Talk:Baptistina family

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

New Dates of Baptistina Collision

The new date (as cited in reference 5) proposed for the collision which created the Baptistina family creates some issues for much of the information in this article, since this article discusses proposed Baptistina impacts that occur prior to 80 million years ago. Leaving this conflicting information might cause some confusion to one reading the article. I will edit the article to reflect this new data as best as I can. --67.171.229.99 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo attempted merger of 298 Baptistina into Baptistina family

On October 20, content of 298 Baptistina has been partially transferred into article Baptistina family and turned into a redirect. This undiscussed merger is unsystematic. Instead, 298 Baptistina should be further developed. (For reference, Category:Baptistina asteroids, Family classification). Rfassbind – talk 06:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfassbind: I would be really happy to see 298 Baptistina expanded into a full-fledged article! But as it stands right now, it's a stub, and I'm not sure why a category filled almost exclusively with redirects is a useful reference here. Sounds to me more like an argument that the namesake should maybe be a redirect as well. Moreover, in what way was the article only "partially" transferred? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Few months back I merged the stub 298 Baptistina into this article. See that version. @Rfassbind: undid this merger, but we were not able to discuss the situation. These two short articles about an asteroid family and its largest namesake member seem like an optimal combination for a merge. Mainstream articles describe 298 as the "parent object" of the family, intertwining its history with that of the family as a whole. Independent notability doesn't seem supported. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well over a month later and still no change or input, I'm planning on redoing the merge soon ^_^; ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]