Talk:Lists of planets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:List of extrasolar planets)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon Lists of planets is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

Referencing[edit]

The following conversation was copied from User talk:Serendipodous and User talk:Road Wizard. The conversation is about whether citations are needed or even allowed within this article but we have not been able to reach agreement. Input from third parties would be useful to form consensus. Road Wizard (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi. I have found sources that describe Pluto as a Planet, as a Dwarf and as a Plutoid. I am not sure which one is correct so I added a citation needed tag to the article so another editor can provide a reference to the correct source. You then reverted me with the statement "Pluto is not a planet. As every article on the topic in this encyclopedia says. Don't like it, read another encyclopedia." As you were not willing to support the material with a citation I had to default to the most recent source I had found and added it to the article. You again reverted me with the comment "Makemake and Haumea are also plutoids, and all plutoids are also dwarf planets. I'm unclear as to what you are trying to do."
Wikipedia articles are meant to be understood by non-technical readers (like me), not subject matter experts. If there is a source that describes Pluto's current classification then please refer to it. Road Wizard (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Since an IAU ruling in 2006, Pluto is no longer considered a planet (see Planet, Definition of planet and IAU definition of planet) Instead it is considered a "dwarf planet". There are 5 dwarf planets (Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, Eris and Ceres). Those beyond Neptune (ie all of them except Ceres) are called "plutoids". Serendipodous 11:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, but I am still unsure why you are resistant to adding a citation to the article. As Pluto has had two changes in classification in 6 years a citation to the correct classification would avoid people making mistakes through out of date sources. Road Wizard (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Because List of planets isn't an article; it's basically just a disambig. It redirects people to other articles on the subject that give them the information they need. Serendipodous 11:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a look back through the article history. Mixed in with an unhealthy dose of vandalism there are three challenges to Pluto's status as a dwarf planet; 1 in January 2011 and 2 in December 2011 (the last 2 were perhaps by the same editor). Per WP:V, "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Road Wizard (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(←)Hi. I don't think I have had a reply to my latest comment. Can I assume that you are now happy that citations are allowed on list pages and that you have no objections to me restoring a citation for Pluto? Road Wizard (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I modified the hatnote to direct anyone curious or upset over Pluto's reclassification to the correct articles. List of planets is not about Pluto's reclassification, nor should it be. Serendipodous 06:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like we are not going to reach agreement between ourselves, so I will copy this conversation to the article talk page and invite comments from the WikiProject. Road Wizard (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a consensus ruling on Pluto's status which would exist on several other destination pages which discuss this in more detail. Hence I don't really think it is needed here. The current lists, sublists and material that is a bit too tangential to include and hence left out, is logical, so I don't think either edit by Road Wizard was an improvement. A cite can be placed at the top of the page where the IAU ruling is mentioned maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections to a general citation. The key issue for me here is that the material has been challenged more than once by different editors yet the article remains completely unreferenced. The exact style of referencing is a minor point compared to the question about whether a reference can be included. Road Wizard (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am frustrated with this page constantly being referred to as an article. It isn't one. It's really just a glorified disambig; its job is to direct people to other articles, not to do those articles' jobs for them. Serendipodous 13:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see my earlier comment, which quotes the Verifiability policy. Lists are considered the same as standard articles in terms of the requirement for referencing. In answer to your point that this is a disambiguation page, please refer to the history of this talk page where your own comment says, "this isn't really a disambig anymore". Road Wizard (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, because it no longer meets the strict guidelines for being a disambig, despite my protests to the contrary. But that doesn't mean it should do anything more than a disambig, such as draw in a discussion about Pluto's planetary status, which is outside its remit. Serendipodous 13:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You have already concluded that Pluto is a dwarf planet, which was challenged by two editors then queried by me. Any material in main space that is challenged or likely to be challenged in the future must be supported by adequate referencing per the Verifiability policy. Do you have an argument based on policy to support your view here? Road Wizard (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The policy of Wikipedia on issues of scientific dispute is to follow the lead of whichever congress or group represents the totality of scientists in the relative field. So, for instance, in the issue of how to spell "Aluminium", we follow the lead of the IUPAC, and on whether Pluto is a dwarf planet, we follow the IAU. We don't need to cite every instance of the word "Aluminium" and we don't need to cite every mention of Pluto as a dwarf planet. Serendipodous 13:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you please provide a link to this policy? Is there any previous discussion of that policy and its relationship to the requirements of the Verifiability policy?
As a clarification to your last point, I have not said anywhere that you should "cite every mention of Pluto as a dwarf planet" but that you should support any material that has been challenged with a supporting reference. Ideally that would be a citation but the exact style of referencing is up to the consensus of editors. A reference section at the bottom of the page with a link to a list by the IAU would be sufficient to meet my concerns. Road Wizard (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Information on Wikipedia is challenged every minute. It does not all require answering. We are having this conversation because you have a hangup about this particular article. What I don't understand is why. On Wikipedia, I count a total of six articles that deal extensively with the topic of Pluto's reclassification: Planet, Dwarf planet, Definition of planet, IAU definition of planet, Clearing the neighborhood and of course, Pluto. All of which are extensively referenced, give ample airtime to both sides of the argument, and note that the situation could change in future. Even Solar System deals with the issue in a note. I fail to see why an article with fewer than 200 words in total needs to go out of its way to tackle a subject that is already well tackled elsewhere and which is glaringly outside its remit and purpose. As for policy, the IUPAC/IAU policy is listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects); the decision to follow the IAU in other matters is one that has been worked through over time by the astronomical WikiProject. Serendipodous 14:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline from WP policy is here: citations in lists. In short, yes, a "List of..." page is subject to the same standards of referencing and verifiability as other articles on Wikipedia. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a list though? It's just a list of redirects to other articles. Why should it be referenced? There are no actual facts mentioned in it at all. Serendipodous 15:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd say the title of the page ("List of..."), and right below it (at least on my settings) says "a list-class article", make this a list. I'm generally amused by the argument going on here. Providing references to support that certain objects in the solar system are planets, and some are dwarf planets, would take about 10 minutes of somebody's time. Those are the "facts" you think that do not exist here. I'm genuinely confused as to why a user is opposed to allowing citations to be placed in an article. If somebody placed a reference here, would you remove it? I also think you are confusing a "List of..." article with a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are used when there are multiple articles which may represent a single name, title, or thing. That's not the case here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
List of cities doesn't have any citations explaining why its subarticles list cities and not towns. List of lakes doesn't have citations explaining why they are lakes and not ponds. List of mountains doesn't have any citations explaining why they're mountains and not hills. Why should this list be any different? Because some guy has a bee in his bonnet about Pluto's reclassification and has been trying to make an issue out of something that was resolved 5 years ago. Serendipodous 17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you please stop putting words in my mouth? My interest here is improving the quality of the article and complying with the verifiability policy, not changing the status of a celestial object. Just as the eventual aim of all standard articles is to achieve Featured Article status the eventual aim of all list articles is to achieve Featured List status.
I could dig out thousands of low quality stub articles that have yet to be developed, but they are hardly good targets to aim for in terms of improving the encyclopedia. You may also note that your last example, List of mountains, does include some citations. Road Wizard (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, what we should probably be aiming for with this article is something along the lines of List of natural satellites, List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System or List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules. Road Wizard (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? You think this could be a featured list? If you manage to get this list featured I will personally wire you a hundred dollars. There are only eight planets in the Solar System, there's not much point in listing them. At this point, I'm actually thinking of getting this list deleted. Its sole purpose is to direct people to planet lists, yet people still insist it "reflect the controversy" of Pluto's demotion. If I have to put a cite here explaining that Pluto is not a planet, then should I individually cite EVERY time Pluto is mentioned on Wikipedia? Serendipodous 17:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A single editor cannot get an article or list to featured status when blocked from adding something as basic as a reference. I will be happy to try to improve the quality of this list but it really depends on whether this dispute can be resolved. If your reason for wanting this article deleted is because you feel you have lost an argument then I will have to argue for it to be kept. Deletions should only ever occur for sound reasons. Road Wizard (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer my final question: since all this article is actually saying is that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, if that fact alone requires a reference, is every single mention of that fact on this encyclopedia, including pages on fiction, politics or anything else, to be referenced also? Are you willing to do that? Serendipodous 18:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Any material in the main space that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by a reference. In the case of this article the status of Pluto was challenged by 2 editors in 2011 so it should be supported by a reference in this article. I cannot review every single mention of Pluto across Wikipedia and give you an answer for each case. As long as you employ the Verifiability policy and achieve consensus for your actions then you should stand in good stead.
Please do bear in mind though the cautions mentioned at WP:POINT. I can't give you a blanket rule to follow as each case has to be judged on its merits. Road Wizard (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
So basically what you are saying is that the criterion is utterly arbitrary and based solely on personal preference. Trolls edit pages all the time. I myself have reverted dozens of "Pluto is a planet" additions on multiple pages. The only thing that makes this page different is that you appear to have taken an interest in it. Serendipodous 18:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have continued the discussion below AstroCog's comment. Road Wizard (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey editor, I was just answering the general question at top, as was requested on the project page. I saw that you asked about the relevant guideline. I gave it. If other lists do or not follow it, that's irrelevant. I agree that somebody shouldn't be challenging Pluto's status as a dwarf planet at this time. However, since for some people Pluto's status continues to be a sore or confusing point for them, an argument could be made for putting a reference, or a grouped reference, showing the consensus of that object. It doesn't harm the page in any way, and may even prevent tampering by those pesky "Pluto was a planet when I was kid" folks ;-) That's all I've got to contribute here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(←)Reply to Serendipodous. Implementation of policy should be achieved through consensus. I have not tried to force the change here but started a discussion when I met resistance. It is rare that objections to policy are successful but they do happen. If material has been removed or altered on other articles and you have restored it then you should have included a reference. This is covered in the verifiability policy; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing reliable sources that directly support the material." The only grounds for not providing a source on restoring material is if consensus has formed to discount policy in that particular situation. Road Wizard (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand what's going on here. I have here a relatively uncontroversial article that isn't meant to convey factual information, but instead to direct people to other pages that do convey facts. There is only one fact mentioned in this article, and it is also uncontroversial. Indeed, this page links to several different articles that discuss this fact in obsessive detail. This page takes no stance, makes no claims; it simply states that fact. If the instance of this fact on this page were to be cited, then logically, every instance of that fact should be cited, and indeed, every statement that the sky is blue or that grass green or that the Sun is a star. Serendipodous 20:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And I am having trouble understanding why you are so against complying with policy. All we need here is a reference section at the bottom of the page with a link to a list of the current IAU classifications of the planets. Road Wizard (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Because if this is a policy, it is a policy that no other similar articles that I have found have complied with, and I feel this article is being unfairly singled out because certain people have issues with Pluto's classification. Serendipodous 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have already shown you examples of list articles that comply with the verifiability policy. Just because you can find other poor quality lists is no reason to hold this one back. I would suggest breaking off the discussion at this point as we are just digging ourselves into a rut. Let's leave it a few days and see if more editors are willing to voice an opinion. If not, we can escalate the matter through alternative channels of informal or formal dispute resolution. Road Wizard (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added external links. I feel like I've just had a dolls' house cited for zoning violations. If that's not enough, don't try and fix it yourself; judging by your previous attempts, you obviously only have a limited understanding of the situation. Serendipodous 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to comply with policy. I will leave it to future editors to judge the conduct of this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ugg. Have been following this ridicilous argument. Road Wizard you are completly misunderstanding how policy works, and the spirit for which it was drafted. Serendipodous you have the patience of a saint. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
As noted by another editor above, my interpretation of policy is correct. Rather than casting aspersions on particular editors and their motivations (as has happened repeatedly during this discussion) I have managed to keep calm and remain on point. If you disagree that references are required for list articles then we can always escalate this dispute. I am certain that the more eyes are cast on this article the more support will fall on my interpretation of policy. Road Wizard (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes we need citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastronomer (talkcontribs) 14:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article, it is a malformed disambiguation page. We should strip out the Solar System portion entirely (perhaps to a separate page, if we need one), since it just messes up the disambiguation page, and restore the disambiguation footer template. Disambiguation pages do not have references. As for planets and Pluto, Ceres was an official planet for half a century, why don't you argue that as well Road Wizard? Just arguing for Pluto seems a bit biased against other former planets, and Eris, which has also been called a planet, and which is bigger than Pluto, so is better deserving than Pluto. In any case, if we strip out the Solar System portion, it won't be part of this page anymore, so we can stop discussing it here. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is a page that distinguishes between similarly named articles, such as Cooper (disambiguation). A disambiguation page for planets would be Planet (disambiguation). This article is a list and has to comply with the requirements of stand-alone lists. I have no particular issue with Pluto and I personally don't care whether you call it a planet, a rock or a frog. My only concern here is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia by providing referencing for articles. If you feel other information on this page needs to be referenced then that is something for you to pursue; a single reference for all the planet classifications meet the requirement for all entries.
If you want to avoid the referencing requirement by removing the information from this page then that is up to you. I have no issues with how you present the information as long as you comply with the verifiability policy. Road Wizard (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not an article. It's a navigation page. Navigation pages do not have references, since each entry on the page is supposed to link to an article, and a short description of the article it links to, to help you choose the right article you want to read. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there any point in reopening this discussion? My concern has been dealt with so as far as I am concerned there is no more problem. We could argue till we are both blue in the face about whether this is a disambiguation page or a list but it won't serve the interests of Wikipedia. Road Wizard (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
If you felt the matter closed, you did not need to reply. As for determination of list vs dab page, it clearly matters, since this was just a badly formed dab page all the time, and recognition of such should be easily seen, due to the contents of the page itself. Many dab pages get deformed in the process of having many editors. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I count 4 long term editors in the last month who identified this page as a list rather than disambiguation. If it is meant to be solely a disambiguation page you may want to consider a name that does not identify it as a list. (edit) - just to clarify, I'm not arguing for a change but it is something you might want to consider. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck don't be surprised if some people think it may be a duck. Road Wizard (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Since it is a disambiguation page for list articles on planets, I don't get why you think the page name is inappropriate. Adding "(disambiguation)" would violate WP:MDP -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

I propose that we split off List of Solar System planets to get this entire debate off this page, and restore this as a proper disambiguation or set index page. Then that link would link to the Solar System portion, and where the debate can occur without disrupting this navigation aide. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have a list of Solar System planets. It's called List of gravitationally rounded objects in the Solar System. In fact, that's a good idea. This list already links there, so yes, this can be simply trimmed down. Serendipodous 07:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There. Done. I've also redirected your link to the proper list. Serendipodous 07:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No list of planets?[edit]

Hi, I noticed this page had fallen to second - behind Simple English! - for a googling of "list of planets". That's crazy! While I guess the information should be presented on a list about gravitationally rounded yadda yadda, I shouldn't need to navigate to a new page and read all these fancy college words, y'know? Perhaps copy the list to this page, and point people that way if they want more info?? 98.239.102.254 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion above marked "Referencing". This is Wikipedia; there is no point, no matter how self-evident, that someone will not argue. No matter what we do, "college words" are inevitable. Either we link to college words elsewhere, or we put the college words in here. Serendipodous 05:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No list of important planets?[edit]

It makes no difference how the planets were found. That's completely irrelevant. The only type of planets that are worth being listed separately are the planets that are believed to be located in the habitable zone AND are also solid. Someone should run off and create that list. GMRE (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Oh wait, found one at Lists of exoplanets. GMRE (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose this list be merged with "lists of exoplanets"[edit]

Both lists are relatively short and need short articles. There's no sane reason to keep them separate. Wikipedia is becoming ever less userfriendly. It's terribly inconvenient to be looking for a list of planets, only to end up having to navigate through several lists of lists of planets. End this maddness and merge them! GMRE (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Makes it look a bit ugly but OK. Serendipodous 18:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)