces after the colon and/or an opening parenthesis, so you're right, I think I certainly picked up a lot of numbered asteroids which are sorted by their provisional designation. I'll run this search again, except looking for number-only sortkeys. I updated the table above to reflect this and I'll update it again once I'm finished.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Updated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A remark concerning the 0-padding. Right now, because there are asteroids under 10000, you only need to pad with 3-zeroes at most (e.g. 0001-9999). If you include asteroids with numbers under 100000, you would need pad with 4-zeroes (e.g. 00001-99999). The exact number of zeroes things should be padded with depends on the biggest asteroid number. If the largest asteroid numbers is say ~975000, then it's likely that the million threshold will be crossed soon, so we should plan ahead and sort things to accomodate asteroid number 0000001 to 9999999. If it's 25000, then padding to accomodate asteroid number 000001-99999 is reasonable. I mentionned 6 zeroes because I can't recall seeing something with a number above a million, but that many zeros may not be needed, or more might be required.
Now concerning what should be done, IMO, explicit sorting by number in :Category:Numbered asteroids and by name in Category:Asteroids named for people seems the best. For the defaultsort, let's imagine what should happen when they are in something fairly generic, like Category:Radar-imaged asteroids. IMO, things should be sorted according to asteroid number. So to me, it seems like a good argument for defaultsorting according to number, except perhaps in the case of Ceres, Vesta, and similar.
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There are currently approximately 435,000 numbered asteroids at my last count, and based on the current rate of adding of numbered asteroids, it will reach a million in about 8 ± 2 years. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'd previously been sorting asteroids by articles simply containing physical or orbital characteristics by their numeric designation, or provisional if not available; Asteroids in categories pertaining to their name e.g asteroids named from greek mythology are sorted using their names; Asteroids in categories relating to dates are sorted by significant dates- Asteroids visited by spacecraft I sorted by the date visited, Astronomical objects discovered in YYYY I sort by the date discovered, Near earth objects in YYYY I sort by closest approach, and comets in YYYY I sort by the perihelion date if in that year, a close approach made by that comet in the year, or the comet's discovery date, in that order of preference.
Based on this, I sort asteroids with numeric designations as a six-digit number. For 4 Vesta, for instance, I would sort 000004; and for 385446 Manwë I would sort 385446.
Asteroids with provisional designations are titled as YYYYMNNNP; for instance 2014 RC would be expressed as 2014 R000C, and 2015 DB216 would be expressed 2015 D216B.
Any object pertaining to the year is sorted YYYYMMDD, with the year being included even if sorted for objects in the same year, as otherwise objects would be sorted 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12 but only show up as 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, which is confusing and causes little help, so the year is included for simplicity. Additionally the time of the discovery in decimal in UTC can be included, but isn't necessary again for the purpose of simplicity.
Comets with numbers are expressed as PNNN, with N being the number. For instance, Halley's Comet is P001. The presence of the P is to separate Periodic comets from numbered asteroids in categories of both.
Comets with provisional or normal designations are assigned based on their orbit type, year, and designation. C/1980 E1 would be represented C1980E01. D/1770 L1 would be represented D1770L01. P/1997 B1 would be represented P1997B901. X/1106 C1 would be represented X1106C01
For comets with provisional designations, the scheme is CYYYYMNNNP, with C/2013 US10 being represented as C2013U010S.
I know it's a bit wordy, but I hope this helps in what you will do with sorting. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


As of last week, (432949) 2012 HH2 is the highest-numbered asteroid in Category:Minor planets. According to the MPC, there are currently 433,937 numbered, 247,275 unnumbered, and 685,070 total minor planets. That works out to the IAU numbering ~330 asteroids/year. And judging by the fact that there are roughly the same # of unredirected asteroids from 2000-433,000 as there are from 1-2000 (i.e. lack of notability strongly correlates with number), 6 digits is probably good for a while.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we in agreement with 6 digits for point #2?

Exoplanetaryscience and I are for it, and I assume Headbomb is for it, based on his comment and the information provided after it. Anyone else?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with an ~8 year window before we revisit the question (6-digits), but I'm also fine with future-proofing things with 7-digit sort key. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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 ] (there are 14) and ] (there are 2)? Anything else?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That also includes Category:Asteroids with names of unknown origin? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Chaotic rotation

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 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)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑