User talk:Urhixidur/Archive/2009

Asteroid lists

According to List of minor planets, There are over 200,000 numbered asteroids, but the list currently only goes up to about 190,000, which means were 10,000 short. I'm working on getting all the Solar System lists validated, and would like to create the last ten or so pages in the archive, but I was wondering if you could tell me which sources you used. Thanks for your help! Serendi ^pod ous 17:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll be doing those over the Christmas vacation. I get the raw list from the MPC, name updates from astorb.dat (available from ftp.lowell.edu), and use Excel to figure out the disambiguated names and do most of the formatting. The Meanings of... pages I later update using JPL for the recent names. If you're willing to help, you'll need Windows with MS Office, and I'll take you through step by step. Urhixidur (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; forgot to watch your page. I'd love to help, as long as taking time out to teach me the ropes doesn't slow you down too much. :-) Serendi ^pod ous 14:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the 16 minor planet moons with names also be included in the name list? Serendi ^pod ous 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can complicate the tables a bit, but it is certainly feasible. For example Meanings of minor planet names: 136001–137000 integrates Eris's Dysnomia in the text, but Meanings of minor planet names: 134001–135000, where Pluto appears, simply refers the reader to the Charon, Nix and Hydra articles. Urhixidur (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names

You re-introduced sub-headings for each block of 100 asteroids in Meanings of minor planet names: 170,001–180,000, with the slightly offensive remark "cleaning up the mess". I am not aware of leaving "mess". I only merged the subpages using the layout of all the sublists below 170,000 and switched from blocks of 100 numbers to 1,000s.

IMO, the list looked better in "my" version than in the current one. What is the use of giving almost every entry an own sub-heading? It would be fine if you give every block of 1,000 an own sub-heading with edit button, though even this is not really necessary given how short the list is.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, Urhixidur, I don't see the point. These lists are not likely to grow much in the future. kwami (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was "a mess" because the smaller sub-pages were not moved, they were left behind, so we had duplication of data, making maintenance and addition much harder. The advantage to sticking with a 100-count sub-page size is uniformity, as this could be applied all the way to the very first minor planets.

You do both have a point that a 1000-count size may be preferrable after a certain point, as all observers agree the list will remain sparse. But this should be done systematically, by true mergers, not copy and paste. And first to analyse where the breakpoints ought to be. I'll do this and comment back shortly. Urhixidur (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the first gaps appear with the 3700 block (3701-3800). By the time of the 5000 block, the average number of gaps is 15%. It reaches 25% at the 6000 block. The next averages, by 1000 blocks, are 7000: 30%; 8000: 35%; 9000: 40%; 10000: 43%; 11k: 49%; 12k: 57%; 13k: 64%; 14k: 71%; 15k: 74%; 16k: 73%; 17k: 73%; 18k: 72%; 19k: 74%; 20k: 72%; 21k: 64%; 22k: 68%; 23k: 78%; 24k: 77%; 25k: 85%; 26k: 92%; 27k: 94%; 28k: 96%; 29k: 95%; 30k: 93%; 31k: 96%; 32k: 96%; 33k: 97%; 34k: 98%; 35k: 98%; 36k: 98%; 37k: 98%; 38k: 97%; 39k: 97%; 40k: 98%; 41k: 99%; 42k: 99%; 43k: 97%; 44k: 98%; 45k: 99%.

The long plateau running from 14k until 24k may be due to the CERES program, where LINEAR discoveries are named after ISEF winners, their mentors, and the like.

If we want to keep the Meanings pages to roughly 100 entries, the number blocks should be something like:

10k..25k spans of 250 (~60% gaps)
25k..30k spans of 1,000 (~90% gaps)
30k..40k spans of 2,500 (~96% gaps)
40k+ spans of 5,000 (~98% gaps)

It may however be simpler to have just three groups of spans: Below 10k, we have blocks of 100 minor planet numbers. From 10k to 25k, we have blocks of 250 minor planet numbers. Beyond 25k, we have blocks of 1000 minor planet numbers. Or we can have just a single cut-off, the 25k mark: blocks of 100 below, blocks of 1000 above.

What do you think? Urhixidur (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've started the consolidation into pages of 1000 meanings. The procedure for this first step is:

For the display:none; entries, delete the string that reads like <small class="editlink noprint">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Meanings of asteroid names/187001–187100|action=edit}} edit]</small> {{:Meanings of asteroid names/187001–187100}}
For those that do not include display:none;, the first part of the above string (ending with </small>) is deleted. The second part is replaced by {{subst::Meanings of asteroid names/187001–187100}}, deleting the carriage returns before and after, as well as the |- line that follows.
Finally, delete the subst'ed pages (and any eventual redirects that could lead to them).

For example, this:

! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;display:none;" id="501"| 187501–187600 <small class="editlink noprint">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Meanings of asteroid names/187501–187600|action=edit}} edit]</small>
{{:Meanings of asteroid names/187501–187600}}
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;" id="601"| 187601–187700 <small class="editlink noprint">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Meanings of asteroid names/187601–187700|action=edit}} edit]</small>
{{:Meanings of asteroid names/187601–187700}}
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;display:none;" id="701"| 187701–187800 <small class="editlink noprint">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Meanings of asteroid names/187701–187800|action=edit}} edit]</small>
{{:Meanings of asteroid names/187701–187800}}
|-

becomes:

! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;display:none;" id="501"| 187501–187600
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;" id="601"| 187601–187700{{subst::Meanings of asteroid names/187601–187700}}! colspan="3" style="background-color:silver;text-align:center;display:none;" id="701"| 187701–187800
|-

Later we'll tackle the insertion of noinclude tags and the "do not browse at this level" header. Urhixidur (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done from 180,000 onward. Urhixidur (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done from 179,000 onward. I've improved the appearance by fixing the varying column widths. I think the column headers ought as well not to be repeated within the 10,000 table, but I'll fix this later. Urhixidur (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think looks best, Urhixidur. What a lot of work! kwami (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Column headers fixed now as well. I think we have a finished product for the 170+k pages. Please take a look. Urhixidur (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed by the amount of work you put into this. However, I still think the 100's subheadings should be replaced by 1000's subheadings (for N>100,000 or earlier), since most of them are empty or contain only a single element. Uniformity is certainly a good thing for uniform lists (like List of minor planets), but in this case it should stand behind user-friendliness, I think.

I admit I duplicated content, but I meant to delete the old pages later. Also, personally I think you created kind of a "mess" by making the 100's subpages just for easier editing: the pages would have been much easier to handle with simple wiki subheadings (e.g. "=== 180,001-180,100 ===") instead of your construction.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing your concerns. Look at Meanings of minor planet names: 150,001–160,000, which now has headers only every 1000, plus a functional TOC toolbar. Next I'll integrate edit links, and then hide the mess within the leaf sub-pages by concocting a few suitable templates. Sounds like a plan? Urhixidur (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks quite good now.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When using the "edit" function in one of the headers, one is led, after saving the edit, to the corresponding "defunct" subpage, instead of the original page. This should be changed. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that editing the first subset of Meanings of minor planet names: 150,001–160,000 saves the subpage Meanings of minor planet names: 150001–151000, that is the correct behaviour. It's the 100-minor planets subpages that are no more. The 1,000-minor planet names pages are here to stay. Or do you mean something else? It may be I've screwed up some other page...Urhixidur (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean that there is no link back to the 10,000 page? Urhixidur (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean. Or rather, I would prefer to be automatically returned to the 10,000 page, as this is the usual thing happening after editing a section of a Wikipedia article.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case we could add, right before the {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}}, a line like:

<center>''This page is not meant to be viewed directly; please browse from the main list, [[Meanings of minor planet names: 150,001–160,000]], instead.</center>

But why not just use the back list of the browser? Urhixidur (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one could just use the Back button. But my point is that this differs from usual Wikipedia behaviour, so it's rather confusing/annoying, IMO. As I mentioned above, this could be resolved by using wiki subheadings (e.g. "=== 180,001-181,000 ===") instead of your construction with 1,000-subpages. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Hello Urhixidur. I just noticed all the List of minor planets articles you've been creating, and decided you deserve a barnstar! Rosiestep (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Hello, I saw how MANY articles of this list you made and i think that you MUST have this barnstar. Ularevalo98 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

I have nominated Solar system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I should have done this MUCH earlier! First time - learning & living! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hi, I noticed that you linked a date or two at List of minor planets: 212001–213000, amongst others. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have to update my spreadsheet template is all. Urhixidur (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilohm or kiloohm

In August 2005 you asked, in a discussion at Talk:Ohm#Kilohm or kiloohms for a link to support the assertion that the IEEE approved the simplified spelling "kilohm". Nearly four years later, having got into a discussion about megaohm vs. megohm, I have supplied an answer. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Asteroid

I have done a GA Reassessment of the article, Asteroid as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. As such I have held the article for a week pending fixes. My review can be found here. I am notifying you as the primary editor about this. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Help?

Someone by the user name Averniking has ransacked the page for Boston College. As a very reluctant participant of the Wikipedia community, I prefer not to get involved. However, editing is evidently supposed to be done in the "Sandbox?," so one person probably should not have simply reviewed a page and then repeatedly and substantially changed it that way?

Clearly the opening paragraph has been awkwardly reworded to cite a reference that does not support the nonrepresentative information the user insists on presenting. It is not a good faith effort!

Also, Averniking and ElKevbo may be one and the same person?

Vicente Vicente (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Cruz

A tag has been placed on Alex Cruz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Q ^{T C} 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An understandable albeit regrettable policy. My proposed solution is to regroup articles such as this one under List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers. Urhixidur (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Masakatsu Aoki

The article Masakatsu Aoki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Alex Cruz, the contents have been copied over to List_of_miscellaneous_minor_planet_discoverers#Masakatsu_Aoki. Urhixidur (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]