Category talk:Seyfert galaxies

Request For Comment: 3C Galaxies notability

The consensus is to create the list article List of Seyfert galaxies. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A lot of the 3C Seyfert galaxies in this category are one-sentence stubs, and many of them are also orphans. Since they don't seem to be very notable, should we instead make a stand-alone List of Seyfert galaxies and just merge the contents of each stub to it? Should we delete them altogether? Or should we instead focus on expanding those pages, so that they become notable enough to include links from the main Seyfert galaxies#Examples page?

Skylord a52 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above (oh, I wish that were a lever next month...) but maybe the list with mods ...

I think you're mostly right on the problem. (And it seems also bad at NGC 4388, NGC 5929 etcetera.) These are pretty empty 1-liners, with ref to SAMBA and NED, ext link to jb.man. e.g.

"3C 303 is a Seyfert galaxy[1][2] with a quasar-like appearance located in the constellation Boötes",

"3C 223 is a Seyfert galaxy[1] with a quasar-like appearance located in the constellation Leo Minor",

designator, boilerplate, constellation name.

I also see two lengthy things -- a whole lot of dead wikilinks "List of notable Seyfert galaxies", and the infobox with inclination and so forth. That seems too much to fit a list format. And I don't think it feasible to expand all the pages to be notable, the WP:N doesn't work that way and anyway ... I just doubt they are ALL notable or all even HAVE anything much more to put in, or even that these are all such that might boccur so the problem would reoccur. I wouldn't want the Seyfert galaxies#Examples to expand that much anyway and mess up that page too.

In the end I suggest do not make it worse and let be for now, until you or someone wants to work up an alternative that is shown and in place. I'd suggest your list idea is adjustable by using a table that keeps just the most important things. I would suggest it include the designator, constellation, distance, resized image (if any), and then 3 hotlinks of SAMBA/NED/JP queries currently shown as refs and external. (The rest -- declination and such I think are at those hotlinks.) Ditch the bottom garbage 'list of notable' and the boilerplate. After the list is there, I think the pages without more content can be deleted without loss of info. My 2 cents anyway, cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support list article—the current articles that I looked at seem to be poor, poorly-sourced, and in general, not meet the notabilitiy criteria for standalone articles. Seems that a "List of ..." article would better meet the Wikipedia design to make human knowledge widely available, and yet do it consistent with policy. THe individual articles could become redirs to the List, and the list would of course include a link to the main article on this type of galaxies. N2e (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support list article, and in all cases where the total information in the stub can be merged into the list, make the article into a redirect, using the Template:R with possibilities template. Also, leave a note on each stub's talk page explaining why they were merged, and encouraging users to recreate the page as soon as there is more info available than fits into the list. Also, add the information about them to Wikidata (whether or not we merge them). All of them already have Wikidata pages, which can be accessed via the "edit links" link at the bottom of the "languages" section. --Slashme (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support list article and keep the stub articles I think creating a list article instead of this category page is a good idea. I would not delete the individual stub articles per WP:preserve except if the list can include all the information, like photos and references into the list article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do to make a list, and submit it once I get some done. I'll still keep the Request for Comment, though, to get other users' opinions. Skylord a52 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that celestial coordinates are not yet supported as a property on Wikidata, because work is in progress to support them natively. --Slashme (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support list article and keep the stub articles, basically per CuriousMind01. Also NOTINK, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: List Removing RFC Skylord a52 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.