Jump to content

Talk:Meanings of minor-planet names

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Auto-grey redirects via Lua?

[edit]

@Rfassbind: I saw this and thought I could write a small helper template, like {{Meanings of minor planet names/Grey}}, that will check the page for a redirect and return the necessary table wikitext to grey it out, and otherwise return normal table wikitext. What do you think?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tom.Reding:. Sure, go for it! Rfassbind – talk 12:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider to reuse some of your new code for the templates {{TOC001}} and {{Meanings of minor planet names}}, where automatic #R-detection and greying-out links could be applied as well, I think. Rfassbind – talk 13:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, between the helper template & {{LinkCatIfExists2}}, I believe I can cover all cases.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Totally forgot about this, but finally got around to it, via {{MoMP index element}}...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, would it be possible to turn all the references on the subpages (the lists) to proper references with <ref></ref>. I find it confusing that these pages have a different system and use other symbols. Including other information about the url such as name and archive url also helps the verifiability long term. See also Wikipedia:Bare URLs. Dajasj (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These should be turned into proper citations. Rublamb (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rating partial MoMP lists & redirects

[edit]

I think having the partial lists classified as |class=list from inception is the best option (as opposed to |class=redirect or |class=<blank>), whether or not they are currently a redirect, or have already been turned into a proper list. 2 reasons for this:

  1. the category output of {{WikiProject banner shell}} is the same for both #Rs and for proper lists (easily tested on non-#R & currently-#R examples) due to its redirect-detection
  2. using |class=redirect or |class=<blank> places the page into 4 unassessed WikiProject categories (list, ast, astro, & ss) once the page becomes a proper list, which adds more work to be done after a page is converted from a redirect, and into Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating if |class=redirect is used

One of the goals, I think, is to minimize the steps necessary to bring a page out of dormancy as a redirect to a proper list, which |class=list does, with no real downside. Ping to Praemonitus who has done some recent rating here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect will automatically override the class setting, so there's no harm in setting it to 'list'. However, the way WP:AST importance ratings are assigned, a redirect has a 'na' importance while a 'list' will have a normal low/med/high/top importance. Praemonitus (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Praemonitus: I think it's ok if the temporary #Rs are misclassified as lists for the time they remain #Rs, even if that time is lengthy, since their intended purpose and eventual destination is to be a list. Otherwise it just seems like a distinction without much of a difference. But, if you want to keep track of that, go for it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Some things just grow by incremental edits and get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 17 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth. While not the most egregious the overlisting was very excessive
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
Inclusion as an "External link" should contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk)

Moved to talk page

[edit]
I moved the deleted links here for any possible discussion.
The below content, with references, can likely be used in the article but not as a reference in the "External links" section

Some systematic sources of citations are:

In the first two cases you need only modify the last argument of the address to the name or number of the minor planet. The lists of discovery circumstances are split into groups of 5000 minor planets, each containing links for individual named minor planets that access the script displaying citations. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meanings_of_minor-planet_names&oldid=1255489980"