Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)

Addition to "No inherited notability" section

Would it be appropriate to add a reference that the fact that an astronomical object was named after someone or something would be appropriate, and (usually) advisable within WP:Due weight, to add to the article about that topic? (I.e. It is reasonable that Roald Dahl's article should mention the minor planet named after him) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's already covered in the 'Objects named after famous individuals or characters' section. There's already a link there from the 'No inherited notability' section. Modest Genius ^talk 13:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We have two "No inherited notability" sections, one after the other. Is this the intended structure? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No we don't: one is about 'inherent' and the other about 'inherited'. Those are different words and different concepts, as explained in those sections. Modest Genius ^talk 10:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on use of databases as significant coverage of astronomical objects

Editors may be interested in this discussion on the use of databases as the sole sources for standalone articles, including those on astronomical objects. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is primarily about GNG-based notability and would not affect notability derived from, e.g., appearing in the Messier catalog, but would ostensibly permit article creation based on appearance in any other scientific database. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat concerning because a lot of near-Earth asteroids are not discovered until near the day of closest approach and getting the articles jump-started via databases is much better than letting the internet fearporn lead the topic and sourcing. A lot of short arc/risk-listed asteroids are best sourced to reliable databases and not someone trying to rush out a headline. -- Kheider (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't governmental space organizations be releasing this info first, though? I can understand the concern, and would think topics of scientific interest should chiefly be sourced to scientific publications regardless; an editor noticing the appearance of a new object in a database from a primary source shouldn't be the reason a standalone article is created any more than an alarmist lay report should be. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Very few asteroids have any "scientific publications/press releases" written until months after they are discovered because the information is contained in the automated databases. -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Then these asteroids should not have an article unless/until detailed references are published. It's fine to use databases as sources of facts, but they do not confer notability. See criterion 3 and the 'establishing notability' section of this guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 10:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this changes anything. Astronomical databases alone are not good indicators of notability; they, at least the big ones, contain many objects with no notability, but the information they have on those objects is reliable. If an object is or becomes notable because of popular news and the notability can be demonstrated that way, then surely there is no problem using the (primary) databases as reliable sources for information about the object. The discussion appears to be coming down extremely hard on synthesis of primary sources, where those primary sources contain only information that is largely inaccessible to the average reader. That doesn't seem very applicable to astronomical objects, and even from the pharmaceutical standpoint of the OP it is proving a contentious argument. Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should change anything, either. I agree that databases alone are not (necessarily) indicators of notability, which is why they shouldn't be the only evidence of notability. My argument is simply that they shouldn't be used as the sole source to mass create articles; they're perfectly fine when there is other evidence of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That ArbCom discussion is very TLDR. In what way would it affect this guideline? We explicitly state that "Being listed in a database does not make an object notable" and require sources that provide "significant commentary on the object". Modest Genius ^talk 10:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Geologic features

I thought this edit would be uncontroversial, but it was reverted so I'm starting a discussion here.

The notability guideline specifically states that it applies to astronomical objects, and the 'scope' section gives some examples of what does and doesn't fall into that class (the list of examples was mostly in place in 2011, with only minor revisions since). It does not specifically mention geologic features on Solar System bodies (craters, mountains etc., see lists of geological features of the Solar System), though it seems clear to me that those are not 'objects' so are implicitly excluded. I think we should make that explicit, as it appears that isn't universally understood. Extraterrestrial geologic features are instead subject to WP:GNG, while those on Earth are covered by WP:GEOLAND. Does anyone object? Modest Genius ^talk 08:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Support: it's a bit of a pedantic point, but I'm okay with the change. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Support if it's made clear that such topics are subject to GNG only. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and prefer the status quo of articles on named features, such as named craters on the Moon, Mercury, and elsewhere, remaining safe and not subject to mass deletion (this change could easily be misunderstood to mean that hundreds of named crater articles would no longer be of notable topics). This seems at first glance to be a simple change but it could end up to be a profound one, especially if someone takes it to mind to use it to delete many hundreds of named crater pages (in which case the revert seems justified and better for the encyclopedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. This guideline does not "protect" articles from a mass delete. Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Off topic

I would also argue that these pages will not necessarily be deleted; I've been slowly converting a lot of these sub-stubs into redirects to the main crater list articles; since the information is already in the table, there really isn't any information lost (other than pretty pictures). Primefac (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Primefac, I'd ask you to stop deleting crater articles, didn't know you were doing that. Not as much pretty pictures but encyclopedic pictures of the craters, images which define the topic and focus attention on the individual geological feature. How many have you done (I don't have more than a few on my watch list)? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) About 60 from A-C (the As are on the "older" page). I will reiterate, I am not deleting them; I am redirecting them to the list article where the exact same information is present, and where there is often only one reference to a database entry. At current, they all fail GNG. If you want to improve them, by all means go for it, but if you revert simply for the sake of reverting I will waste everyone's time and send them all to AFD to formally get them redirected. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC) A redirect is a delete of a full article, just redirected. Doing this to crater pages doesn't help the encyclopedia but in my opinion harms it. I'm not going to have you do a long term AfD series over this but will respectfully ask that you consider stopping those redirects of named craters. That change really isn't needed and does little more than remove long-term pages from main space. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC) If a page does not meet GNG, it should not be kept; redirection at least allows for editors to have a platform to expand should there be a future opportunity. I will (out of courtesy) temporarily stop redirecting these pages, but so far there is no indication that a sub-stub referenced to a single database entry meets GNG, which means that it should not be kept, so eventually I will restart if the consensus on this does not change. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What to do with existing crater articles is an entirely different discussion, which is already underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Notability for Martian craters. Please discuss it there instead. I'm not proposing making any change to the scope of this guideline - just making the phrasing clearer. It already doesn't apply to craters. Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

And what about incorporating those features into this guideline? Cambalachero (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you disregard the Moon, only one of the current criteria would work properly with this class of features, so there's no benefit in a merger. WP:GNG works just as well. Praemonitus (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A guideline for planetary features would be within the purview of WP:SOLAR, not WP:AST. That project seems to be inactive, so is in no position to develop a new notability guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You could have made this an RfC. Everyone needs to know about this update. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If the local project (WP:AST) finds their own guideline uncontroversial, then there is no need for an RFC to change it. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been a week and consensus seems clear. Could an uninvolved user close this discussion and assess the outcome? Modest Genius ^talk 12:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm involved, but it's a clear result, so I restored your version. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Eclipses

I just found Template:Solar eclipses, which lists hundreds of past and future eclipses, a large number of which surely have no significant coverage in RS? I would surely think that a mass merge into e.g. List of partial solar eclipses would be better than an inordinate number of articles like Solar eclipse of October 4, 2051, Solar eclipse of August 31, 1970, etc. See WP:PAGEDECIDE. I'm aware this guideline is about astronomical objects, but it seemed the most relevant talk page for my purposes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur, but see this discussion on my user talk; it will be an uphill battle to merge or delete many of these pages. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but only for historical solar eclipses. Many of these eclipse articles just present paragraphs of boilerplate information. If there is no historical record or eclipse expedition published then it likely isn't notable. Future eclipses require a different criteria, such as whether the shadow passes over populated land masses. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of the articles on future eclipses are just stubs that will mostly remain stubs even after the event. I agree with the above comments that only notable (described in multiple sources, etc etc) eclipses should have separate articles, though I'm impressed by the enthusiastic editor(s) who created all these articles and maps for them. Artem.G (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

5 years

I want my phone to work for me very smart till the end of reßt 102.88.43.32 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)