User talk:Urhixidur/Archive/2008

Asteroid name lists

I'm not sure you're the right person to ask, but the histories and your talk says "maybe". On Meanings of asteroid names (9501-10000), 9993 Kumamoto's entry (as an example) has an asterisk but no explanation of what that asterisk signifies. What's the deal? Is it related to why the name origin isn't included? Cheers, Wily D 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Originally, the "Meanings of..." pages were filled out with the caveat that "Those meanings marked with an asterisk (*) are guesswork". But editors kept forgetting to include the asterisk when trying to be helpful, so I eventually changed the foreword header to what it reads now ("Meanings that do not quote a reference (the "†" links) are tentative."). The remaining asterisks should go away as they are replaced by citations, something which is increasingly possible as the {{MPCit_JPL}} database fills out. Urhixidur (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay alright. I found the MPC offered the naming citations online, but I couldn't figure out how to link to them (it's accessable via some forms or such, so no url I could get). I was just wondering how some but not all ended up filled out. Thanks. Wily D 04:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at {{MPCit_MPES}}, which used to link directly to the result of the query form you mention, until the MPC changed the server's code to disallow it. As I explain on the template's pages, I asked them nicely about it, and never even got an acknowledgement of my request. Urhixidur (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry, I don't really know anyone at the MPC, so I'm not sure I can beg a favour. Wily D 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of asteroids/7201–7300

An editor has nominated List of asteroids/7201–7300, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/7201–7300 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of Nereid

Hello Urhixidur. I noticed that at 14:28, 19 August 2004 you changed the mass of Nereid from unknown to 3.1×10¹⁹ kg. Was that a Back-of-the-envelope calculation or do you recall the source of the statement? Thanks, -- Kheider (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neptunian moon masses I got from JPL (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par). Take the GM value (2.06 km³/s²), divide by G (6.67259×10⁻²⁰ km³/kg s²). I guess the reference should be added in. Urhixidur (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, done. I also revised the values to make them self-consistent, and corrected the mistaken statement about the eccentricity. Urhixidur (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I removed the statement about Bestla (moon). According to "Jacobson, R.A. (2007) SAT270, SAT271" Bestla only has an eccentricity of 0.5176 even though early observations in 2005 showed otherwise. Do you know of a newer/better source? -- Kheider (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your JPL reference for the density is kind of dated since it lists inaccurate information for the estimated diameters and thus masses of the outer irregular moons of Uranus. I also notice that they assume that the density of the inner moons of Uranus and Neptune are 1.3 and all outer moons are 1.5. Even large Proteus (moon) is treated as having a density of 1.3. -- Kheider (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is the Kozai mechanism, which means an outer satellite's eccentricity will change over time. The mean elements from JPL do indicate a lower e, but if you get the current ephemerides from the [IAU-MPC Natural Satellites Ephemeris Service http://scully.harvard.edu/~cgi/natsats], you'll get an Epoch 2007 Apr. 10.0 TT (JDT 2454200.5) e of 0.7309460 (the same source gives Nereid's e 0.7464083 as for Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT (JDT 2454400.5) to JPL's 0.7512). I guess the article needs to be better qualified. As for JPL's physical parameters, I would have the same question, although I'd tend to trust JPL's SSD group: they're the guys who actually "drive" the probes. Urhixidur (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like JPL's SSD site, I just don't think they are paid to keep updating (uncertain) estimates in the diameter, density, and thus mass of the outer irregular moons. I find it funny that JPL-SSD lists Sycorax as having a diameter of 190km with an albedo of 0.07 and Scott S. Sheppard lists Sycorax having a diameter of 150km with an albedo of 0.04. You would expect the higher albedo to be the smaller estimated diameter. But do keep in mind that SSD is using data from 2001 (diameter) and 1998 (albedo) while Sheppard is using data from 2003. -- Kheider (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey C. Delsanti

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Audrey C. Delsanti, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Audrey C. Delsanti. Scog (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edit

I noticed this edit of yours and was wondering about the formatting of the JPL Small-Body Database Browser page title - they don't use subscripts, which I've followed faithfully in all my cites to them - is this an oversight on my part or yours? Wily D 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional designations are properly written in sub-scripted fashion. The JPL pages just take the ASCII shortcut. They are also pretty unreliable as far as diacriticals go (the Russian IPA pages are much better in this respect). This Schmadel page shows proper TeX notation for the minor planet names: you'll see there the sub-scripts and the diacriticals faithfully represented. Urhixidur (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I agree that they're properly written in subscript, but I'm not convinced the title of the JPL webpage should also be written with the subscript. Wily D 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Well, HTML pages, by their nature, will never have super- or sub-scripts in their titles, but this is a technical limitation, not a designer choice. It just looks odd to me to have the object's name properly subscripted everywhere except in the title of an external link. It's an editorial choice. Urhixidur (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... it might be worth having a consistant standard - I've been writing a lot of minor planet articles of late, all of which cite the JPL small-body browser - either way, a consistent standard across all articles seems sensible. Cheers, Wily D 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're using the AstOrb Browser to generate the infoboxes: it is a real time-saver. Urhixidur (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd never heard of such a thing, but looking I see that it's written for windows, which is probably the third most common OS for me to be using while I'm editing - it's not a big deal to copy/paste the relevant values, anyhow. Some of the first ones I did are more poorly formatted - I've been meaning to go over them once I got down to 9901. Wily D 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be nice if I could find the time to redo it in Java... Urhixidur (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to look at your source if you like - are you getting data real-time from their server, or just using a downloaded database? Wily D 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It uses a locally-downloaded file, astorb.dat, which is regularly updated (nearly daily). The main server is the Lowell Observatory (ftp://ftp.lowell.edu/pub/elgb/), but there is a mirror of sorts at the Université de Strasbourg (http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/ftp-index?B/astorb). I say "of sorts" because the latter copy of astorb.dat has a slightly different format. AstOrb Browser detects the variant and can handle either one. As the user browses, the applet simply jumps about the file using Seek, since the file is essentially a long array of fixed-width records. A subsidiary ASCII file (which I maintain on my personal web site) provides the diacriticals for the names in TeX notation.

It is written in Delphi. Want to take a look at it? The PDF user's guide that comes with the download should tell you all about the expected behaviour. Urhixidur (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delphi? Shit, it's been about ten years since I've written any Delphi code - but sure, I'll look if you're inclined to provide me with code. Wily D 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ONL

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article ONL, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid family

Zappala et al. '95 lists (9935) 1986 CP1 as belonging to the 1982 qg family. Now 1982 QG has since been renamed 6539 Nohavica. Do you think it makes more sense to list 1986 CP1 in Category:Nohavica asteroids or Category:1982 QG asteroids? I haven't found any more recent references ... Wily D 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it in Category:Nohavica asteroids, make Category:1982 QG asteroids a redirect to Category:Nohavica asteroids, and mention on the Nohavica category page that the Zappalà paper called it "1982 QG" and why. Urhixidur (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, all done. Urhixidur (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, golly-gee, thanks. Wily D 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Units of pressure

A tag has been placed on Template:Units of pressure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is replaced by Template:Pressure Units, so there is no loss. Urhixidur (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names (176001-177000)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Meanings of asteroid names (176001-177000), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Meanings of asteroid names (119001-120000). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names (177001-178000)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Meanings of asteroid names (177001-178000), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Meanings of asteroid names (119001-120000). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names (178001-179000)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Meanings of asteroid names (178001-179000), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Meanings of asteroid names (119001-120000). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies . This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link now is Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/March_2008#Category:User_tsolyáni Urhixidur (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mercury-crossing asteroids

Hello. Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles needs your help. List of Mercury-crossing asteroids has been without any references since June, 2006. Could you please take a minute out of your busy day to help add sources? Thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Mercury-crossing asteroids

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Mercury-crossing asteroids, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cégep de Victoriaville

A tag has been placed on Cégep de Victoriaville, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GreenJoe 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the deletion. I suppose the Cégep is now mentioned in some kind of list? Urhixidur (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR: Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terayear?

Way back in in Dec 2005, you created a redirect from Terayear to Year. However, I have been unable to find any mention of terayear in that page, either when you made the redirect, or now. Furthermore, nearly all the Google results seem to be mirrors of the wikipedia redirect, as are all of the entries found by Onelook. Also, the word is not found anywhere in Google Books, except as a French word that doesn't seem to have anything related to years. I hopped you might know more about the word, and be able to add to it, or provide some citations. Otherwise, it should really be deleted. I look forward to your comments. -- 75.215.182.18 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense as a French word; can you provide examples? Otherwise, the terayear is the admittedly rare but nevertheless attested (e.g. http://community.livejournal.com/astronomy/243251.html, http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/51594-13-playing-time-units, http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-January/039746.html) but perfectly natural result of applying the SI prefix tera (1E12) to the year unit. Since kiloyear, megayear, gigayear, etc., already exist, it is just a matter of time before terayear is used. (And petayear, exayear, zettayear, yottayear...) Urhixidur (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I had thought terayear probably was an example of a SI prefix, and I'm glad to see the three attestations. But I still think redirecting it to Year isn't really right; in wiktionary jargon, the term seems like nothing more than "the sum of it's parts". It seems like it would be better to redirect it either to wiktionary or to the article on the prefix; e.g. kilo-, giga-, tera-. If you don't object, I'll make those moves, and copy this discussion to Talk:Terayear. -- JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Ignore the French reference; I was just confused by a Google Books result that on clearer inspection turns out to be a scano of "af- 'ter a year". JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was originally redirected to year because most unit article include a table of prefixes. Since year does not (for good reasons), it would indeed make more sense to redirect to tera-. Urhixidur (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article sweeps for 2 Pallas

As part of the Good Article sweeps conducted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have completed a reassessment of 2 Pallas and placed the reassessment on hold for one week to allow some minor things to be fixed. I am contacting you because you have been a major contributor to the article. The reassessment can be found here. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my tweaks. Looks good. Urhixidur (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Windows XP, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was condescending. And wrong, to boot. Pointing out that MS uses MB when it means MiB is not original research, just a well-established fact. All right, I've put it back in with one reference from many, and in a way that preserves the quote. Sheesh. Urhixidur (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nl:Israël Kiek

Hello, you edited the Dutch talk page of this photographer with the amazing information that an asteroid is named after him. How do you know that the asteroid is named after Israël Kiek? I would be curious of the reason why, too. Maybe you are willing to elucidate on the Kiek talk page? Glatisant (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link: JPL. Urhixidur (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

math markup

Please don't force simple formulas to use TeX markup, as you did at Universal quantification earlier today. Formulas like x = 1 don't need to be typeset as images and are generally easier to read if they are not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is making sure the rendering used for the formulae in between paragraphs matches that used in the text. What I did forces a match, which makes it easier for the reader to follow what is showing in the formulae. It does, on the other hand, tend to give a choppy look to the paragraph itself. There is no simple solution to this dilemma. Urhixidur (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true there's no perfect solution. You could ask at WT:WPM to find out what other people think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I see now, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Typesetting of mathematical formulas that this has already been decided (for math pages): "Having LaTeX-based formulas in-line which render as PNG [...] is generally discouraged". Mea culpa, then. I'll try to keep that in mind from no on. Urhixidur (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ball disambiguation

An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please view the article and WP:PROD for how to contest this, if you should wish to do so. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion by Dojarca re {{MinorPlanets Navigator}}

Be advised that Dojarca has proposed deletion of this navigator. You may be interested in responding to this and/or bringing it before others. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. Śniadecki

This has been nominated for deletion. Please see the article and WP:PROD to decide whether to challenge this. Thanks, Hndis (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of J. Śniadecki

J. Śniadecki, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/J. Śniadecki and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of J. Śniadecki during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- SlackerMom (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move

Hi Urhixidur,

I've proposed to move List of asteroids and related pages (meanings of names, subpages, etc.) to List of minor planets etc., since that's the official terminology and it's a bit weird to call Pluto or even Quaoar an "asteroid". Since this will require a bot (or someone with even less of a life than myself), I want to be sure there are no objections before going ahead. So far the vote has been in favor. kwami (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Wikipedia:Bot_requests#mass_move_request? I have no objection at all to the move, by the way. Urhixidur (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. Good. It's set to go, but I don't know when. Hopefully they can do the redirects at the same time. kwami (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a bot do this, could we have one break up the Meanings of... pages along the model of the List of ~~asteroids~~minor planets? You can see the difference by comparing Meanings of asteroid names (2501-3000) and Meanings of asteroid names (3001-3500). They need to be moved from "asteroids" to "minor planets" also, in any case. Urhixidur (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply. I don't understand what you mean by 'break up' the pages: your two examples look the same to me. kwami (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely: you'll see 3001-3500 has a bunch of "edit" links. If you edit 2501-3000, it is one large page (52 Kib); if you edit 3001-3500, you get:

{{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}}

{{TOC001.5a|prefix=3}}

{| border=0 cellpadding=5 align="center"
! Name !! Provisional Designation !! Source of Name
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;" id="001"| 3001–3100 <small class="editlink noprint">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Meanings of asteroid names/3001–3100|action=edit}} edit]</small>
{{:Meanings of asteroid names/3001–3100}}
! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;" id="101"| 3101–3200 <small class="editlink noprint">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Meanings of asteroid names/3101–3200|action=edit}} edit]</small>
{{:Meanings of asteroid names/3101–3200}}
...

The List of minor planets already uses the latter broken-up format, and I was just starting to do the same to the Meanings of... pages. But that would be a lot of work if done manually, and I suspect a bot could do it readily. Urhixidur (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! It would take a bit of programming, and I'm not sure I see the benefit. The difference would be hidden from the reader, and 50 k is a very reasonable page size. kwami (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no diff for the readers, but easier for editors and for general maintenance: progressively updating the older pages of meanings (putting refs in, etc.) is slowed down by having to save large pages multiple times (potentially 500 to 1000 times each!), not to mention creating a fairly large history trail. There is also a possibility being considered to make the breakdown of the listings more flexible: maybe grouping by 200-300 for the earlier Meanings of... pages (which have few gaps) but using a larger step (up to 5000 at a time) for the more recent pages (which have an awful lot of gaps). No hurry, though: do the main move and just consider doing the Meanings of... breakup later. Urhixidur (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be convenient, but basically independent of the current move. kwami (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're moving the pages, do you want to change the number formats to parentheses?:

List of asteroids/1–1000 → List of minor planets (1–1000) ?

And should we change the hyphen to an en-dash w 'meanings'?:

Meanings of asteroid names (501-1000) → Meanings of minor planet names (501–1000) ?

kwami (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick to whatever the manual of style says is preferred. Digging into it, I see that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), the preferred style is "List of foos:1–2" (using an en-dash). Note also that "there should be a redirect from the version with a hyphen". On the subject of Wikipedia:Subpages, the key point is that there are no sub-pages in the main namespace (that is to say, "page a" and "page a/sub b" are not linked by breadcrumbing, and a link to "/sub b" in "page a" directs to "/sub b" instead of "page a/sub b"). Thus "sub-pages" such as List of asteroids/1–100 should be moved just like their "parent" pages. To summarise:

List of asteroids/1–100 → List of minor planets: 1–100 (and create a redirect at List of minor planets: 1-100)

List of asteroids/1–1000 → List of minor planets: 1–1000 (and create a redirect at List of minor planets: 1-1000)

Meanings of asteroid names (501-1000) → Meanings of minor planet names: 501–1000 (and create a redirect at Meanings of minor planet names: 1-1000)

Urhixidur (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using 'subpages' as a term of convenience.

As for redirects, these aren't the kinds of things people are going to enter in the search bar, and an editor wanting to link can figure it out. I'll ask about it, though. kwami (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude on TFDs

Why are you adding noinclude on so many TFD templates? Pagra shtak 22:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that they won't screw up the display of the pages that use them. This should be standard procedure when TFD'ing a template. Urhixidur (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're putting the noinclude on unused templates and templates where the tfd notice doesn't impact the page formatting. It's not standard procedure to noinclude the tfd notice because we want the article to show interested editors that a template is up for deletion, so they can contribute to the discussion. Pagra shtak 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you may have a point. Readers of articles are not interested in knowing of tfds, but editors potentially are. Ideally, we'd need a wiki functionality that would kick in only during preview. Or maybe a listing below the edit box similar to the one already in place for hidden categories. This needs thought. Urhixidur (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these should not be noincluded. The template is the way interested editors can find out about the deletion. If nobody brings up any good reasons, I will rollback the noinclude edits. --NE2 05:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (P.S.: if they were supposed to be noincluded there would be no need for the subst:PAGENAME in the directions, since simply PAGENAME would work if it only showed up on the template page.) --NE2 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps: 3 Juno

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 3 Juno, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps: 4 Vesta

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Lunar orbiter

Template:Infobox Lunar orbiter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 Vesta

Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]