Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Roman numerals in supernova types?

A question motivated by SN 2011fe: how should supernova types be rendered in the body of an article? With a san-serif font, "Ia" looks odd.

Some options:

  • I, Ia, Ib, Ic, II, II-L, II-P, IIb, IIn (capital letter)
  • 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 2-L, 2-P, 2b, 2n (arabic numeral)
  • I, Ia, Ib, Ic, II, II-L, II-P, IIb, IIn (roman numeral)
  • I, Ia, Ib, Ic, II, II-L, II-P, IIb, IIn (all serifs)

Melchoir (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good practice to be forcing a certain font family on the viewer. RJH (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, {{code}} and {{math}} are already widely used. Melchoir (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know what looks odd about "Ia" in sans-serif font. I think we should leave it the way it is.AstroCog (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
'Ia' is standard nomenclature. It's not our fault that Wikipedia defaults to a font in which l and I are difficult to distinguish. In future it might not do, users can change to suit their own preferences, and anyone who re-uses the text would probably use a different font. I don't see supernovae as a particularly special case (if it was, wouldn't the same arguments apply to stellar luminosity classes?), so there's no more need to 'fix' the problem than in any other use of Roman numerals on Wikipedia. We shouldn't use incorrect designations to compensate for poor font design. Modest Genius talk 17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Astrobiology?

Would it be possible to somehow launch a project to improve the astrobiology section of Wikipedia? I am a beginning editor, so I am wondering if this is necessary. Fraqtive42 (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Such articles would also fall under WikiProject Astronomy, so I imagine that there would be a high degree of overlap in content and users who are interested in improving the articles. However, it could be that a WikiProject could help give some focus and attention to those articles. I'm not sure how necessary such a WikiProject is, but I don't think I would object to its creation either. I recommend reading the guide to WikiProjects here.AstroCog (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
What you might consider doing is setting up a task force, as per WP:TASKFORCE, and list it under this WikiProject. For example, see the Constellations Task Force in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Astronomy table. Once it gets going, the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template could be updated to include an "astrobiology" field to flag those articles supported by that task force. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there a number of editors who would be able to contribute on a regular basis? I notice that you're very new here (contribs) - that's not a problem in itself, but the most practical way to improve articles, at least initially, is to get stuck in and start editing them. If a group of editors want a place to organise their existing work together, then that's the time to start a WikiProject or a Taskforce. But there's no point if no-one would use it. Modest Genius talk 20:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles edited by Marshallsumter

Questionable article: Sun as an X-ray source

The article Sun as an X-ray source seems very questionable. The first few sections seem to be pasted in from elsewhere in Wikipedia. It includes entire sections of original research. An example is the following (attempt to define the sun?):

The Sun is a naturally occurring physical entity, association (Sun plus its coronal cloud) or structure that current science has demonstrated to exist in outer space.[1] Such an astronomical object may be only an astronomical X-ray object, but the Sun is also an astronomical visual object. Typically the 'Sun' refers to a single, cohesive structure that is bound together by gravity (and sometimes by electromagnetism).

There are many such dubious statements are scattered throughout the article. There is, moreover, substantial overlap (including outright duplication of content) with the marginally better article Solar X-ray astronomy. I think a merge of these two articles is appropriate, although probably an expert from this project should review the result because I sense that there is a lot of rubbish in Solar X-ray astronomy as well that I lack the expertise to pinpoint. The question is, what of Sun as an X-ray source is really worth keeping? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I agree with your initial assessment. It's a painful article to read, and it looks like it was primarily written by somebody whose first language is not English. There's an overabundance of technical jargon and minutia. However, the topic itself of studying the Sun using X-rays is likely notable enough. Sounds to me like you've volunteered to clean it up, or at the very least recruit some people to rework it. For the time being, I'll stick some tags on it to flag its questionable content.AstroCog (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't we already have a much better article on that at Solar X-ray astronomy? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Good eye. Looks like this article is a prime candidate for deletion then.AstroCog (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's now up for speedy deletion.AstroCog (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! While I do not know if any of you are experts in X-ray astronomy (doesn't read like it, no offense), I do know which members of the WikiProject Astronomy are. Headbomb has already redirected Sun as an X-ray source to Solar X-ray astronomy. Since I certainly make no claims at being an expert at writing encyclopedia articles, would you prefer that I WP:RFC one of the other editors before adding further text to Solar X-ray astronomy? Marshallsumter (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The Request for Comments process is a formal process for resolving disputes between users (usually). For content questions about a single article, the best thing to do is to start a new subsection on the article's talk page suggesting the changes you think should be made; people will respond there. That's pretty much what article talk pages are for. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite a lot more of this

It turns out there may be more articles that need vetting, at least some of which are astronomy-related. The relevant thread is at this AN/I thread.

Articles that could use a quick check include, but aren't limited to:

These are just the articles that are astronomy-related, that showed up in some form within his most recent 500 edits. There are many more in that 500 that should be vetted that aren't relevant to this wikiproject, and there are over 2500 edits this year (meaning this list should be treated as very incomplete).

These aren't necessarily bad articles, but there's concern over whether they represent verifiable content or synthesis/original research. Some of these also seem like content forks of more general articles (perfectly fine as section-expansions when kept in synch and referenced, but I have no idea if these are or aren't). They seem to be written conventionally, but with this many being produced in such a short time, it's probably also wise to take a few moments of due diligence with Google to double-check that they aren't copied from anywhere either (unlikely; the only reason I'm suggesting checking at all is the scale of the potential mess to clean up in the unlikely event there _is_ a problem). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Another editor has created a full list here, to aid vetting/cleanup. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, coronal cloud looks like synth. He's taken a stellar feature and extended it to virtually the entire universe. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Astronomical source prods

There has been an ANI thread about this user's edits, and there is something of a consensus to delete his contributions. I have WP:PRODed several articles relating to astronomical sources. With this editor, I think the safest default stance is to delete on sight, project members might want to vet these to see if there is anything worth salvaging of these:

  1. Astronomical visual source
  2. Astronomical ultraviolet source
  3. Astronomical neutron source
  4. Astronomical infrared source
  5. Astronomical gamma-ray source
  6. Astronomical cosmic-ray source
  7. Astronomical source

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at a couple of these, and yes they're barely coherent synthesis. There's no reason why we should have articles on these things, given that we already have things like infrared astronomy. Modest Genius talk 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing cleanup

Category:Articles_created_by_User:Marshallsumter shows the articles created by this user, of which most have been redlinked (deleted). As such drastic actions have been taken, it might merit review by WP:AST to see if edits to other articles by this user are appropriate, or are also inappropriate.

76.65.129.5 (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a harsh outcome. I hope it was the right thing to do. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at several of his articles, I think deleting the lot was probably the best way to cauterise the wound. Fixing the existing incoherent text would be more work that simply starting a new article from scratch. And that's before the WP:CWW and outright copyright violations are considered. Although many of those are articles we should have (e.g. Lockman Hole, Interstellar magnetic field, Orion–Eridanus Superbubble), I doubt Marshallsumter's creations would have been good places to start from. Let's hope he didn't ruin any other articles without us noticing. Modest Genius talk 21:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The shortcut has a typo: it's WP:CWW, WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I just picked an article that he contributed to at random SN 185 and had a look at it. I ended up deleting over half of the article, including essentially all the material that he added. Most consisted of a meaningless list of X ray sources, with no indication how any of them related to the supernova, but there were also several self-contradictory statements and citations to non-reliable sources. Just about the only thing he added that I left in there was the image. Modest Genius talk 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If there is interest, perhaps the group could add the most-needed such articles to the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology page? Those do get added from time to time. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
When I was relatively new to Wikipedia I split off four articles from X-ray astronomy. This was one of User:Marshallsumter's gargantuan creations at the time (Nov. 2009). The dates of the split are November 16, 2009 for three articles and November 18, 2009 for one article. Two articles listed below have been the most heavily edited by User:Marshallsumter since the split (according to the edit histories). I would appreciate it if project members review these articles since they are originally content created by User:Marshallsumter. Please delete, merge, or redirect as necessary. Reviewing just one of these articles tells me that I am unable to simply read these articles and give an assessment right away. I would have to do alot of digging to determine their accuracy. I suppose I should have looked harder at the content in the first place. Thanks in advance for your efforts. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for including wikilinks to the source article in your split edit summaries. I will check back with {{Copied}}s after things have calmed down. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This may be better as a subsection of #Questionable article: Sun as an X-ray source above. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and done. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This reminds me of the mess that CarloscomB (talk · contribs) created, except with much more verbosity and kilobytes of text. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah this an order of magnitude worse (hey pros don't hit me, its hyperbole!)--Cerejota (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page

The contents of the category have been moved there. "Enjoy" :P--Cerejota (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal request for comment

Astronomers, please comment at Talk:Interplanetary medium about the difference, or lack of, between Interplanetary medium, Interplanetary dust cloud and Cosmic dust. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology sockpuppet cleanup

Seems we just caught the whole bunch of the disruptive editors in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44. I'm going to comb their edits over the next few days, but there were a lot of socks and a lot of edits, so help would be appreciated. This mostly affects Astrobiology, Big Bang, Quantum-Consciousness, Evolution and related topics, as well as a handful of history and religion topics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Physics Nobel for Accelerating Universe

Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess are all sharing the Nobel Prize for their observations which confirmed the accelerating Universe. We should keep an eye on their associated pages for possible updates, improvements...and vandalism.AstroCog (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Two accelerating universe articles

Could someone look at reconciling / merging the old article accelerating universe with the recently created accelerating expansion of the cosmos? Though recently created (mainly by just two editors), the second article is actually longer. However it also suffers from formatting and style problems. Now that the accelerating universe has won the Nobel prize, people are going to be looking for this information and it would be nice have things be cleaned up and merged as appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first article is shorter, but is more efficiently formatted. They must be merged, so that there aren't two articles. I'll put helping on my to-do list.AstroCog (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Book reports

BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:European Southern Observatory#Book report. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Those are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to way until then to gain their benefits. Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

categories for discussion

Hi. If someone from the project has a bit of free time, I'd like to get some further competent input on two discussions about the best name for categories related to astronomical surveys. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

New section in Ptolemy's table of chords

I have just written this new section of Ptolemy's table of chords, which I could not write until we recently acquired the ability to include some archaic Greek letters in TeX.

Doubtless further work on that section could get done, and for the rest of the article, there is a "to do" list at talk:Ptolemy's table of chords. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gliese 710

Gliese 710 is notable because it could have a close encounter with our solar system in the future, but the radial velocity and proper motion data in the article is questionable. User:Wayne Hardman originally inserted the starbox with a radial velocity of -24.0 km/s and proper motion of -130 mas/year (RA) and -50 mas/year (declination). With these values the encounter wouldn't be close. Later User:Kheider changed the radial velocity to -13.8 km/s, citing this paper. The SIMBAD database has a value of -23.3 km/s for the radial velocity and 1.15 ± 1.66 (RA) and 1.99 ± 1.22 (declination) mas/year for the proper motion. These proper motion values would at least allow a close encounter, but which values (especially which radial velocity value) is correct? Icek (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd check the original sources. I've been regularly using van Leeuwen (2007), which is frequently referenced by SIMBAD for proper motion information on Hipparcos stars. Bobylev (2010) uses van Leeuwen for proper motion data, while the radial velocity data comes from the 'Pulkovo Compilation of Radial Velocities' (2006). SIMBAD is still using the General Catalogue of Stellar Radial Velocities (1953) for the radial velocity. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The van Leeuwen second Hipparcos reduction is indeed the best source for proper motion of nearby stars. And I'd be inclined to take the most recent radial velocity determination. Remember people: SIMBAD is very useful but far from infallible, and frequently carries out-of-date or inaccurate information. Modest Genius talk 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

IAU constellation images

I just noticed that all the images at the top of every constellation article have been replaced by new ones from the IAU. Whilst they look pretty good, they also have IAU and Sky & Telescope logos on them, and I'm not sure of the copyright status of those images. They've been lifted from this IAU website, but are on Commons with CC licenses. The only discussion I can see about them is at Template_talk:Infobox_constellation#IAU_images. Anyone know why these were changed, and their copyright status? Modest Genius talk 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one has any comments? Modest Genius talk 18:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
For those who may have had a concern, it looks like the IAU/S&T constellation maps that have been posted to the various constellation articles have been "released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license", per:
The original images are available from here:
Regards, RJH (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User is factory creating articles for un-notable objects

Help! I have just tagged over a dozen articles created by editor Merovingian. These are all articles for minor planets, all discovered by the same person, and every one of the articles is virtually identical to the next, with the exception of the name. An example is the recently created article (27723)_1990_QA. I realize these are probably good-faith creations, but the user has already been warned by Sp33dyphil about such creations, and Merovingian even admitted that these objects were not notable by themselves. My suggestion is to stop these creations somehow and request that they be merged to an appropriate list. I have made this request on the editor's talk page, but I wanted to get some other astro editors into this discussion. We just can't possibly make a wikipedia page for every astronomical object out there! AstroCog (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw this user had created a load of asteroid articles recently, but they seemed to be skipping lots out of a sequence. I assumed that meant they must have been moderately notable ones with at least one or two papers published on them, but confess I didn't check. Unless the individual asteroids have been the submit of direct study of that object we shouldn't have individual articles on them, an entry in a list article is fine. WP:OUTCOMES does indeed say that asteroids usually survive AfD, but a) that's not a policy and b) that isn't a desirable thing anyway. Modest Genius talk 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:OUTCOMES seems to just say that comets and asteroids are acceptable as part of lists, but doesn't really say anything to the issue of individual articles for objects that have no other notability than being discovered. AstroCog (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is a little too large for me at the moment. I thought I could just tag a couple dozen of these stubs, but Merovingian has created hundreds, including sub-lists, which list specific ranges of the asteroid catalog. It's kind of ridiculous. I think once a resolution to this particular incident/editor has been made, I would like to propose some kind of policy, or at the very least, an understanding within the Astronomy Project, that individual objects need some notability beyond discovery to be article-worthy. AstroCog (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that's alot of articles. Is he using AWB or something? I think we might encourage him to create a Wikia, say minorplanet.wikia.com , and do this minor planet/asteroid/comet thing there? Then we could also transwiki other people's creations of less notable minor planets there. 70.24.247.40 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The user seems to be operating within their own private universe. See below. AstroCog (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The user has the sysop bit, so he's an administrator. This means that he should know about policies, guidelines, and practices on Wikipedia. (though considering the discussion at WT:ASTRO... where another admin, Kwami, is running rampant, one wonders) 70.24.247.40 (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, this user seems to have an internal logic all to themselves. Here's their reply from my talk page (italics are my questions/statements to the user):

You said on Sp33dy's talk page that even you think they don't have general notability, so I'm puzzled why you are creating more article for them.

That's my own personal opinion... which cannot be any substitute for policy. Actually, to expand on what I think, I believe that the less significant minor planets still qualify for an article. As noted on Sp33dyphil's talk page, I quoted the policy. It is vague but I believe it is sufficient to justify my work.

I think the best alternative would be to merge the information into appropriate lists.

Those already exist, grouping the minor planets a thousand at a time. Unfortunately, some of them are out of date and contributors have not made any new ones recently. The later thousands pages look like construction sites where higher-number minor planets are just put there. I already have a user subpage for that.

Wikipedia cannot possibly be a catalog of every astronomical object discovered.

Cannot, or should not? On what basis are you making that judgment? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper.

I have sent other such objects to AfD before, and they were deleted. I will do the same with these, unless evidence of significant coverage is provided for them

The Minor Planet Center and Small Body Browser appear to treat all objects alike. They're all listed next to each other, after all.

I've said elsewhere that some small minor planets have been named despite being completely run-of-the-mill. Deleting some while keeping others which are essentially the same is irrational. So far nobody has provided a credible argument against their inclusion outside of vague notability complaints. I have been working on Wikipedia's minor planet coverage for a couple of years now and have not had one deleted. Why start now? I'm just trying to complete this project.

Notability is moot in space. We have articles for far-off main-sequence stars around which are zero habitable planets. Why keep them and delete articles about minor planets in our own star system? --Merovingian

Obviously, I don't agree with this editor. Just because we can create thousands of articles for every minor planet, doesn't mean that we should. The editor is exploiting the poor language of the astronomy line in WP:OUTCOMES and the fact that there is no consensus policy on having an article for every object in space. Creating such articles is what follows from Merovingian's logic.

Another user recently added a PROD to one of the objects, which was removed using this rationale:

I've removed the PROD tag from this article. There is currently no consensus at WP:ASTRO over whether minor planets are inherently notable, but my thinking - and that of many others - is that they count as geographical locations and thus derive inherent notability. As such, deletion of this article is not likely to be uncontested, and it's therefore unsuitable for PROD.

Really? Now's the time for a consensus on policy, one way or the other. AstroCog (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd like to see what some other editors think. AstroCog (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, I was asked to comment on this by Astrocog. I have absolutely no opinions about whether or not these articles should exist and meet WP:GNG, or whatever relevant guideline out there. Two suggestions based on my experiences.
  • The first would be to have a "stub creation guide" for certain types of objects, detailing what to include, what to exclude, etc... We did this for WP:JOURNALS (guide can be found at WP:JOURNALS/WG, and accessed from {{journal-stub}} and {{WP Journals}}), with great success. This is my opinion as an editor, and as a member of WP:JOURNALS.
  • The large-scale systematic creation of articles can be regarded as a bot task, and subject to bot-policy (see Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation). If the person creating those articles isn't communicating with you and isn't taking into account the concerns of the community, then they may be blocked as any malfunctioning bot would be. This is my opinion as a member of the WP:BAG.
  • Errrr...I'd strongly oppose any suggestion that a good-faith, "meat" (for want of a better term) editor ever be treated the same as a bot, just because they're doing a task that a bot would be capable of. As for the subject of this discussion, my belief is that if the minor planets, asteroids, and such have verifiable, reliable sources, there's no reason why they should not have articles (while I do have a few problems with the response of the editor mentioned above, his WP:NOTPAPER stance squares with mine in this regard.) If there's a dirty snowball whose article can only say, and will always only say, "X is a Y of Z diameter made up of A" as a one-sentence stub, then by all means delete, but otherwise, I'd say keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The policy isn't for editors who do things bots would be capable of (all editors are capable of doing what bots can do, bots just do it faster and do not get tired), the policy is for users making editors as a bot would. Large-scale creation of formulaic articles is exactly that. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but care must be exercised, otherwise you get a huge mess to cleanup, vet, etc... If that care is exercised, and article creation follow consensus, there's no issue. If it's not, then WP:MASSCREATION applies, and users may be blocked as any malfunctioning bot would. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I can cite here entire "article": "(27723) 1990 QA is a main-belt minor planet. It was discovered by Robert H. McNaught at the Siding Spring Observatory in Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia, on August 19, 1990.[1]". "X is a Y of Z diameter made up of A" is way better Bulwersator (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to call attention to Wikipedia:Notability (geography), which, while an essay, I think well represents Wikipedia practice. In particular it says "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however. If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article. ..." I think this could be extended to objects in space as suggesting no separate article if all that is available from sources is orbital elements, magnitude, spectral class and discoverers.--agr (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much my argument for the vast majority of these objects. There are thousands of these articles, and nearly every one of them is as trivial as the example Bulwersator just gave above. A handful of the minor planets will have follow-up studies and scientific interest beyond their initial discovery. Those are the ones I would consider notable enough for a stand-alone article. The rest I do not mind being cataloged in the "List of..." articles (although I raise an eyebrow even at those). Part of the issue I have here is precedent. The list of possible objects discovered, yet to be discovered and given a catalog name or number, is literally astronomical. WP:NOTPAPER or not, I feel the precedent to create a stand-alone article for every astrophysical object dilutes the usefulness of the encyclopedia. Merovingian's counter-argument that there are articles for stars which are just as trivial as his minor-planet articles is a kind of Tu quoque argument which I think ultimately fails. Those other articles also exist because there is a lack of consensus for an article creation policy for astronomical objects. I think such a policy should begin with the question "Is there significant coverage of this astronomical object beyond its initial discovery and physical parameter constraints?" I don't think such a policy would be particularly controversial, either. A difference between a river on the Earth and a Trans-neptunian rock is that the river is much more likely to be encountered or used by people, increasing the likelihood for notability. If a minor-planet is studied in some great detail by subsequent missions (e.g. New Horizons), then make an article for it. Otherwise, at best it belongs on a list. AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am not convinced by either point of view as to whether or not these merit inclusion. However, I would like to point out that just by the mere fact that these objects have been observed probably means that there is a source or some sources that say this object exists. For example, the minor planet (27723) 1990 QA started this thread. Here is a source that backs up the existence of that object [1], along with other factoids that could be written into the article. I am guessing NASA has a similar type database, but I don't recall the name. An analogy might be Academic journals. These are deemed notable with an impact factor (a number) and being indexed in acceptable indexing databases. Even without an impact factor, the acceptable databases would allow for inclusion. Perhaps, the same should be said for cataloged astronomical objects. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
"The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000 light years in diameter containing 200–400 billion stars." from Milky Way and "A typical galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars, and there are more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe." from Star. It is important to protect Wikipedia from flood of single sentence stubs "<object name> is <object type>. It was discovered by <astronomer>/during <sky survey>" Bulwersator (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Why? (That's a serious question, BTW. WP:NOHARM might be an argument to avoid in deletion, but when it comes to stubs like that...why not, exactly? Wikipedia is not paper, and I haven't heard anything about WMF running low on server space. So why is it so important to keep them out?) An astronomical body is rather different than, say, Pokémon type #8,296, or John Doe #6 billion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Stub quality articles about all stars - maybe? But substub spam is not helpful ("It is important to protect Wikipedia from flood of single sentence stubs"). For example it will cause problems during creating proper articles about astronomical bodies using bot Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Who says that these objects do not exist? I don't think anyone is disputing their existence. What I am disputing is their inherent notability beyond initial discovery. The academic journal analogy uses the fact that there is an impact factor for journals. This means that researchers beyond those who were published in the journal itself used ideas or cited articles from the journal. I know I'm reaching beyond the analogy here, but where is that for these orbiting rocks - that is, where is a source discussing something about these objects, apart from catalogs of physical parameters? The Bushranger said, "An astronomical body is rather different than, say, Pokémon type #8,296, or John Doe #6 billion." How? What makes a random M5 main sequence star, which is just one of several 10s of billions of them in the Galaxy, different from John Doe #6 billion? In this case, I'd say John Doe #6 billion has a greater likelihood of being notable. AstroCog (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How? What makes a random M5 main sequence star, which is just one of several 10s of billions of them in the Galaxy, different from John Doe #6 billion? Simply put: A star is science. A planetoid is science. Pokemon #492 is WP:FANCRUFT (and should be in Bulbapedia, you have no idea how horrified I was to discover that article exists) and John Doe #6,000,000,000 hasn't done anything to establish his notability. If we want Wikipedia to be less of a laughingstock in certain quarters, we need more articles on these planetoids/asteroids and fewer on pokémon and Random Person Who Has A Youtube Account. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion should have been posted under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. It has been discussed before on several occasions, but no consensus was reached. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you did an admiral job of trying to talk sense into people, but at the time (most recent discussion seems to be 2010) editors over there weren't biting. I think our discussion here has been more productive, including coming close to converging on a consensus. Let's keep this discussion going and come up with something! AstroCog (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability threshold

  • Seems that what WP:ASTRO need is a threshold for notability. I propose
  • All objects visible to the naked eye.
  • All objects listed in catalogs of interest to amateur astronomers (i.e. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue), and of high historical importance (New General Catalogue, ...). This is the equivalent of being listed in a "selective" database for academic journals. Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dF isn't enough for notability.
  • All planetary systems and their exoplanets.
  • All objects that attracted non-trivial press coverage.
  • All objects with n papers dedicated to them. (n ≥ 2 ?)
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • My comments in the above discussion notwithstanding, this is something I could get behind. It's simple, reasonable (only needing a determination for 'n'), and makes a whole lot of sense. Support. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Support (good job Headbomb). I think the selective catalogues is what I was trying to communicate with my analogy, and is now a usable criteria. The other criteria also define a threshold of notability. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Also I think the "non-trivial press coverage", and "all objects with n papers dedicated to them" are (each or both) a vital demarcation. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. Naturally the threshold will be subject to revision when notable objects are presented that don't satisfy the threshold. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. Per my comments above. --agr (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. This is congruent with my arguments from the previous thread. We'll have to agree on what n is for papers, but I would say even 1 paper which studies an object beyond its basic physical parameters is grounds for possible notability. AstroCog (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Semisupport I would choose (n≥5) for papers. I would not say that all planetary systems and their exoplanets are notable to Wikipedia standards. It's been quoted that there are now in excess of 500 exoplanets, and that will only grow. It should be treated just like minor planets. They go into a list, and then if otherwise notable, they get an article. For pure arbitrariness, lets say the first 100 planets and 100 planetary systems get a free pass on notability, since 100 is arbitrary but common cutoff in the world at large. Those after that need additional notability. The first few planets and planetary systems got extra press coverage, and scientific scrutiny, as we discover more, these get less and less mention and study. 65.94.77.207 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think IP 65.94.77.207 has a valid point by proposing to treat exoplanets just like minor planets after the first 100 for the reasons given. However, I am not sure of the requirement for five or more papers. Perhaps I would have to see this set of guidelines in action to give my opinion on that. I really don't know if it's too high, or not high enough, or too low. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now. It needs to say "all confirmed planetary systems and their exoplanets". The ruling about the number of papers required should allow for studies of limited sets of related objects that include non-trivial details about this object (which is less restrictive than the criteria of having a dedicated paper). Could we include asteroids that have been examined in detail by radar mapping? I'd also like the criteria to include all minor planets discovered before the widescale use of photography. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd assume that any minor planet discovered before the "use of photography" would have been extensively studied by now, and those with radar mapping would be covered in the "papers dedicated to them" criteria. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, rather than support/oppose in bulk, I think we really should list what we agree with, and what could use some tweaking. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with all the criteria Headbomb proposed. I think most modifications so far suggested are reasonable, such as having a threshold for papers. Again, I'll say the only restriction I would impose with papers is that the additional papers should be non-trivial studies of an object beyond the initial discovery and constraining of initial physical parameters. For example, with exoplanets, there's going to be so many confirmed exoplanets, but how many will be followed up with more studies? An exoplanet that had follow-up observations about its atmospheric properties would be close to consideration for an article. What is better is for an object to get significant coverage from more than one research team (e.g. Kepler's SNR). I actually don't like the criteria suggested which says the first 100 confirmed exoplanets get a pass, because I don't think every one of them will have significant coverage beyond initial discovery.AstroCog (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment—I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we are choosing an artificial threshold that severely limits what we can write about astronomy. To me it is going too far to say that there must be, say, five dedicated scientific papers on a topic in order for it to be considered notable. Take for example, the nearby star Ross 248. It is a well referenced article, yet of the listed references only one is specifically about the star and that is regarding a future interstellar space mission. I'm unclear that this star meets any of the criteria, yet to me it is notable. It can readily satisfy the WP:GNG. (There are a number of other examples that could be found.) Let's not set the bar too high on this. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ross 348 is also obviously notable. It's a common feature on any number of papers about the nearest stars and their movements, it's the direction in which Voyager 2 is heading, and it's been well-studied for 85 years. It's a well-researched article and more than "$star is a $color star of $magnitude at $coordinates." So it's definitely a judgment call, and I think a large part of that is "does this object have something that distinguishes it form the other objects in this class?" Ross 348 does; most asteroids does not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that setting the threshold too high is overkill. Objects like Ross 248 would meet the criteria, as even a passing glance at its article shows it establishes coverage beyond initial discovery. AstroCog (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see that it satisfies any of the listed criteria: it's not visible to the naked eye; the Ross catalogue is not exactly well known; it has no known companions; there's no non-trivial press coverage, and it lacks dedicated papers. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • My mistake, actually. I was using my own suggested tweak to the proposed threshold. Looking at the references on Ross 248, there's at least one book source that discusses the star as having a possible companion (3rd party source beyond initial discovery) and then the journal proposal about the space mission to the star. Those alone would be enough for me. I agree that the book source might count as "trivial" in the proposed criteria above. Which is why I agree that we don't set this threshold too high. I think we don't want to discourage articles like Ross 248. I will note that I just looked at the page creation log, and the trivial minor planet stubs are still being added by the truck-load. That's the kind of thing I think we should be concerned about.AstroCog (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with you there. It's hard to see how a Wikipedia article on an obscure minor planet adds much if any value when the data is already better maintained on the JPL Small-body Database. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You're pointing out that the person searching for, say, "1988 CP4" won't know about the JPL Small-body Database? Heh. ;-) RJH (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This comment made me lol a little. AstroCog (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would really like to see this discussion reach a consensus, one way or the other. It seems most editors involved in this discussion agree with the idea of having a notability threshold. Also, Headbomb's criteria seem to be well-supported, with the minor sticking point of how many papers an object should be referenced in. If there are other sticking points, please list what they are and suggest a solution. If this is the only sticking point, let's come to an agreement on a solution. My solution is this: an object is notable if it receives significant coverage in the scientific literature beyond its initial discovery, i.e. subsequent papers discuss or study the object beyond a basic characterization of physical parameters. AstroCog (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That seems okay. For now we can just say papers (plural) and not impose some arbitrary minimum. What about stars with brown dwarf companions or debris disks? Do those count as planetary systems? I guess the stars of interest to amateurs would include those categorized by the AAVSO? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm interpreting that criteria to be planetary systems discovered using an exoplanet detection method (doppler wobble, transits, microlensing, etc), however, I would venture to say that if astronomers have studied a system well enough to know there is a brown dwarf companion or a debris disk, it's going to have the literature to make it notable. Same for AAVSO stars. No problems there. The main problem I see with exoplanet systems is that because of their novelty, almost all the confirmed exoplanets will have media coverage or multiple papers to support notability. However, that number will explode as missions like Kepler are successful. I don't see it being a big problem now, but in the future editors may want to revisit the threshold criteria if exoplanet articles get out of hand. AstroCog (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Well we can always try the criteria as a working draft, then revisit it if we start seeing the guidelines cause any decent quality astronomy articles get nominated for deletion that really should be kept. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Some time go, following a similar discussion, I began assembling a notability guideline on astronomical objects. As it stands the draft is incomplete, but perhaps it can serve as a starting point for the current proposal: User:RJHall/ao_notability. Feel free to replicate. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's my merging of RJH's draft criteria with Headbomb's criteria.
  • All objects visible to the naked eye.
  • All objects listed in catalogs of interest to amateur astronomers (i.e. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue), and of high historical importance (New General Catalogue, ...). This is the equivalent of being listed in a "selective" database for academic journals. Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dF isn't enough for notability.
  • All exoplanetary systems
  • All objects that have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects.
  • All objects of historical significance due to association with cultural beliefs, or because discovery was made without the use of astrophotography or automated technology. (redundant with "all objects visible to the naked eye") Not quite true => Objects discovered without the use of astrophotography or automated technology.
  • All objects that are the main subject of a major work of fiction. This could be an award-winning book or a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.

I think this covers just about everything we might consider notable. In fact, I think the line about planetary systems and exoplanets may even be extraneous now, since all such systems discovered to this point meet one or more of the other criteria. I've noted my opinion there with a question mark and strike. How does this look as an improvement? AstroCog (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll note again that the mass creation of trivial stubs continues. In fact, the stub farmer was just given a barnstar by a cheeky editor for creating these stubs and proclaimed that "a truly comprehensive wikipedia would have articles on every one of them and everything in space known to man!" AstroCog (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've long ago resigned myself to the fact that such activities are the raison d'être for a certain percentage of the editing population; much as some editors like to build navboxes, perform style editing, create categories, or perform organizational activities. In this case it may simply be because minor planet articles don't require in-depth knowledge of the subject, researching through a bunch of technical publications, or simply possessing good writing skills. Personally I don't worry about it too much. RJH (talk)
Well, Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum total of human knowledge"...! ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes there's probably a certain amount of redundancy in the list, but better to be inclusive. For me at least, I think that it would still be okay to retain the statement about planetary systems and exoplanets in order to shorten the search. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the redundancy. AstroCog (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So, what can we do to move this criteria into practice? Should we canvas more astronomy editors for comment? AstroCog (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if we will be able to establish a cutoff for merely being an exoplanet? Also, I am not sure how objects that are the main subject of a major work of fiction fit in as part of this guideline. Are there any examples? In addition, I agree that papers (plurlal), about a particular object, without a specific number is a good way to start out for this threshold. In any case, I will follow along with consensus. I would like to see this set of criteria adopted. ---- Steve Quinn (talk)
For individual exoplanets, I'd say we can use the same criteria as other objects. The entry about major works of fiction is something I had thrown in for completeness. But most if not all such objects would likely be included under the other criteria, so I'd say it can be removed.
To move this forward, I think we'll need a draft page to be written. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll volunteer to draft one. On it. AstroCog (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's the start of a draft: Notability (astronomical objects) - I still need to add a section with examples. AstroCog (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I do think we need to distinguish astronomical objects from those on the Earth or in the atmosphere. Otherwise it pretty much covers everything. (I tried to do something along those lines in my earlier draft.) Regards, RJH (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the article should require something like a 3+ references and 5+ sentences rule. How are you going to deal with objects like 2011 AG5 that do not (yet) have any peer-reviewed papers? I find such articles useful to prevent the woo-woos from claiming the sky is falling. Google "2005 YU55" if you want to know what I am talking about. -- Kheider (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well 2011 AG5 might make a good test. All references consist of trivial listings. There doesn't seem to be any press coverage of this (haven't checked, but none are currently present). One might argue that Torino Scale 1 makes it notable, but under the Torino Scale 1 = normal / routine discovery / is boring, even for astronomers. One needs to consider that not all existing articles would survive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually a lasting Torino scale of 1 with a 60+ day observation arc is rare, 2007 VK184 is the only other asteroid to currently have that rating. Also keep in mind that the average Wikipedia reader would not know how to look up 7 those resources (references) on their own. -- Kheider (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree with applying a specific requirement about the number of references needed. WP:GNG already covers the basics in this regard; we should stick to the astronomy-specific requirements. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Object 2011 AG5 is debatable, and the references individually do seem somewhat trivial. However, the difference between this object and some other stubs is that it at least asserts its importance with its rating on the Torino scale. It's got red flags because of lack of substantial references, but if I were trying to apply the proposed notability criteria, I wouldn't outright challenge it without a discussion and consensus. AstroCog (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm agreeing with RJH about the rule about a specific number of papers. I think we've already discussed why being more general with the papers, per GNG, is better than a specific value. If we're worried about articles from the "woo-woos" then we should just apply the notability criteria to them as well. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that in many of the cases related to contentious or wild claims, reality wins in the end, through discussions on talk pages and RfCs, etc. I think the recent developments on Nemesis (hypothetical star) is an example of that. AstroCog (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is kind of funny that I have just started playing with the Category:2MASS objects as a result of my involvement at the mythical Nemesis (hypothetical star) article. Surely some 2MASS discoveries are notable. I recently added an image to 2MASS 0415-0935 that has 2 references, 2 external links, 5 sentences, and an infobox. I do find the article to be a reasonable addition to Wikipedia, and it adds usable material for the 2MASS article itself. Perhaps there should be some kind of clause for creating object articles to support articles (not lists) such as 2MASS. -- Kheider (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the above (proposed) criteria would not prohibit creating articles listed in 2MASS, that 2MASS on its own would not be enough to justify an article. Personally however, I don't consider that 0415-0935 to be notable. The "0415-0935 discovery paper" is about the properties of a bunch of T dwarves, of which 0415-0935 just happens to be. And the other reference is again a cataloging of basic surveying parameters of T dwarves, although it does make remark about 0415-0935 being one of the closest T dwarfs, and the then-coldest to be discovered (which is no longer the case, see Bibcode:2006ApJ...639.1095B). I really don't see how that dwarf warrants its own article [based on the current version that is]. Making a list of known T-dwarves would be a lot better, of just listing it at List of brown dwarfs seems pretty sufficient to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I do think having an example set of nearby/notable 2MASS brown dwarfs is not a bad idea. But I do see that the list of WISE Category:Brown_dwarfs is growing by leaps and bounds. -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved editor (I came here from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Merovingian_mass_creation) I suggest that the WP:ASTRO notability guidelines focus on astronomical notability, as with all subject-specific notability guidelines, these are read alongside the WP:GNG. If a clause is going to be included similar to All objects with n papers dedicated to them. (n ≥ 2 ?) I suggest phrasing related to independence i.e. no authors in common or from the same research group, or similar.
  • Thanks for your comments. The current proposal is here: Notability (astronomical objects). While there is no longer language in the proposal about a specific article count, there is language about having "multiple non-trivial" published works supporting notability, and that these are from sources independent of the original research group/discoverers. AstroCog (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If they can be expanded like 38P/Stephan–Oterma then they should most definitely be encouraged. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

kheider

I have created many start/upper-end stub class articles on Wikipedia (even the weak ones generally use 3+ references + external links). To help me keep track on them I have them listed on my main page: User:Kheider. Perhaps some of these will give you an idea of a lower limit for notability? 38P/Stephan–Oterma only has 1 reference, but has 4 sentences, an infobox, external links, and an image. Many of my galaxies only use 3 references. -- Kheider (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem, isn't it? Most of the cluster and galaxy articles could probably be challenged under this criteria. One means I've been using to rapidly assess the importance of such articles is to check whether they have a Hubble image. My reasoning is that Hubble is a scarce resource, so having such an image probably means it's had some academic research as well. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I would consider more or less every article created by Kheider to be notable enough to justify an article staying if created - but representing approximately a minimum bound. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I took a look at 38P/Stephan–Oterma - I would say it is below the threshold being set, however, a quick search using [ADS] reveals many papers in which the comet is included, which could support this object under the criteria. I checked a couple others on Kheider's list, such as 3C 147, and found that ADS gives many papers which could be used as references in the article. However, ADS has nothing on (182294)_2001_KU76 (and I tried variations of the name), so that article would likely be challenged under the proposed criteria. (182294)_2001_KU76 only has one paper for a reference. The others are listings in catalogs, and some (apparently) unpublished research by an interested physicist. The article also includes the statement "This is the same resonance that dwarf planet Makemake is either near or in", which is original research, so shouldn't even be there. So, many of Kheider's article would likely survive the proposed criteria as long as editors follow up with references, and some, such as (182294)_2001_KU76, would be challenged - and hopefully deleted. I don't think this reflects poorly on Kheider, I want to add, because even his stubs are well-made, unlike the trivial minor planet stubs that instigated this whole discussion. I think the proposed criteria is quite robust, and I hope Kheider, and any other editor who has some of their creations challenged/deleted, do not take such subsequent things personally. Kheider, I do think that I will include the above articles I mentioned above as examples in the notability criteria, if you don't mind.AstroCog (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 38P/Stephan–Oterma is one of the first 100 comets known to be periodic. One could easily argue that your "first 100 asteroids, first 100 exoplanets rule" would automatically qualify the article for inclusion. More importantly, are we going to require newer editors to create an article offline and upload a finished product that uses at least 5 references, else risk deletion for "not playing by our rules"?
  • (182294) 2001 KU76 is fully referenced as having a 11:6 resonance and Makemake (2005 FY9) is known to be near this resonance. I used KU76 as an example in the Resonant trans-Neptunian object article. So I did have a reason for creating it.
  • As an established editor, I do not mind being used as a test run. My concern is intimidating new users so that they never create new articles, or worse yet, leave Wikipedia altogether. -- Kheider (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I missed original reference in the KU76 article. I wouldn't exactly call it original research now. As for 38P/Stephan-Oterma, that object clearly falls under the Notability (astronomical objects)|basic criteria being proposed, so there's no danger of it being challenged. The "100 object rule" is no longer part of the proposal - because it was argued that objects in that domain are likely to fall under the other criteria. AstroCog (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As for new editors, I think it will be a rare situation in which a new editor arrives to make a new article about an obscure and possibly un-notable astronomical object - and also is ignorant of how to find references for it (how did they find such an object in the first place?). There's robust notability criteria for many other subjects, and whether or not such criteria intimidate new users shouldn't be an argument against having standards. As I finish the draft notability article, I'll be sure to include guidelines of how to apply the criteria, much as they have at Notability (people). The point of the criteria is not to intimidate new users. In fact, this whole discussion started because an established editor has been cavalier about creating thousands of trivial stubs for every rock listed in the JPL minor planet database. AstroCog (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree that mass produced stub articles (sub-stub?) only using the JPL Small-Body Database Browser are near-useless and will quickly become dated. Even with my ~60 self-made articles, I do not always get around to making notable upgrades. Has anyone ever mass produced comet or impact crater articles, or is it always the minor planets? (I am trying to see what historical trends there have been for mass producing astro-articles.) -- Kheider (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
How would you define notability for a newly discovered comet? (This is why I lean towards a "3+ references and 5+ sentences rule".) -- Kheider (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we'd use the same criteria as any other object. If there's significant coverage in reliable sources, then it's probably notable. Just a discovery paper or announcement probably isn't enough. However, if it's a comet that will be visible to the naked eye, there will be plenty of mass media coverage in addition to scientific coverage, so such a comet would meet the proposed criteria. I think I will include a guideline in the notability draft that reads like this: "For newly discovered objects, which have not yet received significant coverage, but may in the future, it is recommended that an interested editor create a stub in their user space, and add move the article to the main space when the object has sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria." I think this would be a nice guideline to have in place, so that any new and enthusiastic new editors create such articles, someone can suggest moving it to user space so it doesn't get deleted outright. I think we're trying to avoid having a number attached to how many papers an object should have. Leaving it somewhat open with "has significant coverage in published sources" enables some leeway in assessing notability, but also is specific enough to challenge articles depending on only a trivial discovery announcement or database listing. BTW, Kheider, thanks for your helpful comments and questions here - they are helping to constrain some of the language/issues in this proposed criteria. AstroCog (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a little late to this discussion, but I support the general direction in which things seem to be heading. One added idea I have that does not appear in the official wikipedia stance on notability, or in the discussion above that I saw, is that the "linkability" of the article may be useful guide to whether it should be kept or not. Objects such as (182294) 2001 KU76 and 38P/Stephan–Oterma were mentioned above as being fringe deletion candidates under the proposed criteria, but they were both inherently notable enough that other articles (that is, not lists) on wikipedia were made better by being able to link to those articles. I am not sure that this ought to be a necessary condition. That may be too restrictive. Perhaps having a condition of "5 sentences AND ([1–2]+ non-see-also links in non-list articles on wikipedia OR 3+ references)"?
In any case, I would be happy if there were no more single sentence stubs on minor solar system objects created (and the existing ones were deleted). In my active times here, I try to keep an eye on recently created articles in astronomy to help out getting articles fleshed out enough to be clearly notable or in deleting articles that clearly do not belong. This task is made more difficult/annoying when there are tens of articles on non-notable solar system objects that completely dominate the list. James McBride (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you James. There is a Wikipedia:Orphan policy for articles that have few or no outside links. The problem I have with using link count is that the number can be artificially inflated because of links from user pages, redirects, and navboxes. (This is a particular problem on WP:WANTED.) It would be nice to have a true count of inline links within the Wikipedia article bodies. Rehards, RJH (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked at the WP:Orphan policy a bit, but they do not really make much of a point regarding notability. I certainly would not suggest just glancing at the link count to verify notability. I was thinking that for cases that seem to be on the threshold of notability on the basis of third party coverage, it might be a useful guide to see if there is an article in the main article space that would be made worse by the deletion of the article in question. Obviously user pages, redirects, and navboxes would not qualify in that regard. It may be too vague to be a useful criterion, but in trying to think about why, to me, kheider's "borderline" articles felt like they ought to be kept, part of the reason was that there are well developed articles that are made more complete by being able to describe those objects, and link to the articles that kheider created. James McBride (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To me, a linkability argument is sort-of special pleading. Any notable object will already be linkable, in the sense that there will be other articles that will link to it. Looking at the examples given above, they may be "keepers" for reasons other than that they were listed in some article. I think we shouldn't try to make too many special cases for "borderline" objects. Let's just treat them all the same. If all that an object has going for it is that it was a first discovery of 2MASS, then I'd say it doesn't have enough going for it, unless follow-up studies focused on it. Such a policy could be exploited ad absurdum by editors who could argue, "This is the first foo of size range X discovered by the Great Big Telescope", when a general class of foo objects already has a stand-alone article. In a case like that, just have a sentence or two in the pre-existing article, but don't create a stub for the object just for the sake of a wikilink. That's my two cents on it. AstroCog (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Richly-interconnected articles probably should also have more coverage in the real world as well, so hopefully they can be readily brought up to the requisite notability standards. But I know that some articles can be a real challenge to cite, even thought we "know" they should be notable. Sometimes it seems like we're unnecessarily hampering ourselves with all these constraints. But I'm grumbling now, so I'll cease. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. We want to avoid instruction creep. I think the notability guideline proposal draft is pretty good - specific enough to apply to problematic article, but general enough for flexibility. Any more constraints will be too confusing and could just lead to rules lawyering, which certainly isn't the spirit of this discussion. AstroCog (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
While I could certainly be persuaded that linkability is not a good thing to emphasize, the counterpoints you make do not make much sense to me. I agree that all objects should be treated the same, but 5+ sentences AND 3+ references is overly rigid. My motivation for having linkedness as part of the criteria was that it is a rule that can be used so that all objects are treated the same, but also allows for more flexibility. I think the 5+ sentences part of the rule is good, so your whole thing about 2MASS, and what followed, doesn't really address my point. I also like the linkedness rule because it allows for recently discovered objects that are not covered in the press to meet notability immediately. If an object is the subject of a peer reviewed paper, and is important enough that it enriches our understanding of subjects of other articles (and could thus be linked), it would, in my opinion, merit an article immediately, yet could for some time fail to meet the 3+ references part of the rule. James McBride (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi James, I think there's just some confusion here, possibly because this particular discussion section has become very long. The rule about a specific number of sentences and refs was just a suggestion somebody made, but wasn't put into the notability guideline draft. Under the proposed the draft, there's no "inherent" notability for an object because of its associations with a particular survey or list. Check out that draft for the current list of criteria. Yes, there's a criteria that an object should be the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works". It doesn't stipulate exactly how many works. I'd say it's an uncontroversial criteria in the spirit of WP:GNG. Most notable objects should easily meet that criteria. I guess I'm trying to leave the criteria flexible for common sense interpretations. In the case of a newly discovered object that is the single focus of a peer-reviewed paper, there is a high likelihood of notability. I think deciding on whether to leave the stub for such an article or delete for lack of sources should be up to editors during a discussion. For example, if there's a high likelihood that the object will be studied further (the first paper indicates follow-up studies are imminent, or such plans are made public when grants are awarded, etc), then the discussion should converge on "keep". If however, we're just talking about an asteroid that had a discovery listing in an organization's monthly notices, then such a stub may not survive a keep/delete discussion. The notability guideline would not exist to destroy object stubs. Rather, the guideline could be applied to help in the process of creation of new articles, and also help in the decision to clear out stubs that are not likely to expand now or in the future. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. The one minor issue that someone could bring up is WP:Crystal, regarding likelihood of future study, but that is probably not significant enough to worry about. In any case, any sort of guidelines at all in the vein of what has been discussed here would be an improvement over the current policy on dealing with very non-notable objects. James McBride (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed draft

Regarding Astocog's notability guideline draft:

  • Support—The draft as it is written seems pretty good to me. Do we need to get a blessing from further up the food chain? If not, I support putting it into place as a policy for this project. Should issues come up in the future, we can always keep a watch on the policy's talk page. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—I'm reasonably happy with that. It may need refining as it is applied, but this is much better than the current policy. James McBride (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support-As co-author of the draft, I support it as a current in-project guideline. To promote this to as a formal notability guideline, I think we'll have to go through the proposal process, which involves more than an in-project vote. It involves putting out a request for comment at the Village Pump, and arriving at a consensus during discussion. I would hope that the larger community would respect the level of consensus we have arrived at here, but from my reading of WP policies, all notability proposals must be discussed by the community-at-large. AstroCog (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you be willing to lead that effort (assuming, of course, that there is not wide dissension among the community here)? James McBride (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That would probably also be beneficial in terms of making sure the draft is clear to readers who may be less familiar with astronomy, so I think it would be a useful exercise. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course. Let's see what others say here in the next few days. After that, I'll send it up to RfC. AstroCog (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • support -- looks good, in any case, even if we don't go through the proposal process, it can still be used as the in-project notability guideline. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • support -- I made a very minor change to C2, where 'and' was used where 'or' was pretty clearly meant, I think. That aside, this all looks good to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • support -- I like it. Something like this is very useful to cut down on cruft articles. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Counter-arguments to include in upcoming RfC thread

I will be posting our proposed draft for RfC at the Village Pump tonight. I would very much like some editors to comment below with robust counter-arguments to the following possible arguments that may pop up. Some of these are addressed directly in the draft, but I would like something to say in the RfC introduction to hopefully head off some of these arguments.

  • All astronomical objects are inherently notable, as is practice for rivers, mountains, and other Earth-based geographic features.
    To me, this is the most likely counter-argument. I would perhaps counter by noting that most Earth-based features are directly accessible by people, making them topics that readers are inherently likely to look up for information. The same can not be said for astronomical objects that require special equipment to view and possess no particularly unique characteristics. RJH (talk)
  • Stubs are awesome! We should have stubs for every object known to exist! It encourages expansion by future editors!
    Dedicated inclusionists will very likely agree with this argument. I'd like to suggest that this not be presented satirically, which is how it may appear. RJH (talk)
    I'll try not to be satirical in my presentation. I wrote this one based on some silliness observed here and here. AstroCog (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no crystal ball, so we can't say that a trivial stub for an asteroid (for example) will never be expanded. (I especially want a good counter to this one)
Counter: if it becomes notable in the future - enough to allow and merit expansion - then and only then does it need an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk)
  • WP is not a paper encyclopedia, so we shouldn't limit ourselves to only a few notable objects.
  • Why do you even need a notability essay? Just use WP:N and that's that.
  • Why are you so concerned about non-notable articles? They don't hurt anybody, so let those editors just create content!

Please add more possible arguments/counter-arguments as you think of them (or find them in previous policy discussions). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what really is our basis here is W:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not merely a directory, and it should not be merely a copy of established databases. Until there's more information than can be found in a basic minor planet/object database, there's no reason to have an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
One further argument could be from those favoring the inclusion of objects that have received an official name from an international governing body. I could argue that, say, 13001 Woodney should be kept because its name is presumably sanctioned by the IAU. Ergo, it has been "deemed notable" by astronomers. This is in spite of the fact that the object has not been the subject of a scientific paper or study, and it only appears in one book, the Dictionary of minor planet names. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
But that just means that the discoverer B. A. Skiff requested that the asteroid be named after Laura M. Woodney and that the IAU accepted the name. -- Kheider (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Good - Kheider, can you put some language about this into the notability draft, as an example? AstroCog (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It's likely that objects are going to continue to be named after people. Since notability isn't inherited, even objects named after very famous people don't become notable by virtue of that naming, even if the naming event is widely reported (see WP:EVENT), but may merit a mention in the article of the notable person. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

True. This policy will also mean that most of the articles about craters (and other features) on the far side of the moon will fail notability. Likewise for most of the features on Mars and elsewhere. Do we want that? If we don't, then we could consider adding another bullet to the criteria about including "IAU-named features that have been imaged in detail by a visiting spacecraft", or some such wording. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure craters and other surface features are within the scope of this criteria. Those seem more like geologic/geographic features than "astronomical objects", at least as we've defined "astronomical object" in the draft. So I don't think we'll be messing with craters here. AstroCog (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Thanks. RJH (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I would rewrite the paragraph Although some objects might qualify for a standalone article based on this guideline alone, it may still be best to create redirects to a more general article. For example, it might be best to consolidate the information about the individual planets of a planetary system on the article about its parent star. Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article's talk page. as Although some objects might qualify for a standalone article based on this guideline alone, it may still be best to create redirects to a more general article. The resulting larger, more comprehensive, pages are easier to maintain, give the reader more context, allow to the coverage of topics which are of borderline notability. The rules around creating redirects are significantly more relaxed than for articles. For example, it might be best to consolidate the information about the individual planets of a planetary system on the article about its parent star. Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article's talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Still working on RfC intro and rationale - won't get posted tonight. We're not in a hurry though. RfC will likely be lengthy anyway. Keep those arguments/counterarguments coming. Also - thanks to all who have made edits to the draft.AstroCog (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC rationale

Here's my RfC rationale that I'll be using. I'll be posting this later this evening, so comment now if you have any suggestions or concerns:

It is proposed that this essay be promoted to a notability guideline. The proposed guideline for the notability of astronomical objects does not replace WP:GNG; it is meant to supplement it. This guideline will allow editors to quickly determine if an astronomical object is notable. Special cases, including objects for which a discussion is needed, are covered in the guideline. This guideline is the work of editors at WikiProject Astronomy, where a long community discussion took place to generate, simplify and refine the notability criteria. The resulting consensus is that a notability guideline for astronomical objects is necessary to not only provide guidance for editors creating new articles, but also to address past, current and future mass creation of articles for arbitrary astronomical objects. The notability guideline was constructed to address the concerns of many editors and alternative viewpoints which emerged during discussion. We have strived to develop a set of criteria which is in the spirit of WP:GNG and other notability guidelines, and which are inclusive enough for any well-documented astronomical object, but set a standard which precludes articles for objects that only have trivial coverage in published sources. We realize that some concerns and questions may occur for editors not familiar with astronomy:

  • Q: Aren't astronomical objects inherently notable, like rivers, mountains, and other geographic features?
A: This guideline makes clear that astronomical objects are fundamentally different from Earth-based geographic features, and are not inherently notable through existence. Quoting from the guideline, "Unlike Earth-based geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter of dubious predictions; it is just common sense."
  • Q: Do we need another subject-specific guideline?
A: The number of objects covered by this guideline is, quite literally, astronomical. A concise set of criteria will allow editors now and in the future to determine if an article is warranted for a given astronomical object. This helps maintain quality over quantity for such articles, and also helps ensure that readers can quickly find relevant content. The debate as to whether or not subject-specific notability guidelines should exist in general is a philosophical question that should not be debated here.
  • Q: This notability guideline may lead to the deletion of many stubs, such as for asteroids and stars. We shouldn't allow that since such stubs encourage editors to expand content. Why did you write the guideline like this?
A: Whether or not stubs for thousands of arbitrary asteroids will be expanded into quality articles can not be predicted. If, and when, an arbitrary minor planet, star, galaxy, etc recieves significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, then an article should be created. This is keeping in the spirit of WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory. Quoting from the proposed guideline, "Just because an object is listed in a database does not mean it is notable. Some databases and surveys, such as the JPL Small-Body Database or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey contain many thousands of objects, while others concern themselves with specific classes of objects and have fewer entries. Several, if not most, of the listed objects have little information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases."
  • Q: Shouldn't an object have an article if it's been named?
A: Not necessarily. The proposed guideline clearly says that there is no inherited notability for astronomical objects. Many astronomical objects have proper names because they are visible to the naked eye, and thus will be prominent and probably well-studied - this is covered by the criteria. Some objects, such as minor planets and comets, are often named by their discoverer. Just because a name was proposed and accepted by the International Astronomical Union doesn't mean that the object is notable. It just means it was named.

Other questions and concerns may come up, and we will try to address them in the notability draft. We are especially interested to know if any changes can be made to the criteria to make it friendlier for the general reader. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It all looks good to me. I think that both the questions and the responses are reasonable and fall within the spirit of Wikipedia policy. In reviewing the proposed notability guideline, a couple of potential questions occur to me, which may or may not be worth covering:
  • Q: What determines whether a particular catalog is of interest to amateur astronomers?
I suspect the answer pertains to those catalogs that are commonly used as identifiers in amateur astronomy guidebooks and magazines.
  • Q: Why is an object notable because it was discovered by direct observation?
In many cases, discovery by direct observation has some historical importance, because the object was located prior to the widespread adoption of automated technology. In other circumstances, the object may have been discovered by amateurs then came to prominence because of characteristics that made of it interest to professionals or the public.
Regards, RJH (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Task Group on Astronomical Designations from IAU Commission 5 (2008). "Naming Astronomical Objects". International Astronomical Union (IAU). Retrieved 4 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_8&oldid=1091650418"