The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. As some editors pointed out, there is a need for a broad discussion regarding the structure of the lists of minor planets, and AfD is probably not the best place for that. Tone 18:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have stricken the full list added without consensus. Since merge is technically outside the scope of AFD this addresses the empty articles that include those listed above and as many of the votes below interpreted. If people are still confused we may have to start a new discussion but I do not care for accusations of bad faith; I apologize for any confusion though, I thought it would be pretty obvious that we don't need EMPTY articles. Reywas92Talk 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: I don't think "striking" it because it was "added without consensus" is a good idea. "Consensus" doesn't matter since you can't fundamentally change an AFD nomination after several editors have already !voted on the original nomination; that would require a new AFD. As for striking, I think simply removing the addition would be more constructive -- you didn't write it, and striking it makes it look like you did, but changed your mind later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Given the wording in the bottom half of the nomination, which implicates/applies to all 542 'Meanings of' lists, all list pages were tagged and added to the nomination. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly illicit modification of the nomination has been undone. I do not read the wording as implying that, and it is inappropriate for anyone but Reywas92 (talk·contribs) to modify it based on such an interpretation -- or even Reywas92 after other people have already !voted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, posting on the relevant delsort page is enough; those "notifications", which consisted of the title Nomination of all 542 lists of Meanings of minor planet names for deletion and the text From Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000 to Meanings of minor planet names: 541001–542000 @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000., were clearly biased and inaccurate, and have now been removed.[2][3] Generally speaking, notifications must be neutrally worded and accurate: otherwise they constitute canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
To be clear, I would support merging the "Named for..." column with the respective "List of minor planets" article since this is the only piece of information that is not duplicated between the two. We would need to weed out the copyvios as part of the process. –dlthewave☎ 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus 12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I just noticed that
*Treker and Primefac were not pinged. Although they did not !vote, they provided input and should be notified. –dlthewave☎ 15:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me Dlthewave. I'm on the fence on all this I have to say, on the one had it's an impresive and helpful collection of pages, on the other hand I don't know if it's the type of thing Wikipedia should be housing.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hijiri88, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Change to speedy delete all the ones individually linked at the top of this page, as well as the other empty lists. I'm neutral on what to do with the other ones. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, I am leaning WP:TNT delete on the messes that are the non-empty lists. Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000, for instance, is full of what SF Debris calls "ancient Chinese secret, huh?" -- all of the Ancient name of [X] Prefecture are only "ancient" if one considers 1871 to be "ancient", and I can't shake the suspicion that such messes are everywhere on these apparently copy-pasted lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meanings of minor planet names: 41001–42000 is ... so much worse. "Kokuhu"? "the ancient Japanese provincial government office"? Meanings of minor planet names: 52001–53000 is a WP:POVFORK of our Izumi Shikibu -- presumably the planet's discoverer had some connection to Shiroishi district, Shiota, or Saga Prefecture, but I remember reading of local legends that she was an Iwatean, and there is really no textual evidence supporting any such legends (also, there never was a "the Imperial Prince"). Both of these descriptions are copied word-for-word from the sources cited. Meanings of minor planet names: 14001–15000 calls Megohime a "princess", a literal (machine?) translation of her Japanese name that doesn't make any sense in English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000's entries on 10412 Tsukuyomi and 10804 Amenouzume contain some pretty funny howlers for anyone familiar with Japanese mythology, or anyone who bothers to read the relatively accurate 10385 Amaterasu entry, which contradicts both of them. And, again, Wikipedia shouldn't be copy-pasting the exact wording of external sources, even when those sources are accurate and reliable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'm not sure if you were aware, but at the time I cast my above !vote originally, the nomination said something different from what it did when you pinged me. I've unstricken my original !vote and removed the offending bowdlerization of the nomination by Tom.Reding (talk·contribs). I would also encourage you to amend any comments you may have made in light of this misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hm, perhaps it could be better this way. Centralizing more information usually a good thing. It would also reduce the number of levels of indirection needed to access information. My main qualm is adding the etymology context explanations to the list of minor planets pages might unnecessarily crowd/bloat these lists. Maybe we could hide all these etymology explanations behind footnotes? This would increase the number of user click-through operations needed to comfortably read through meanings of definitions though, which is not good. Hmmm. Compare List of chemical element name etymologies vs. List of chemical elements (etymologies included in main list, but more terse), List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States vs. List of states and territories of the United States (etymologies not included in main list). Ahiijny (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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. SportingFlyerT·C 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The full list of pages was updated after I had voted. I believed to be voting only on the empty directory structures originally presented here, but I guess I didn't read the nomination carefully enough. This is heading for an unfortunate WP:TRAINWRECK. I still think these should be completely deleted, but I think the best solution would be to reduce the number of pages in this list through consolidation. The current structure is completely ineffective. SportingFlyerT·C 22:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: (CC Primefac) The list wasn't "updated" after you voted -- the nomination was butchered by someone who had already !voted keep, apparently with the intent of convincing people to !vote keep based on his altered nomination rather than based on what the nomination had actually said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to main index: The nomination is unclear and, at best, woefully inadequate.
"[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.
* Caveat: some batches appear to be more copy-prone than others, but it is not clear what the overall copied/not-copied ratio is, and whether or not that is even a problem (CCI links elsewhere in this discussion). ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
It should be noted that Tom.Reding butchered the AFD nomination half-way through this discussion; either he thought the original nomination was actually meant to say something it clearly did not say (in which case his opinion can be disregarded -- he's in favour of keeping a bunch of articles that were not nominated for deletion) or he understood what was being proposed, opposed deleting those articles, and decided to attempt to game the system by modifying the nomination to say something it had not been intended to (in which case his opinion should be disregarded so as not to encourage this kind of disruptive behaviour). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:Hijiri88. Empty pages are "helpful how and beneficial to whom? Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Umm ... were you aware when you wrote that that the full list of pages being nominated had not been nominated as part of the original AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pages listed above, as I have confirmed none of them have any names. These pages are useless. If they later have names for these objects they can be recreated or undeleted and edited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I find that Meanings of minor planet names: 300001–301000 is fraudulently linked to this discussion, and that does contain meanings, so only 500001 to 510000 ie in the list here, have my vote here to delete, not all the rest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original nomination is for the ten empty pages in the 500k-510k range. Another editor recently added all 542 lists to the nomination. –dlthewave☎ 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of the original nomination, the nominator intended to nominate all 542 pages. Tom just created/added the subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was clearly never meant to say that. The empty lists were being nominated (and A3 does apply to them): the nominator was more ambivalent on the hundreds of other lists that consist almost exclusively of unambiguous copyvio and poorly sourced, inaccurate information, and so didn't nominate those pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Reywas92User:Dlthewave I think there's some confusion right now about what exactly is being proposed to be deleted in this discussion, so could you clarify? Is it (1) only those 10 pages 500001-510000, (2) every meanings of page, (3) every blank meanings of page, or (4) something else? One possible source of confusion here is that in the previous AfD, the nomination commented that there were over 400 pages that fit the description, so only the first 10 in the 500,000 series were picked as a starting point. This could be ambiguously interpreted to mean "only the first 10 are listed here but we're really discussing deletion of every (blank?) page matching this description" or alternatively "we're only discussing deletion for the first 10 pages here and we can put the others up for AfD some other time". Ahiijny (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're discussing several things here, which isn't conducive to clear consensus. For clarity I think it's best to define the scope as every blank meanings page. I would be thrilled if we also reached consensus for how to deal with the remaining content, but it might be best to take that question elsewhere if it turns into a longer discussion. –dlthewave☎ 16:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't redefine the scope after the AFD has been opened and multiple people have !voted. If you want to nominate the other empty lists separately, please ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD, closed just 5 days ago. In both AfDs nominators make wild assertions which are not beneficial to the overall minor-planet project. Empty pages in "meanings of minor planets" will be populated with citations. Last year, more than 600 minor planets were named. Rfassbind– talk 14:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I think one has to admit, empty pages are not a good look. I wonder if there's any kind of sparse list-style organizational scheme that might eliminate the problem of blank pages... Ahiijny (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, empty pages do not look good and there are certainly solutions to address that "problem" (which is actually an optimization for maintainability), for example, empty meaning-pages could be redirected to the index preserving the browsing continuity and allow for the table structure to be restored as soon as a minor planet is named in the corresponding number range. In addition, those cells in the index could be grayed out to indicate that they do not contain any namings. This could be done for all empty meanings pages (which account of about 14% of all partial lists). Rfassbind– talk 10:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - redirection of otherwise empty pages is a viable solution as sparsity of the lists grows. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: What do you think of my "Izumi Shikibu" comment above? Even the non-empty lists, which are not a part of the present AFD, contain fringe-y information cited to unreliable sources (NASA is clearly not a reliable source for Japanese literary history -- presumably they just posted, word-for-word, the description given to them by the Japanese astronomer in poor English, which also is not a reliable source for Japanese literary history). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: I've always felt that these lists of minor planets was an exercise in diminishing returns. The first 1,000 or so will usually have enough sources to have individual articles. Thereafter the useful articles (and names) steadily decrease in number and references. If we continue adding these lists until we're down to motes in space, is anybody going to continue to maintain them? Does any reader have the slightest interest in the higher number ranges? Eventually we're going to need to track them statistically or just as lists of named minor planets, rather than as increasingly meaningless lists. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well because minor planets are pretty small and dim in the grand scheme of things, I think the count will be manageable for a time yet. The discovery rate (see right) looks pretty linear to me. I get what you mean about diminishing returns though; that's already happened with stars. For example, GSC-II has a catalog size of 945,592,683 stars! Ahiijny (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of stars is well short of the list tally for minor planets. Let's assume (absurdly) that the constellation lists all have a maximum of 1,000 stars: there are 88 constellations, so the total is under 100,000. In practice I'd be surprised if the total was over 10,000; the total number of astronomy articles is under 15,000. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I know I've commented on this discussion previously (though I find myself somewhat on the fence as to what to do with them), but from an administrative standpoint I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one). I have notified those editors who !voted based on them being empty in case they did not see this omission, and I see that there is a request for clarification by Ahiijny above. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took the nomination to only include the minor planet lists covering the range 500001 through 510000. If that is not the case, then I'll oppose for procedural reasons. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'm trying to figure out whether this is a difference of interpretation of what the nominator originally wrote, or you legitimately misread the nomination as including the 500+ articles that Tom.Reding added later. The above I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one) would appear in isolation to imply you understood the nomination itself to cover the 500+ pages and that the nominator himself had added them after the fact. This is not the case[4][5] and the original nominator has since clarified that it was not his intent to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards Merge/Delete I think pages should be Merge with List of minor planets, The "naming citation" should be rewritten to make them short and concise as possible without the risk of a possible copyvio. It should be noted JPL copis naming citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS published by The Minor Planet Center(MPC). If one reads a MINOR PLANET CIRCULAR one will sea a copyright notice. Publishing names with the citations makes the name official. It should be noted there is a "Dictionary of minor planet names" By Lutz Schmadel that copy many of the citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS so may be we can do more research find news stories about the naming and other source. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom.Reding and Rfassbind – even the ones that are empty, as they fit the pattern and some will very likely not be empty when the next batch of minor planets are named (usually a new batch comes out every month, but some months are skipped). Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Changed to Move to draftspace per the discussion below; the empty lists are useful for editors, but not so much for readers. Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather silly request for you to make, given how what DS wrote was so obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL. DS said we should not remove the blank lists based on the assumption that at some point in the future that these unnamed planets will have names that would be worth giving etymologies for.
Honestly, the fact that so few of these astronomical names have anything to do with astronomy and the few sources covering them are written by people who have no knowledge of the actual people and things for which they are named -- our List of minor planets named after people, for instance, lists, for example, the noblewoman Taira no Takako under "Monarchs and royalty" -- makes me skeptical that the current naming system will continue to be used until they get down this far and these unnamed planets will ever have names aside from their current numbers. This kind of speculation I am engaged in is against the rules for Wikipedia articles, but the difference is because I'm not putting it in articles.
@Hijiri88: again, please quote which parts of WP:CRYSTAL you think apply here.
You say "obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL", yet speak as if referencing only paragraph #2 (I assume), which applies to individual articles, not lists. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future., maybe? I dunno, your request is really weird -- no one's ever asked me such a question unless they were trolling me.
Now, could you please explain why you altered the AFD nomination?
@Hijiri88: I'm sorry that it feels weird to have someone question your own words, and have your interpretation of guidelines/policies scrutinized. If you wish to avoid/minimize scrutiny in the future, please read the entire policy first (policies actually: you've named several over the past few days, and most of them are inappropriate/irrelevant to the situation) - certainly more than the first 2 sentences. In this case, the 3rd sentence is critical. We are not talking about individual minor planet articles, but lists of them.
A legitimate violation of WP:CRYSTAL would involve guessing a numbered MP's name before the circular is published and writing an article about it. If the article is created afterwards (as they all are), then it must pass WP:NASTRO. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly trolling. I see no reason to continue humouring you if you are going to keep up this LAWYER/IDHT act. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Considering that the namings of numbered minor planets occur at regular intervals (they come out in circulars published by the Minor Planet Center at the full moon, although a few months are skipped), it is hardly CRYSTAL to assert that some unnamed minor planets will be named in future, and to keep empty lists ready. (It would also be acceptable to me to redirect the empty lists to the main page, but redlinks to me give the impression that numbers have been skipped.) It would be CRYSTAL to speculate on what those names would be, or to speculate that some specific numbers will be named in some specific month, but I am not doing that or proposing to do that. Similarly it's not CRYSTAL to say that the Summer Olympics will be held in 2036 (we even do say it, because reliable sources note that it is supposed to happen in every year divisible by 4); it is only CRYSTAL if someone writes an article about the 2036 Summer Olympics with predictions he or she made up. It would be CRYSTAL to say that it will not be held because something happens to break the pattern, because that is a prediction someone made up that is not verifiable. As things stand, the fact that reliable sources note that new minor planet names follow certain rules and come out on a rather regular basis means that we can legitimately say that at some point in the future, some numbered minor planets without names now will be given names, and that the current rules for naming them will continue to hold. (Again, it would be CRYSTAL to say that something will happen and the rules will be changed, because no reliable source predicts this.) Those minor planets might have any number that has already been assigned (and considering that that sentence just means that we're not making a prediction about which ones they might be, it's kind of the opposite of CRYSTAL). Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp:it is hardly CRYSTAL to assert that some unnamed minor planets will be named in futureWhich minor planets are going to be named next time, though? Do we need hundreds of empty or partially empty lists? and to keep empty lists ready That's what the draftspace is for. On top of that, given the problems demonstrated above, I think it would be better to have topic experts review new additions rather than immediately parroting the "official" etymology: having pre-prepared empty lists that need to have new entries added immediately in order not to be speedy-deleted encourages this disruption. Additionally, maintaining all of these lists assumes that all of the planets will eventually be named, which is not kind of the opposite of CRYSTAL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: (edit conflict × 1) Indeed, we do not know which ones they are going to be (other than the obvious fact that they must be numbered ones that haven't already received names). They might fill up blank spaces in already non-empty lists, or they might appear in an empty thousand and make its list non-empty. (The lowest number without a name yet is (3708) 1974 FV1, which is quite low.) And it is indeed conceivable that some of them might never actually get named, although all of them could potentially be. It would be acceptable to me to redirect the empty lists to the main page: I just think it's not ideal for redlinks to appear, when they normally mean that we haven't numbered enough minor planets to get there yet. (Keeping the history also makes it easier to recreate the lists when the time comes, without having to change all the numbers.) I agree that automatically parroting the "official" etymology creates copyright concerns (and sometimes worse; I just did some accent-fixing on the entry for 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà in the etymology list, because apparently the JPL's site couldn't handle the special characters for click consonants and we copied the corrupted characters verbatim), but the idea of having lists giving minor planet name etymologies seems perfectly sound to me. Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Well, what would you say to moving all the empty lists into the draftspace and not moving them into the mainspace until they include named entries? Generally speaking, redlinks are not a good reason to keep empty articles in the mainspace: we just don't link titles that don't have articles and can't have articles in the foreseeable future. (Read: I redlink things all the time, but they are to titles that theoretically could have articles right now; we can't make assumptions about which planets will be named next time or the time after that.) I am not disagreeing with you regarding "the idea of having lists giving minor planet name etymologies", but I just know that the ones relating to old Japan that I have seen are, almost without exception, inaccurate (FWIW, Japanese Wikipedia says Kosai hailed from Okayama and Hurukawa from Osaka, and they were both working in Tokyo when they discovered the planet, so there doesn't appear to be any malicious POV-pushing involved in the "Izumi Shikibu was from Saga" affair), and so I'm highly reluctant to assume that all or even most of the ones relating to topics I don't know about are accurate. The click consonants thing is an obvious typographical error that we can fix without much trouble, but getting information on these topics from the JPL site without cross-checking it is problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Sure, draftspace is fine, as the help these empty lists give is mostly for editors rather than readers. It does mean though that we should come up with some way other than blue/redlinks to clarify. I would suggest that the current colour scheme of Meanings of minor planet names be retained for graying out thousands with no names yet (although the links would be removed), but the thousands which have not been assigned yet (redlinks at the end) should be commented out (or anything else that makes it clear without redlinks that the minor planet numbers have not reached that high yet). I've changed my !vote above. Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD. The empty parts of the lists are being filled gradually. Many are filled. All the lists are very useful in reference and research. Nazar (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What "Many" parts of the above included lists in this AFD are filled? I didn't see any but would like to if you will provide them. Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from this page: Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_12001–13000. The heading said it was being considered for deletion. I was just very actively using it for references and thought it would be a shame if it got deleted. Nazar (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: --- HOLD ON: I gave a !vote on ten articles listed above. It was clear to me but it looks to be there is some monkey business going on. @Primefac: came up with an interpretation (that I do not see) and commented that another editor just added to the Noms list. This makes it appear (the addition wasn't signed) there is confusion and that the addition was added by the Nom, but that does not seem to be the case. THEN some confusion is proclaimed, that also seems to be from the editor that added to the list because it now seems unclear what is intended. REALLY! If that is the case: Remove the added content---problem solved on confusion.
One thing I know is that there are issues and this will be something often brought up again. A valid statement is "...empty lists that don't serve the reader at all...".
There already seems to be a system like with Meanings of minor planet names. This seems like a great way to list all the planets in cells of a table that should link to other lists or singular list articles. The prose indicates that "Grayed out cells do not yet contain any citations for the corresponding number range.". A problem is that it appears that there have been links made to all the grouped names and is linked to from lists of numbered minor planets that include blank lists.
"List of lists" or List of lists of lists can be important when they serve an actual purpose. I am 100% all for indexes and links that aid in navigation and research. What I am not for is circular lists that do not serve a purpose, especially empty lists, and that do not conform to the MOS guidelines, as well as failing several policies and guidelines. The few I clicked on (that are listed above and from "Meanings of minor planet names") used the same five references indicating the same possible pattern for them all.
"Claims that some chain might be broken are not valid". It is not the goal of Wikipedia to list all things found somewhere else, just for the fun of it, or as a false reason to show Wikipedia expansion or improve editor or project article creation counts. Compiling a numerical list of planets could be at List of named minor planets (numerical) and could use the same tables found in Meanings of minor planet names. Grey areas should not be links to blank lists or reflect that those in grey are those without provided references yet linking to another list. This means that all the blank lists could be deleted without breaking some chain (numerical or alphabetical) without any dread of breaking or destroying things.
In this AFD we should focus on what is brought up in the Nom's claims (not added to) but not ignore (or claim the whole thing as bogus or wild assertions) if issues are found to be wide-spread and mentioned. This just indicates the issue might be far more serious overall.
Here, with this AFD, we should determine if there is valid reasoning for the lists included to exist or be deleted. Claims of hindrance with a project are not actual justification, indicates the project should look at this more closely, and might require a widely advertised RFC on the project page. The fact that blank pages serve no purpose and that the issue does not already have a solution would have to countered with valid reasoning or I still feel the list could be deleted without any hindrances or ramifications to any sequence or project "plan". Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah... when I first cast my !vote above the nomination looked like this. What on earth is going on here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: Please do not do this again. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to alter another editor's comment in that fashion without noting that you have done so, particularly when said comment is a proposal for some change that several users have already !voted upon. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tom.Reding's addition of every single other article is entirely improper and clearly WP:POINTY to derail this. My common-sense position is the the EMPTY articles should be deleted. At this point the nom only includes the ten above but the existence of other empty articles should be considered. Confusion remains around the previous AFD and the main lists as well but EMPTY articles are completely inappropriate and could be recreated if/when necessary – with less than 5% named so far there is no expectation these would be filled any time soon. Meanings lists that do include actual content can be discussed for merge separately, such as in larger batches as mentioned above. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: when you supply criteria that applies to 542 pages (paragraph 2), but only list the top 11, you are being, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, very disingenuous. If it were not for your participation in the the June 2019 AfD, I would say this was an accident/oversight. However, given your Speedy delete vote there, a "Massive WP:TROUT to the irresponsible person who mass-created scores of literally empty articles that couldn't even be theoretically filled since these have only numeric names.", and "Delete other lower-numbered Meanings of Names articles that do have some namesakes[...]", and the subsequent failure of the AfD, I'm afraid I can't take your actions at face value, and in fact deem them as dishonest until shown otherwise.
If you were honestly attempting to AfD the original list of 11, then there would be no need for the 2nd paragraph. Indeed, the 2nd paragraph doesn't apply at all the original list, and only serves to befuddle future references to this nom, or subtly bolster any future noms of the lower-numbered meanings lists.
To show good faith, I ask that you have this nomination closed, and start a new one as originally written, but with your 2nd paragraph removed.~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it takes to get rid of EMPTY articles then sure we may have to start a new nomination, but I don't care for accusations of bad faith from someone who added all the other articles in an attempt to derail this when you voted oppose. I stand by creating empty articles being a troutable offense and that they should be speedily deleted; it should be obvious that they serve no purpose. The previous AFD's failure is irrelevant when it was clearly due to the listing of the main planet data lists as well. Reywas92Talk 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. You can't shut down an AFD you don't agree with by looking for some piece of wording in the nomination that you can interpret as contradicting the stated goal of the AFD, then alter the wording of the nomination so several editors !vote "keep" based on something that wasn't actually in the nomination, then when you are found out request that the AFD be withdrawn and reopened with wording that no one could possibly choose to misconstrue as you did -- presumably with no prose rationale, thus allowing for "Speedy keep -- no rationale was given by the nominator for why the pages should be deleted". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the responses mention the scope of content that they are in favor of keeping or deleting. Despite the misreading of the nomination and the subsequent addition and removal of pages, a closer who takes the time to read the comments should have no trouble reading the consensus. There is no need to second-guess the intent of the nominator or open a new AfD. –dlthewave☎ 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: it would be more of a gesture than borne of necessity (though it would clear the discussion of repetitive spam from Hijiri88). ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: It's not repetitive spam when you have repeatedly engaged in the same disruptive behaviour and have refused to even acknowledge it. I would appreciate your striking your above personal attack (not to mention your hypocritical, repetitive/spammy requests that I clarify more than I already have how WP:CRYSTAL applies to the argument that "these planets will have names some day -- we should prepare a space to include descriptions of those names"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:you struck my '+Full list of 542 pages' line, which would've been an excellent opportunity to also strike your own offending 2nd paragraph, but, alas, you did not. Perhaps I'm being naïve, but you may still strike your own 2nd paragraph as an equivalent sign of good faith; doing so has no discernible effect to your proposed original argument. Not doing so, however, would unfortunately confirm my bad faith suspicions. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, see below for my interpretation. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I think there would be a consensus if this AfD could be closed with "Redirect all empty partial lists in meanings of minor planets to the index section on the main page". So that empty page #122 would redirect to the index here, and empty page #500 would redirect to this section of the index. This would resolve the AfD's principal issue of "empty pages". Rfassbind– talk 22:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, but I'm not sure why the AFD should be closed three days early just because of some funny business by one of the "keep" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support (no bullet & no bold to avoid confusion). ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think to close early would require agreement by @Reywas92: to withdraw Nom as a compromise or clear consensus of those involved. I would support proposal but there still needs to be attention given to possible copy/vio, copy/paste issues that might involve attrition problems or plagiarism. See: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 July 1. To prevent even a hint of impropriety an admin (@Primefac:) should be involved. Otr500 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll post this here since it was brought up in a few places. The first paragraph of the nomination says Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these, indicating that while there are ten pages listed, the entire list of pages (which until recently was listed and linked) were included in the nomination. However this was not in the original nomination.
I have looked into this further and found multiple versions of the nomination statement:
Change #1 (by the nominator) to include the above-quoted "selection of 541" text.
Change #2 (by Tom Reding) to include a link to the list of 542 articles
Change #3 (by Dlthewave, after being struck by Reywas92) to remove the text added by Tom
At the time of Change #1 there were an even number of keep and delete votes (3 apiece), with a spattering of merges on both sides. Since making my initial observation regarding the "not empty lists", votes have been struck, changed, and changed a second (or fourth) time in trying to clarify exactly what is proposed to be nominated. A procedural re-nomination is not ideal, and in re-reading many of the changed votes the preference for "delete all" or "delete the empties" has become fairly clear, but we still have three days to discuss the issue further.
From my reading of the discussions above, Reywas92 (and please correct me if I'm wrong) intended to nominate all of the empty lists, but only gave ten as an example. The wording of the nomination (and in particular Change #1) has simply muddled that meaning. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in that "Change #1" diff to imply Reywas92 is in favour of immediately deleting those other articles. A3 applies to these empty lists and to any other empty lists in the same category, and there's really no reason not to merge the others so that each article is of a reasonable length and no pointless entries on unnamed planets are included, but we're not !voting on that. Reywas's change, which was in two parts, was clearly to propose merging the non-empty lists. At no point have any articles other than the ten listed above been nominated for deletion as part of this AFD. Also, of the three "keep" !votes, two were habitual deletionist "ARS" types, and the other was essentially a !vote for "merge empty lists, don't keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a random aside, a "selection" is by definition a subset of the whole. I don't know how you can assume the entirety has been "selected" by the statement above. SportingFlyerT·C 00:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking to me... a selection is a subset of the whole, and the "whole" is being referred to in the Further numbers are also considered here part of the sentence. The fact that we have to sit here and argue the semantics of the statements in the nomination mean that it is poorly worded and should be clarified by a specific statement from the OP as to what they wanted - which is exactly what I asked for above; currently my interpretation of the nomination (with clarifying statements from the nomninator) is that every empty list is being considered; the list of ten are just examples. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is poorly worded and should be clarified by a specific statement from the OP as to what they wantedSpecific statement.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was asked by multiple people for my thoughts, which I gave, and I read through everything and produced pretty much the same thing as what you just posted. I asked them to correct me only if I was wrong. At this point we are arguing semantics and a dozen other things that are irrelevant to the nomination. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, before Tom.Reding added the additional pages, there didn't seem to be any confusion about the scope of the nomination. Sure, some editors (including me) supported deleting the empty pages and merging any salvageable content, but nobody expressed concern that all of the lists were up for deletion as a set. The confusion arose after editors started noticing that a "let's delete these empty pages" nomination actually included non-empty pages. –dlthewave☎ 01:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: FWIW, I was this close to inserting the words "without leaving any indication that he did so" after your "added the additional pages", without leaving any indication that I had done so, as a meta-commentary on the whole affair, but decided against it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I have seen an AFD this screwed up before. I don't know if it is salvageable. I !voted on the 10. I didn't look to see if the addition was already there or added later. At any rate I didn't include the rest, didn't think they were included, and became confused when the discussion somehow started to expand causing me to wonder and look back. The instructions do allow for bundling, and adding more if the discussion swings that direction. The improper addition to the nomination did add confusion that at the least tainted some !votes.
There was no keep result at the previous AFD. The closing statement in relation to these articles was "no consensus -- consider renominating". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the closer: "The result was keep." You can make up the results, I guess, but you can't credibly ignore the words. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result was [...]No consensus with respect to "Meanings of" articles. If the nominator still wishes for those to be deleted, I'd recommend they create a new AfD, as there is some support here to delete them or merge them.[6]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally the expression "color me red"[7] means "I'm embarrassed (because I realized I was wrong about something, etc.)", but here it just looks like the error in question was highlighted -- did you mean to strike it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what I did. Your inference is unwarranted. And yours alone. Wishful thinking, perhaps. Oh well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ST47 clearly wrote separate closing statements for the Lists and Meanings articles. Lists was "Keep" and Meanings was "No consensus" with the recommendation to create a new AfD, hence this new AfD. –dlthewave☎ 02:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The standard meaning of the expression "color me red" is not an "inference" and nor would it be "unwarranted" to assume you recognized your mistake and acknowledged that you were embarrassed by it -- in fact that is an assumption of good faith on your part. Now that you have clarified that a statement of good faith was not your intent, I will ask you again why you think there was a consensus to "keep" these pages at the last AFD, when the closer very clearly stated that there was no such consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close the idea that a clearer consensus will emerge is preposterous. Thincat (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close I agree, let's close this and move on, seems the AfD hasn't gotten a bit out of hand. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close I participated in the July 1 AfD. Not this one. I did not want to poke this hornets nest.Lightburst (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not under any illusion this will close with clear consensus, but IMO this should be an easy delete. List of minor planets clearly meets LISTN, and I can understand the argument that unpopulated sublists thereof should remain in place (though there may be better solutions). Here though, I don't see where "Meanings of minor planet names" (which is effectively a list of named minor planets) makes a cogent claim to notability. Where are the reliable sources that discuss named minor planets, as a group? Even if they exist, you only have to take a trip to List of minor planets named after rivers, for example, to see that this area has at some level run into the problem of (and I hate to say it,) listcruft. —Rutebega (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't close yet I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this AFD should be closed immediately, but I am a little concerned that a simple !vote-count (which is what many AFD closers seem to do to avoid getting people angry at them) would result in a "no consensus" close, which would de facto favour the "keep" position, and since the confusion has been cleared up it seems likely that any further !votes would be on the "delete/redirect/draftify" side of the debate. I'm also a little concerned that one of the above "close" comments appears to be hounding of me rather than a good-faith, sober assessment of the discussion. (Heck, the most recent "keep" !vote was unambiguous trolling, as was made clear by their responses to follow-up questions. Whether it was specific trolling of me due to my deep involvement in this debate is actually irrelevant.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My vote was keep on the AfD that closed on July 1 In both this AfD and the prior, the individual nominators made assertions without regard for the minor-planet project. As Andrew D. has stated: 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. It is a fact that every year more minor planets are discovered. Additionally, the empty parts of these lists are slowly populating. As has been stated above, the lists are useful in reference and research. WP:ATDWP:NOTPAPERLightburst (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Your comment appears to indicate you have not read or understood the discussion. The nominated pages are technically covered by CSD, with the onlx thing forcing this AFD being the recent "no consensus" result, but your comment does not appear to address this. Furthermore, the timing of your !vote, and your "hornets nest" comment above, appear to indicate that you are motivated more by "revenge" against one or more of the participants here. I would ask you to kindly leave me alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor makes 38 separate comments/insults/notes/invitations/provocations on this one single AfD. I would suggest that the editor refer to: WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BLUDGEONING guidelines/policies. Suggest the editor also carefully read the WP:AOHA policy. This AfD is about the merits of the article, and as such, it is not the place for the editor to bring personal attacks, personal insecurities and personal accusations. One wonders, how much easier this AfD would be to close without the editor's 38 entries - because many of them elicited other non-AfD related comments to muck up the AfD...like my comment here. Lightburst (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is about the merits of the article, and as such, it is not the place for the editor to bring personal attacks, personal insecurities and personal accusations Yeah -- so why are you ignoring that and just focusing on my conduct as though that was remotely relevant? You claim that ATD and NOTPAPER are valid arguments for not draftifying/redirecting/deleting these empty lists, but you don't even seem to be aware that we are talking about empty lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Your conduct at this AFD is not "remotely relevant." 14:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Close I believe this AFD should be Close, the citations should be edited so that they are not copyed from the Minor Planet Circulars(note JPL copies from Minor Planet Circulars), I think Wikipedia should only have the who or what(i.e, actor, actress,place,poet, discoverer, science fair winner,etc..) examples on what should be done"Baton Rouge, Louisiana". JPL·11739, Ernst Pepping (1901–1981), German composer. JPL·11043, I think correcting the "official" citations should not be done! In reality for most name citations there only there reliable sources, the Minor Planet Circulars, JPL, Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (note they are all copies of each other). for more on how minor planet names are name see https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/Astrometry.html#name -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another example on what should be done is " Jarryd Brandon Levine, ISEF awardee in 2003" JPL·17277 -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bayoustarwatch: With regard to I think correcting the "official" citations should not be done!, what do you think about my point, stated above, that NASA and other space organizations don't know anything about Japanese mythology? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Many observer/discoverers may not know about "many" things(this is true for most people -- myself included). What I am suggesting, because the naming citations may NOT be in the public domain and there are "few" reliable sources. We shuould olny use much "as need" to let the reader know who or what the minor planet was name for. I see no need to use ALL of the "fact" from the "official" citations(i.e. do not put the "Imperial Prince" part in). MAYBE we can do somothing like this "| 52261 Izumishikibu || 1982 VL4 ||The Japanese poet Izumi Shikibu (born c. 976). || JPL·52261|| " Take some or most of the "unneeded fact" out! But do not correct or add more "facts". The pages are about minor planet names and not about the people, places, or things for which the minor planet are named. --- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These pages are part of a much larger set. Whether they should have been created in this form is moot; we are now here. They in effect form place markers for future expansion. I am seeing no benefit in knocking these bricks out of the wall. What is probably needed is a full discussion on the whole structure. Just Chilling (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Administrator note I know I've commented on this discussion previously (though I find myself somewhat on the fence as to what to do with them), but from an administrative standpoint I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one). I have notified those editors who !voted based on them being empty in case they did not see this omission, and I see that there is a request for clarification by Ahiijny above. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
