Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 3

1482:

by all schools of astrology and in the hope that astrology will eventually be given it's recognition as being an actual, though ancient and long since lost, legitimate science. My brother, however is far more erudite than myself. He has about six, or seven, university degrees the last time I checked. I, myself, have one book published on a historical event and what astrological conditions there were at the time. That being said, so as to assure all we take this matter to be of some higher degree of importance regardless of anyones' contrary opinions based on academic studies that are of the school of belief that matters pertaining to religious and, or, spiritual beliefs and lore shouldn't be on the same page with that of scientific conclusions. This matter concerns what my brother once informed me of having read, in such a tomb of esoteric-occult origin, but couldn't remember exactly what. He said, he read that Lucifer shattered the planet that existed between Mars and Jupiter so as to confuse mankinds' psyche. I suspect that he may have read this in the book "Hamlets Mill", but having never read the entire book myself, I can't substantiate that. Does anyone know of such lore, or myth, for those that prefer. Regardless, knowing my brothers degree of honesty about such matters, I think that should be mentioned in this subject. It would be wonderful, however, if it can be attributed to the source.

335:: yes you are correct, there are plenty of empty lists. While such empty lists are not a "beautiful" solution, they are consistent with the overall minor-plant project and the best solution I can imagine. I created them so that other editors can easily add new naming-citations, without the need of creating a new list first (probably copy/pasting it from an existing list without remembering all the small little details that need to be changed). 31: 1615: 830: 778: 726: 674: 620: 1805:

not an astronomy topic, but it is a Solar System topic. To me this doesn't make sense to have WPSOLAR as part of WPASTRONOMY. Rather, a WPEARTH taskforce should be added to WPSOLAR. With the efforts of Bezos and Musk, there should be growth in the non-astronomy content for WPSOLAR that would overlap with WPSPACEFLIGHT, also not an astronomy topic except where it launches astronomical space probes. --

2524:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2489:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2454:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2251:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2120:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1927:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1708:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1642:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 591:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 297:

MPC batches come out each full moon, with some exceptional months without MPCs announced in advance. I don't really see much of a difference between the last unnamed island and the ones that fall between names; I would favour keeping them all, even if the last few are completely empty, simply because

1870:

No, because the Solar System is our cosmic backyard that we are actively exploring with spacecraft and rovers. Astronomy is still useful of course in this ongoing effort, but the greater areas beyond our home system is the exclusive domain of the various branches of astronomy, the Voyager spacecraft

488:

has a figure where the tail labels are swapped (curved dust tail is incorrectly labeled "Type I" and straight ion tail is incorrectly labeled "Type II"). If this had been a text error I would have added a correction myself. Reproducing the figure would take more time than I have at the moment, hence

1804:

But unlike other parts of the universe, the Solar System is not solely the purview of astronomy and astrology and scif; aerospace and astronautics is also a going concern. Colonization of the various parts of Solar System is not an astronomy topic, but it is a Solar System topic. Asteroid mining is

1481:

My brother and I are students, and practitioners, of astrology but not in the "traditional" sense. Both of us are studied in the esoteric and the occult, with a particular interest in matters pertaining to spirituality, and we are in the endeavor of rectifying what is wrongly believed and practiced

1272:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

206:

They are placeholders, due to the randomness at which number receives a name. There are, and possibly forever will be, unpopulated named-regions in the numbered-MP landscape. So the only problem I see is with the navigation headers, which need to cross progressively larger 'unpopulated valleys' of

1981:

No. Almost all asteroids are less than one millionth the mass of Mars. They could seriously damage the surface of Mars or other terrestrial planet, but not alter its orbit by as much as one tenth of a percent. Even the few that are that big are in the Main Belts and in no great danger of straying

1304:(all numbers are in millions of US dollars). There are headline totals for each mission, and comparisons by year, celestial object and funding stream. Detailed annual budgets for each mission are given, before and after inflation adjustment. This could be a valuable source for dozens of articles. 1965:

Another thing I'm thinking of is that the creation of a lunar base could (in the future) also help in improving the capability of deflecting asteroids which could potentially impact earth or other nearby planets in the solar system, as the launch of missiles or crafts that can alter the asteroid

1958:

The asteroid impact avoidance article currently focuses a lot on avoiding asteroid impact on earth. However, avoiding asteroid impact on other planets in the solar system seems just as important. The idea is that if another planet is hit by a large enough asteroid to pull it out of orbit, those

2054:

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to

2058:

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo,

1833:

It is a matter of separation of subjects. Also, it does not help maintenance when the importances are hidden by a low score for astronomy, overshadowing any higher score for SolarSystem. There are vastly different importances with WPSOLAR and WPASTRONOMY when it involves spaceflight, space

443:

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the

646:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

357:

I don't want to change anyone's mind, I have already learnt that this is hardly possible, but if you really want to create a "mega-list" like the proposed "500000–599999" (actually that should be "500001–600000"), you might also want to consider changes in

1889:

I agree with this argument that they should be kept separately. Merging the two complicates the scope of each project our concerns with these areas of astronomy and how they are explored which seems that it also complicates the maintenance of the two as

1959:

altered pull/repel forces of those planets may also alter the orbit of the earth, as it is kept in balance by their pull/repel forces. Chance of that happening seems way higher then just the chance of the earth itself being hit by a (large) asteroid.

856:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

804:

752:

700:

396:

With recent attention and developments in the page, I'm confident it could be upgraded to B-class, or nearly b-class (with one or two criteria unchecked). Unfortunately, I don't have the skill or knowledge to properly assess the article.

107:. Many only contain one or two named minor planets. Surely, this is not a preferable situation? I believe that, right now, we could have a list for "Meanings of minor planet names: 500000–599999" and it would be reasonably short. ~ 643: 1508:

I think the only thing we can do is look at the source, if it exists. If neither you nor your brother remember the name of the book, then the random facts rolling around your heads will (unfortunately) have to stay there.

343: 650:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

1756:? I.e. add a 'solarsystem=' flag to the latter? They are using the same importance and quality ratings, so combining them should make it easier to maintain. As an example, I just changed the WP:ASTRO rating on 1485:

Just my opinion and a suggestion, is all. I apologize for I do have an account but it has been so long since I've used it that I've forgotten it. I use the moniker, vajrapanee, on google, and for google mail.

584: 853: 2640: 2377:

and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

2177:. The previous merge proposal received zero comments and was closed as no consensus so I am re-listing and posting at relevant wikiprojects to attract some comments from interested editors. Thank you 1920: 1493: 489:

this report instead. I wasn't sure how/whether to mark this figure as misleading in the article itself (I'm new to Knowledge (XXG) editing) and couldn't readily find information on best practices.

1982:

into a real planet's path. Also, the time is at least a century away when someone will be ready to pay to set up a station anywhere, ready to throw something meaningful at a dangerous asteroid.

860:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

808:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

756:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

704:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

2244: 2086: 2744: 2482: 366:, because as soon as "500000–599999" will be split into, say, "500000–549999" and "550000–599999" due its growing size, more and more inconsistent cross-references will appear elsewhere. 1228:

is a featured article, but it's recently received a few expansions of stub-like quality. Could also be giving undue weight to certain objects over others. Additional eyes are required.

2207: 749: 84:

I was browsing a bit and came across dozens, if not over a hundred of completely empty lists. These lists contain literally zero items. I am talking about the articles in the category

1265:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 2605: 2517: 1459: 1426: 1701: 2447: 467:

I came across a few related articles here describing so-called "Type I" and "Type II" cometary tails. In all cases I found in article text, the tails are described correctly:

64: 59: 2006: 1966:

trajectory will be easier (and they may get much more kinetic energy, due to absence air resistance at launch). Can't find any refs, but perhaps someone can look into it. --

1635: 801: 188:

but if no one says anything in the next week or so I'll just go ahead and G6 'em all as blank/unnecessary. I'll probably AFD the 516k just to be safe, though a redirect to

2113: 445: 347: 104: 100: 96: 92: 89: 85: 1361:

this NASA website states a different mass for Pluto. I believe the wikipedia article has got the wrong mass, as well as the wrong order, since Eris is more massive.

697: 2291: 1848:

This is not reflected in the documentation for the importance ratings, since it's the same for both. Ergo, you're just claiming a need based on tribal knowledge.

2192: 842: 790: 738: 686: 632: 551:. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like 2206:

has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1323: 1819:

Well this is more a question of maintenance than of separation of subjects. There's little benefit to maintaining two sets of reviews when one will do.

1301: 47: 17: 2521: 2486: 2451: 2248: 2117: 1924: 1705: 1639: 588: 627: 611: 363: 189: 1619: 230:

If there are no named MPs above a certain page, then I don't see any issue deleting those pages (which can be refunded in the future of course).

1274: 351: 2714: 1331: 1327: 877: 2428: 2082: 2075: 1606: 1368: 162:

Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that a local consensus here would likely be enough to G6/uncontroversially delete the

2525: 2490: 2455: 2252: 2121: 1928: 1709: 1643: 592: 1094: 2048: 1497: 1269:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

2090: 1835: 1806: 1740: 1651: 1584: 1565: 2643:. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. 2173:

does not appear to be have sufficient independent notability and could instead be dealt with in a section in the existing article

1670: 274:, in case he is planning another batch update, or if there is an MPC update coming up in the near future (they are quarterly?). 2747:. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. 2608:. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. 2691: 2424: 1419: 555:), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the 2405: 1750: 1537:

article. I don't think it meets the FA criteria, and I don't have the time to bring it up to standards. Any volunteers here?

1238: 181: 127: 2059:

infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--

1083:

Just trying to see who is still active in this Wikiproject. There are ongoing issues, particularly regarding the impending

253:

Fair points re: island hopping. But you'd be okay with deleting everything above 516k, since they're all completely empty?

2389: 2224: 2129: 2051:

has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

1087:

FAR. I want to know who is ready to take these things on, because otherwise it's time to declare this project inactive.

144:

A "list" with only one or two entries is hardly a list at all either, I would say, hence why I suggested merging them. ~

1665:

An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see

846: 794: 742: 690: 636: 2574: 1576: 1297: 1204: 2210:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — 1266: 402: 38: 421: 1951: 1434: 556: 1666: 2795: 2761: 2726: 2703: 2680: 2657: 2622: 2586: 2567: 2537: 2502: 2467: 2432: 2385: 2277: 2266: 2229: 2140: 2098: 2068: 2036: 2021: 1991: 1975: 1945: 1899: 1880: 1857: 1843: 1828: 1814: 1795: 1769: 1726: 1686: 1655: 1588: 1569: 1546: 1518: 1501: 1471: 1439: 1411: 1376: 1343: 1312: 1286: 1251: 1211: 1189: 1175: 1160: 1147: 1133: 1117: 1102: 889: 866: 814: 762: 710: 658: 604: 568: 520: 498: 457: 433: 406: 382: 307: 292: 262: 248: 225: 201: 175: 157: 139: 120: 1372: 2676: 1987: 1971: 1310: 1097: 987: 2366: 1489: 1364: 2779: 2757: 2653: 2618: 2094: 1941: 1722: 1682: 1462:

has also touched on similar redirects for other planets. Your input into the discussion would be welcome.

956: 508: 303: 2374: 2582: 2346: 1853: 1839: 1824: 1810: 1780: 1765: 1542: 862: 810: 758: 706: 600: 398: 185: 1647: 1580: 1561: 2789: 2555: 2533: 2187: 2064: 1431: 1084: 972: 580: 543: 283: 239: 216: 151: 114: 785: 769: 2282:

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

2261: 1560:

to a task force of this project for better focusing on topics related to the Moon. Any thoughts? --

1467: 733: 717: 655: 453: 377: 2413: 1246: 504: 490: 350:

being the highest numbered one in that batch). Historically, only low-numbered bodies were named (

2722: 2699: 2672: 2563: 2547: 2498: 2401: 2032: 1983: 1967: 1891: 1876: 1791: 1757: 1514: 1407: 1356: 1322:

I was searching for Russian names on planets, moons etc and I was thinking maybe a template like

1305: 1282: 1234: 1143: 1129: 1089: 1027: 837: 821: 681: 665: 516: 429: 354:), but that has already started to change and it will intensify considerably in the near future. 258: 197: 171: 135: 2370: 2768: 2748: 2644: 2609: 2463: 2336: 2287: 2221: 2017: 1932: 1713: 1673: 1602: 1339: 1185: 1170: 1113: 1067: 494: 299: 2740: 2636: 2601: 2409: 1557: 1242: 287: 243: 220: 180:

I don't see anyone complaining about the deletion of empty pages; with the exception of 516k

2578: 2125: 1916: 1908: 1895: 1849: 1820: 1776: 1761: 1538: 1075: 1035: 995: 885: 596: 417: 342:, the naming of minor planets has increasingly become random in terms of their number (e.g. 2283: 2783: 2554:

after a recent move. Anyone with an opinion on the article title might like to comment at

2551: 2529: 2203: 2181: 2158: 2060: 1262: 1202: 339: 332: 279: 235: 212: 145: 108: 1786:

Yeah, they're technically separate projects so it doesn't make much sense to merge them.

479: 2772: 2256: 1463: 1157: 1019: 940: 916: 652: 449: 368: 271: 478:

A useful reference for this material can be found here (and may even be open access):

2718: 2695: 2559: 2494: 2397: 2028: 1872: 1787: 1510: 1403: 1278: 1230: 1139: 1125: 1059: 1011: 901: 564: 528: 512: 425: 359: 328: 254: 193: 167: 131: 1620:

Template talk:Infobox planet § The rotational period isn't a physical characteristic

1194:

My time is rather limited these days, but I'll try to keep up on what is happening.

471:

Type I tails are the ion-driven tails oriented in a straight line away from the sun.

2629: 2459: 2356: 2240: 2211: 2013: 1335: 1225: 1219: 1181: 1166: 1109: 1051: 980: 948: 924: 909: 2478: 2134: 1153: 1043: 1003: 881: 130:. I'd say that anything that doesn't have at least one entry should be deleted. 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2668: 1124:

I am still here, but too busy at the moment. Don't count on me for this issue.

2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2151: 2147: 1530: 1196: 964: 932: 2027:

Thank you! I find that WikiProject popular pages feature to be most helpful.

2513: 2715:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Notability for Martian craters

511:

first; they might still have the original image and can quickly update it.

2667:

There is a discussion as to what variety of english should be enforced at

1460:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#History of Venus

644:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000

2290:. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 485: 878:

Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions#Images of the surface of Venus

2384:, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at 1697: 389: 207:

pages to hop from inhabited island to island at the higher numbers.

2733: 2443: 2320: 2299: 1330:. What do you think, is it useful? Shall I add it to more lists like 1108:

I am here. Just spending most of my time on Near-Earth asteroids. --

298:

then the start of redlinks shows how far numbers have been assigned.

854:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination)

2641:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review/Solar System/archive2

1631: 1534: 1477:

Another myth, or theory, concerning former planet turned asteroids

1350: 362:, and amending the last column in the List of minor planets, e.g. 2671:

Please help form consensus by joining in the discussion party :)

2690:

Your serious feedback or crumpled smile would be appreciated at

2594: 2159:

Talk:Lunarcrete#Proposed_Merge_of_AstroCrete_into_Lunarcrete_(2)

2109: 1775:

I guess if WP:SS were a taskforce of WP:ASTRO, that might work.

1357:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html

25: 2778:

Quick notification that I started a merge discussion over at

2087:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28

2745:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1

2692:

Talk:Timeline of the far future#Stupid spacecraft statistics

2520:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 2485:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 2450:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 2247:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 2116:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 1923:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 1704:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 1638:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 1552:

Converting WikiProject Moon to a task force of this project

750:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System

587:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 552: 2663:

RFC on American or British English at Ceres (dwarf planet)

2606:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review/Mars/archive1

841: