Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

the military geography of the solar system[edit]

The solar system is an environment that affects human activities in this medium in many ways. One of these human activities are those that are classified as "military activities." The elements of the solar system that affects human activities, including military operations, will also affect all human activities in the solar system in general. The military geography of the solar system is, therefore, a metaphor for any human activities that will take place in the interplanetary medium and the celestial bodies that inhabit it. This is an analysis of the natural and cultural geographic factors that will affect all manner of human activity in the solar system.

"Ceres"[edit]

The primary topic of "Ceres" is under discussion, see talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mars craters question[edit]

Hi all, I've been fixing/updating some of the Mars crater articles, and I have come to realize that 90% of them are one-paragraph stubs that do little more than give the information found in the List of craters on Mars (for example, Hadley (crater) duplicates the information in List of craters on Mars: H-N). Is it worth having stubs for hundreds of craters, or should we really only keep the notable ones that have significant coverage? I wanted to get your opinions before I started a big AfD/redirect campaign. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the guy who created Hadley (crater) is still active. I'm not sure if he made lots of the other crater articles, but his rationale for creating him would certainly be valuable here. @Jimmarsmars: You there? A2soup (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a lot of crater articles, mostly because I thought that was what was wanted. Some of the craters have some special significance. Most have not been investigated very much. What I tried to do was put what was know about each crater together: location, size, when named. I also found pictures of nearly all in at least CTX images which are quite good. Some also had HiRISE images. I'm active in the HiWish program so I submitted many suggestions for images to be taken in and around many craters. That's all I could easily do at this time. Someone could go through and state what age the craters are and what type of geology is present. I was thinking that perhaps elementary school students could use what is there to write reports. Having spend hundreds of hours on writing articles for over 100 craters, I hope you guys do not decide to just delete them all due to not enough information.Jimmarsmars (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimmarsmars, while I certainly do not want to downplay the effort you have put into writing these articles, my question was more along the lines of "what makes this crater interesting?" If the only information on the page is the same information that can be found on the "List of craters" page, then what's the point? Yes, I know it can be expanded in the future, but if the only thing on the page is location and a few pictures, it might as well be a redirect to the main list. I am certainly not saying that every article you have written should be a redirect, but more that not every one of them needs to be a full article. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds to me like the slightly stubby articles are fine, but perhaps what you need is a template similar to Template:Map_projection (which deals with a bunch of slightly stubby map projection articles) to link them together nicely. Then you can have them organized by region, by size, by anything else you think. EdwardLane (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A large number of asteroids up for deletion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 Subbotina were a large list of asteroid articles have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1769 Carlostorres -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1579 Herrick -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4058 Cecilgreen -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A large number of asteroids have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 3 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

More asteroids are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 11 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As well as relistings for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 12 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to WP:NASTRO[edit]

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Proposed Changes. WikiProject Solar System's input is requested.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)