This user may have left Wikipedia. Rfassbind has not edited Wikipedia since October 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Nice work on Photovoltaic systems. All that info in the Overview section needs sources. If we can't come up with them, we should that content until we have it. Cheers. Jojalozzo 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing and the urgently need copy-edit. I'm planning to add citations tonight (CET), as I was just too exhausted last night from my edit;) If you have any suggestions to make, or some spare time to further copy-edit the article, I would really appreciate. Best, Rfassbind (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work!! Jojalozzo 14:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just wanted to say your edits over these last months have turned 'Growth of photovoltaics' into a really good article; I remember when it was much less extensive or referenced and I think named something else. Now it's all cohesively organized and very informative. Great work! TimeClock871 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and muchas gracias for your appreciation! Let me know whenever I can do something for you :) -- Rfassbind (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up the following dispute that you are in, with the resolution board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013 178.167.254.22 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the dispute resolution board, seen as this part of my reply to you was getting a bit long. I've taken to instead replying to it here.

As for your, so called - "...comprehensive [but not peer-reviewed] criticism of Weissbach's study I found here". I don't really need to say anything on this non-peer reviewed, German state funded, author's attempt to critique the Weissbach ET AL. study. As thankfully someone already has taken that piece to task! Read Cyril R's reply found in that link, they expose each and every one of the the authors "criticisms" as fraudulent bias. As this section was getting a little too long, I cut my retort to the above link, and instead posted it on User:Rfassbind's talk page, which you can read there.

For an example of the bias in the arguments from that state funded website: They try and counter Weissbach et. al's assumed 60 year lifespan for nuclear plants by arguing - hey the oldest continuously operating commercial reactor is only 45 this year? With guess this, "Solar PV panels are [now being sold by manufacturers with a lifespan tag of] 35 years..." - Did you catch that? They give readers a demonstrated ongoing lifespan value(45+) and then throw in a paper calculated value, by the solar PV industry, of just out of the lab solar panels! Tell me, are the solar PV panels installed 1-10 years ago in Germany, even half way to the D. Weißbach et al. papers generously assumed 25 year lifespan for solar PV? Nope! Rfassbind, maybe you can help here, What is the oldest, continuously operating, and commercial Solar PV panel? The German state funded piece naturally(because of bias) shies away from being fair and doing an equivalence by giving readers the answer to that important question, obviously! These are the kind of basic arithmetic failures and displays of bias that Cyril R takes them to task on. While I don't doubt improvements are being made to Solar PV, and that's great, and hey sure maybe cutting edge panels are being sold with a manufacturers lifespan tag of "35 years", but don't forget, so are Generation III reactors being sold with "80 years" tags. So Weissbach et. al are hardly biased to have chosen an assumed 60 years for the majority of presently operating nuclear plants, and a very generous 25 years for the majority of presently operating Solar PV panels - even though the vast majority of installed solar PV panels are not even half way there.

Anyways as both Cyril R(and everyone else knows) the assumed 60 year lifespan for nuclear and ~25 year lifespan for solar PV are design lifespan assumptions based upon assessments done by, and stated by their manufacturers. Unfortunately Cryril R didn't link them to the oldest reactor still operating, which is the F-1 (nuclear reactor), an infrequently operated research reactor turned on in 1946. I'll let you figure out how old that makes it. P.S it's older than Weissbach et al's conservative 60 year lifespan for nuclear power reactors, with 1940s reactor technology. To be fair, how many of the solar panels from the 1980s are still in commercial operation Rfassbind? Are there any?

If you can show us just 1 example of a solar panel with german levels of insolation from the 1980s that has been continuously operating for even 25+ years(bonus points if they're still commercial) and still pumping out ~70% of its initial nameplate/day one, rated energy supply, then I'll concede that Weissbach et al. are biased against Solar PV. Until then, good luck. 178.167.254.22 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above, an anon user disagrees with the 60-year figure for the life expectancy of nuclear reactors. The rant claims that solar PV power systems haven't yet proven their projected life expectancy of 30 years either. This comparison is inane. The operational lifetime for these two technologies depend on different things: while PV systems can run until they break down, nuclear power stations can't do that for well-known reasons. They are even being turned off way before they reach 60 years. In addition, here's a link to a PV-system from 1982. It's grid-connected, continuously-running for more than 30 years with an annual degradation of 0.5%. -- Rfassbind -talk 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorting by date doesn't work for month+year, only just for year. If you try to make descending sort of that column, it will sort the rows that have a year in a normal fashion, but will not sort the rows with month in it, so it becomes just useless. –– Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgij, yes it does sort correctly. What browser do you use, my dear fellow editor? -- Rfassbind -talk 13:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use latest Safari on Mac. And I also checked the latest WebKit build, it doesn't sort there either. –– Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad. Reading Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems now more carefully, it seems you're probably right, as the "isoDate" attribute I used does not work in all browsers (as I suspected after your post above). I see now your point, sorry for that misunderstanding. Let me see if there is a way to preserve the info about the month (e.g. transferring it to the comment column or something like that), OK? -- Rfassbind -talk 14:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) –– Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'll post my suggestions to the talk page, soon. We can continue there. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 14:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked your work on Comet. The image looks awesome now. Can you do that magic again on Dwarf Planet? Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oi tetra, tudo joia rapaz? Sure, I can group them into a single "image-collage". I've done that before here and here.

• Dwarf Planet: since there are "only" five lead images and all of them are more or less square-shaped, there are two possibilities: either we find one more image to have a group of six symmetrically aligned images, or, one of the 5 existing images will be much larger than the others (e.g Pluto, that soon will be replaced). What you think? Also, there is already an image that compiles some dwarf planets (image here, although it does not include non-TNO Ceres).
• Talking about comets, maybe you noticed that there are two (sub)-articles, namely Comet tail and Antitail. I think Antitail should be merged into Comet tail. What do you think?

Thanks for your feedback. It's the first one ever I received for the many image-compilations I've done so far. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a 5-image-compilation on Dwarf Planet.

Oh, um BR! Que coincidência. Bom, ficou ótimo a compilação de images. Você poderia aumentar o tamanho delas um pouco? Tanto no Comet quanto no Dwarf Planet. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 17:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently added BrownDwarfComparison-pia12462 to the Brown Dwarf page. I think the image is incorrect (even though it's from NASA). The Sun should be about 10 times the diameter of Jupiter, but the image shows it only as about 5 times bigger. See Sol_Cha-110913-773444_Jupiter, further down on the page, for a better comparison. Tbayboy (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbayboy: Wow, yes, you're right. Good catch Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tbayboy (and User:Tetra quark), you're very carefully, indeed! What do you suggest to do? Do you think the image in the lead of the article Brown dwarf isn't good enough to give a rough idea to the general reader? Pls let me know, thx. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've added a clarification in the caption of that image. I guess that should be enough. Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to me, thx! -- Rfassbind -talk 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay for now -- with Tetra's change, the Brown Dwarf editors can see what the issue is. I've added the issue to the file's talk page and ping'd Kheider (the original uploader) (what I should have done in the first place, rather than doing it here), since other uses of it might want to do something as well. Tbayboy (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, let me know if there's something I can do -- Rfassbind -talk 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been making global edits to the main table on List of possible dwarf planets. I agree with the substance of the edits, but there is an issue: that table is automatically generated from a program. This allows me to do easy updates from the sources (the Minor Planet Center TNO lists and Brown's Dwarf Planets list) without having to carefully look through the sources searching for changes. When you make a change to the table, I have to update the program generate matching text so that the next update doesn't clobber your changes. (I do an update about every month, so that the numbers in the table that come from those source, and the order of the entries, don't have to be managed by hand, and so stay true to the sources.)

See the discussion about it on the talk page.

The reason for telling you this is so that you don't waste too much time editing the table when a change to the program (followed by an update from the program) only takes me a few minutes. If you're just doing a global search+replace editor function then it's okay (doesn't take you any longer to do that than it does to explain the change it to me), but if you have to individually edit a lot of lines then it's better to do it through with the program. The following columns are NOT generated automatically from the sources, so you can changes the numbers/texts there with no issue: Measured Mass, Measured Diameter, Tancredi, and Category.

The program I'm using is a Microsoft SQL Server Express script (SQL source code). I can give you the source code if you like, but you need to have and know (a little) MS SQL Server Express (freely downloadable) to do anything with it. If you have a good working knowledge of any other SQL system, you can probably port it there, too, since it's a simple program (it doesn't do anything tricky).

Furthermore, please tell me if you know a place to keep this code on Wikipedia. I tried putting it on the talk page, but the code contains wiki-markup, so it blows up the page. I just did a quick, simple test. There must be a way to do it, but I'm not that fluent in wiki-editing.

Thanks, Tbayboy (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Tbayboy. Ooops, I thought there was something "strange" with the wikitable's syntax when I did my edit. That's why I let the spaces and newlines between the pipes-characters untouched. Of course, I'm sorry to have troubled your established procedure of updating the data and I very much appreciate your approach in letting me know instead of just reverting the whole shebang with a grumpy edit-note.

Well I'm rather the MySQL-type of web developer and with no knowledge of Microsoft but I'm curious to take a look at the code and fiddle with it if you allow me too (by the way the "possible dwarf planets" wiki-table is an excellent one). In any case if you plan to make an update any time soon, it's AOK just to paste over my changes. My intention it to improve articles and not to complicate established procedures, so when I'm misjudging the situation, it's only fair to undo my changes.

As for posting the code: there are three tags and templates I can think of that would be helpful in posting code, I guess:

• the <pre> tag helps to display the code line by line (without any wrapping of new-line characters)
• the template ((hidden begin)) and ((hidden end)) allow you to collapse text-content (hide/show) in a "spoiler-box"→see Template:Hidden begin
• the <nowiki> tag prevents wikipedia to parse the wikicode and displays the way it is on the website.

I guess all these together should resolve pretty much every problem. Why don't you create a user page? Add a short "Hello" and try to post your code there? I definitely would appreciate.

I still have to read the discussion you mentioned above. I'll do so ASAP. Let me know what you think and again, sorry I so ignorantly intruded your established procedure. -- Rfassbind -talk 19:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary! This is not an established process, it's fairly new and still at the trial stage. I was expecting such a thing to happen. You can appreciate the problem of keeping all those numbers up to date and in order. You made other changes a little while ago — which I've incorporated in the program — but I didn't say anything then because I didn't recognise your handle as being a regular editor on that page, so I figured there was a good chance you might not be doing much more.

Thank you for the wiki-fu above. I'll try it later (I'm at work at the moment). I very much would like to have somebody else able to do the update, since it's not good for the page to rely on one person. I can switch over to MySQL if you can can port it there — another thing I was expecting might happen. I don't think there's that much difference between them, but I've never worked with MySQL. Tbayboy (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated your changes (except the Ceres thing, which is a little harder; I'll work on it later). I was able to get the code on a page and display nicely, thanks to you. You can see the current code and the resulting table in my sandbox. When I do the next update (probably next weekend), I will put the code on the List-DP talk page, replacing the current collapse text at the top which contains an old copy of the previous version of this table. Tbayboy (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Thx for your efforts and I will definitely study the code in detail. CU, -- Rfassbind -talk 00:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your outside help mediating at dark matter. Wording disagreements are tough, since sources don't really have anything to contribute one way or the other, and it's certainly much ado about one word. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a "million" missing in your edit:

As per the World Coal Association: 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.697 tonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[24] As per the International Energy Agency 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.700 tonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[25]

? should be

As per the World Coal Association: 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.697 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[24] As per the International Energy Agency 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.700 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[25]

Or have I got this all wrong? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: That's correct, thank you Sir! This is what happens when an (unfinished) edit leads to another article, that needs to be edited first, which in turn requires another article to be edited, linked or redirected first. Best is not to write million at all. I amended tonne of coal equivalent accordingly. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 11:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This figure is inspired by a given source. The source indicates that the "Worlds power consumption is 16 TWy/y". This is equivelant to me stating that for my house the energy consuption is 20000 kWh/y. On your figure this has changed to "Worlds power consuption is 16 TW". Now, kW, TW etc is normally used to express power/leistung. To me it would be very unfamiliar to say that the power consumption of my house is 1950 W.

Can you explain to me why the unit is changed from TWy/y (energy per year) to TW (power/leistung)?

(Please answer on this page) Regards KjellG (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see the problem: the label talks about energy (world energy consumption) which is represented by the sphere, while the figure right next to it displays the world's power demand (16 TW). I uploaded a revised version, that now reads "power demand of 16 TW". Hopefully, this amendment helps to clarify the diagram.

As you know, energy per unit time is the same as power. The units TW-yr per year (as in the original) is equivalent to the unit TW (terawatt) and both mean power, not energy (i.e. year is cancelled out). I thought adding the labels "annually" and "total reserves" on the bottom of the diagram would be a much better solution than using the non-SI-compliant version of TW-yr/year. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 14:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will come back with more thoughts, but will take some time. Meanwhile, this article World energy consumption seems to use TWh per year or TWh/y. The differece between TWy/y and TWh/y is only a scaling factor. I agree that TWy/y is less familiar than TWh/y, but the numbers has less digits and looks better on the figure. I can not see TW used anywhere in the World energy consumption article? I see your point that y/y can be regarded as "1" and left out, but there are numerous papers that uses energy per day, per week, per month per year: kWh/d, kWh/w ... kWh/y. TWh/y or TWy/y is only an extension of this. Energy is the time intergal of power. By adding per bla, bla, one clearifies over what time interval the power is intergated. By graphing kW for a household, one would see a graph looking like white noise. By graphing kWh/h, or kWh/month, one would more clearly se how the power fluctuate through the day (month or year). This can be seen here, unfortunately in Norwegian. From my point of view the original paper is the best way of expressing this matter, but with a "comment" regarding TWh vs TWy. I will make a suggestion for a new figure, hopefully tomorrow eve.

For the renewable sources, are the values given for what has been build until now or what can be built in total? KjellG (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any time. Maybe it would be helpful in the process, if you asked yourself why the author of the original diagram chose to use "terawatt-year per year", instead of the much more conventional "terawatt-hours per year". The answer is crucial for grasping the concept of the drawing. Also, I recommend to double-check with the diagram's extensive description. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of December 2015, unfortunately, I haven't received a feed-back from you, KjellG. But I noticed, that you instead removed the diagram we discussed above from the articles Solar energy and Renewable energy about two weeks ago. I have now reverted your removal and posted a comment on the talk page of the latter article. Please feel free to post your reply there, OK? This thread is now closed for consistency reasons, as it would be otherwise difficult for other editors to follow our conversation chronologically. Thx -- Rfassbind – talk 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nrwairport (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I added a clarification on Talk:International_Astronomical_Union#WGPSN_Redirect_proposed_for_deletion. You're welcome to join on this new section and write about it. That would be helpful. Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 11:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfassbind, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfassbind. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you look at WP:Overlink it also says that we "do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on." That's a huge error on these articles. If it was one or two I would simply correct it, but I started to do that and realized there are hundreds and hundreds of links that simply go back to the same page. That can't happen and it needs to be fixed. If they don't have an article those minor planets need to be de-linked... all of them. That's why the tag is there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've been busy. Thanks. I'm sure there are a lot more of those articles that need it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If the hatnote(s) had mentioned "self-redirects", then this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened. By now, I have removed these detrimental links to minor planet articles up to IAU-number 100,000, i.e all self-redirects are now removed from the first 100 main lists, starting with List of minor planets/1–1000. More to follow. Rfassbind – talk 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the lists have all self-redirects removed up to IAU-number 200,000 (also see List of minor planets § Main index). From there on, subpages are no longer used. It will therefore need a modified algorithm to run checks and remove self-redirects. Hope that was informative and all the best, -- Rfassbind – talk 10:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something went wrong when you moved these old, improperly named minor planets:

to their correct, new destination, which excludes the "()". The history of the old pages did not get transferred to the new, so it will be harder for someone attempting to revert the new destination to make a proper article. I've put a note in my latest edit summaries to the new pages to identify this, but that's definitely not something we want to do on a large scale. And I put a comment inside the old to not categorize them, since they would then be duplicated in each of their categories.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, thx for spotting this. As far as I see nothing went wrong with the moves I made, because I never moved any (num) name articles. I always moved the redirected articles from their provisional to their formal designation. For the minor planet 5680 Nasmyth (1989 YZ1), which you listed above, I took a closer look:

There are three pages (they are all redirects, pointing to the "List of minor planets"):

• (5680) 1989 YZ1 – Merovingian created this article in 2010, when body still had no name.
• (5680) Nasmyth – was created by a move from provisional by user Charles Dutilleul on 6 September 2014. This version was later redircted by Tom.Reding on 22 April 2015 to the list of minor planets. This move should have been reverted or renamed to correct nomenclature. Implementing a redirect on this version before fixing the nomenclature only complicated things.
• 5680 Nasmyth – was created by a move from provisional designation by Rfassbind on 30 November 2015‎

It's an unfortunate combination of different actions. As far as I see, we need to do the following:

1. transfer category info from (num) name to num name versions, which, for the example above, you already did.
2. Adding several templates to all pages with the wrong (num) name designation, which, for the example above, you already did, as well as adding a do-not-categorize-this-page comment on the bottom. However, I would rather prefer to entirely delete such pages. For several reasons I'll explain in detail if you disagree, deleting seems a better and much simpler solution to me. What you think?

The final question is "how to avoid this naming chaos?". As long as there are people, who move pages to the wrong "(number) name" nomenclature, with no one fixing it, while others continue to work on such wrong versions, these problems are prone to appear from time to time. After all I created (moved from provisional designation) the article 5680 Nasmyth because it simply did not exist. I noticed this when I revised the "List of minor planets" (removing self-redirects). On that list, the article with the provisional was linked, so I updated the list adding the name and moved the redirecting page from provisional to final designation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, because, on the circumstances described above, I will do exactly the same actions in my future revision over and over again. Thx -- Rfassbind – talk 09:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iiiii seeee. As I was fixing up those 24, I saw a semi-automated move-message and assumed it was from the ones I was fixing.

What I will do (and what I think we should do) in the future is: the next time we find a misnamed MP with less than a paragraph of useful info on the page, or with an infobox, to do a copy-move (temporarily un-redirect the properly named MP, paste in the useful info from the improperly named MP, then re-redirect the properly named MP and follow your rules #1 and #2). This is what I did on 3962 Valyaev. Normally, copy-moves aren't allowed b/c the history isn't preserved, but 1) who cares for a sub-stubs, 2) there won't be many like this, 3) there's no meaningful info in prior revisions worth saving.

Ideally, we should look for, and move, only the best available doppelganger, if possible. Otherwise, the copy-move is an ad-hoc, after-the-fact fix.

I've tried to delete these duplicate redirects recently, but failed. The only solution is to apply the <!-- To avoid duplication, do not categorize this page. --> note and remove all cats, unfortunately :/   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, just on a quick note: we need to address the issue of double-redirects based on missing whitespaces and/or using parenthesis. This is seriously detrimental to the entire project and they must be deleted. Those who want to keep them do not understand.-- Rfassbind – talk 16:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I also came across this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(90762) 1993 TV3, from October 2013. Another example of well-meant bad ideas, this time on the other extreme (deleting named bodies). Rfassbind – talk 11:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about deleting the doppelgangers, and in my RfD I was explicit on how and why these redirects were a nuisance and shouldn't be treated like every other redirect on Wikipedia. Almost all Keep votes were from non-WP:AST editors, of course. The solution, though, is doing the housecleaning above so that we effectively never "see" them, which isn't that bad of a solution (but not ideal, of course).

I don't really care if pages get redirected or deleted IF they only contain data already on a JPL/MP databases. Otherwise, I prefer redirection (plus redirection is just faster and less controvertial).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfassbind,

could you check something for me? I just wanted to create an article Walddrehna Solar Park for the German wikipedia, when I noticed a problem. After having done some research, I think that this solar farm and the Solarpark Heideblick are in fact the same solar farm. It seems to me that the latter has been created when there was only one part of the farm connected to the grid and then there has been created another article about the complet farm some month later. I'm not absolutely sure, so I would like you to confirm that. Maybe helpful: [1]. There's also another link, however the spam filter got active and prevented it. Also Google Earth does only show one solar farm in Heideblick. Greetings, Andol (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andol, sure, I'll look into it but it may take a few days. Plz feel free to post an update here if you find any additional information in the meantime. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 09:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfass. I didn't know about this #R template until an administrator closed the RfD on 12817Federica 3 weeks ago. I didn't see until 2 weeks later that it's actually used on over 1.2 M redirects... So it's kind of a big deal and is being used by the community (unlike Category:Minor planet redirects, unfortunately). Now I include ((R unprintworthy)) when I make and/or fix existing #Rs. I see you've removed it on 20624 Dariozanetti and possibly others, though. I just want to let you know so we're not working against each other. Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T, for several reasons, I don't think it's a good idea to add a "R unprintworthy" to all Minor Planet #REDIRECTs. I think this was the only time I came across that template in the many manual edits I did, so you're basically introducing a new template, which is detrimental to the overall consistency of the project. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 07:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency's important, I love consistency, and that's what I'm ultimately aiming for as well. However, just because something is consistent doesn't mean it's adequate. There should be a relatively high bar to pass before adding something to all MP #Rs, and I don't see why this would be below that, but I welcome your thoughts.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and of course, I will amend my tool to incorporate this new template as soon as possible in order to be consistent with your future edits. Rfassbind – talk 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done moving pages out of Category:Palomar–Leiden survey into the discoveries categories above. Of the 73 that remain, 19 get flagged by my code as having a WP name != JPL name. In this case, the WP name has diacritics while the JPL name does not. I've seen you moving pages around to and/or from diacritics, so could you move these pages to ones without diacritics too?

After that's resolved, my code will distinguish between, and move PLS discoveries (asteroids with "P-L" on JPL) to Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey, and PLS known-objects (the 54 asteroids without "P-L" on JPL, like 6671 Concari) into Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog (tentatively named, and only after double checking that 6671, and others, are indeed part of the catalog). Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey will of course be a child of both Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog and Category:Discoveries by institution, and I'll put wording in there not to duplicate.

Here's the list of WP diacritics in PLS cats that need to be moved to non-diacritical names, per JPL:

Let me know if you don't have the time to move these, and I'll take care of them instead. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this problem is better than I thought.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, most of these names with diacritics are correct. I will respond on the WTAstro thread you linked above. As for the discoveries by PLS, I've decided to withdraw and leave the field to you so we don't clash with different approaches. BR, Rfassbind – talk 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote:

1. Just because a minor planet has a "P-L"-designation, doesn't make it automatically a discovery by PLS. I think I saw more than one case where this was erroneously assumed.
2. On wikipedia the term provisional instead of preliminary designation is generally used. (→Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids)
3. I presume your recently renamed category Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey does not include the discoveries from the Palomar–Leiden Trojan survey campaigns such as 12163 Manilius (3013 T-2). Until a category with a sort key instruction for these bodies has been created, I'll ignore it.

My comments on each point:

1. I'm thinking of using JPL and the MPC in the following way: if JPL has a P-L designation, I will assume a discovery (the vast majority of these will be true, so exceptions can be handled on a case-by-base basis); if MPC has "PLS####" for those without a JPL P-L, then those are extremely likely (if not 100%) to be non-discoveries; if neither MPC nor JPL have PLS or P-L, respectively, then I'll strip the unnecessary categories from the page. If you know of a better solution, please let me know.
2. I'll change this to reflect that.
3. I'm going to wait until after I've finished with the main survey to go after the Trojan campaigns. Otherwise I'm coding too much at once, and errors are more likely.

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to recognizing discoveries by PLS as long as you check the provisional designation displayed in the parenthesis of the title of JPL's website. I came across this legacy-problem. (As multiple "institutional" discoverers do not exists). Also, for the PLS category, the Category:Discoveries by Tom Gehrels should always be added (there are, however, 2 discoveries credited to the van Houten's without Tom Gehrels – if you know/find out their designation, pls let me know). Note, that I created the categories Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-1 survey, Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-2 survey and Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-3 survey, since, on second thought, I otherwise would have to re-visit newly created redirects, as I've already done extensively due to the "R unprintworthy" template and the "Minor planet redirects"-category. Rfassbind – talk 13:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found one! 2947 Kippenhahn.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my code isn't bidirectional—it maps JPL discoverer names to WP categories and would need major reworking to change. There are ~1,000 JPL variants to the ~400 Category:Discoveries by institution & Category:Discoveries by astronomer. Running this in reverse would only be useful if a complete list of JPL's discoverer name variants was available. Otherwise, each cat removal has to be looked at manually. Presumably, the # of misplaced discoverer cats is small, so I could go through the MPs again, once I've collected as many variants as I could, and see roughly how many there are. This doesn't apply to 13327 Reitsema though.

I'm not sure how to handle 13327 Reitsema and others like it. The best way I can come up with is to place MPC PLS objects with a provisional designation > 1970 into Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey, instead of into Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog, since the provisionals would just be rediscoveries of the PLS objects.

I don't feel comfortable adding a category that's not apparent in the DB, at least during a run where I'm transposing info from the DB to WP. I'd be much more comfortable doing so as a separate run, with a distinct edit summary (which frequently gets truncated when adding the van Houtens, + the other changes), so that searching for these changes would be easier, in case the need arises. Comparing cats afterwards will make it easy to find missing or misplaced cats if you know discoverers' relative # of discoveries.

Doing some quick cat-arithmetic (hoping, but failing, to find those 2), I see 424 pages in C. J.'s cat not in TG's, 16 uniques in TG's, and 404 common to both. These #s are identical for Ingrid's cat vs. TG's.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name variants in the JPL's displayed discovery section are really mind-boggling. Just today, I created a category for astronomer Jean Mueller, and went through 9 discoveries. I found 3 different name-variants: ... discovered "by J. E. Mueller at Palomar", "by J. Mueller at Palomar" and "by Maury and Mueller at Palomar". Not that data normalization would be something new and difficult...

However, I do not understand much of what you're saying, since I presume you somehow parse JPL's website in order to get discoverers. Or is there an API I'm not aware of? Would it be of any use to you if I provide you with a rest-API at my website to get all JPL data?

Thx for checking the van-Houten-minus-Gehrels discoveries. I'm sure by the end of the month we get a better picture. My best guess is that these two discoveries are not even related to PLS/PLTS. -- Rfassbind – talk 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no API that I know of (though I haven't looked, since I'm parsing through WP:AWB, not from some platform I have total control over). I parse JPL's front end website itself, since that's what most people will see, and it's the easiest for me to do. I use AWB's module feature, which lets you write your own C# 3.5 or VB.Net 2.0 code (string externalText = Tools.GetHTML(JPL_URL); in C# does the trick). I make the module skip pages with any unmatched authors, showing me what the unknown JPL discoverer string is. I take that string and update a spreadsheet which writes additional lines of a very long C# case-statement mapping JPL to WP, then iteratively run all the pages I skipped back through the module, gradually lowering the number of skipped pages until I'm left with a shortlist of people who've only discovered 1-2 asteroids, which I ignore.

A data dump of all of the basic asteroid info would be extremely useful (though less useful as I get closer to the end; I'm ~56% done so far). I was able to find this page of the first ~182,000 numbered MPs (~40% of all numbered MPs atm), which was enough to let me hit the ground running, but I need to expand on that to finish the marathon. Right now I'm able to map ~94% of asteroids to all of their JPL discoverers, but only after adding a lot of discoverer categories.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. I made Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-1 survey catalog, Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-2 survey catalog, and Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-3 survey catalog to hold non-discoveries, which are parents to their respective discovery cats. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to make this category to keep track of these annoying buggers, and more:

• 9964 Hideyonoguchi (WP = MPC != JPL)
• 9823 Annantalová (WP = MPC != JPL)
• 10803 Caléyo (WP = MPC != JPL)
• 10728 Vladimirfock (WP = MPC != JPL)

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. This is a very helpful comparison for revising the current status and creating aliases (I will have to map them in my online app). However, I wouldn't create a category for this, but create an alias-redirect with a template such as Template:R from modification, Template:R from alternative name, or Template:R from misspelling. What you think? As a rule of thumb, only the IAU-number at JPL matters, the name is best to be ignored...

Vladimirfok vs Vladimirfock: the reason for the discrepancies is a missing update in the JPL database. Originally, the name was published as 10728 Vladimirfok in the Minor Planet Circular 64562, and then corrected to 10728 Vladimirfock as of MPC 64683.

How far up the number did you run your comparison? Could you extend that, say up to 200,000? -- Rfassbind – talk 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just bumped into such discrepancy at 23109 Yanagisawa (JPL) vs 23109 Masayanagisawa (MPC). I used the Template:R from incorrect name instead of one of the 3 mentioned above.

Absolutely, I'll go well beyond 200,000. I'll get at least as high as 385,571 Otrera, which was the highest numbered MP in Category:Minor planets as of ~a month ago.

I want to only operate on pages which match JPL and/or the MPC, since I'm correcting sortkeys which include the name. I'll have treat these more carefully than the ones where the names match.

Yes, it would effectively be a tracking category, but I'm not sure if all spelling discrepancies are #Rs, so I'll hold off on this until I get a relatively complete list of discrepancies. I'll use Template:R from incorrect name as well, since it populates Category:Redirects from incorrect names, which only has ~3,000 members. Template:R from misspelling populates Category:Redirects from misspellings with ~23,000, which is harder to look through.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all named MPs from mid-January 2016 (I need to remake my MP list, but there probably weren't a lot of MPs created since then^{2,775...you've been busy}), I found these 14 misspellings with an extra or omitted character. 2 are articles, the other 12 are #Rs (so an ((R)) template isn't the best way to track):

• 5589 De Meis
• 8220 Nanyou
• 8277 Machu Picchu
• 8943 Stefanozavka
• 9823 Annantalová (article, though could be #R'd)
• 9964 Hideyonoguchi (article)
• 10728 Vladimirfock
• 10803 Caléyo
• 12709 Bergen op Zoom
• 14479 Plekhanov
• 16596 Stephenstrauss
• 21500 Vazquez
• 38086 Beowulf
• 51655 Susannemond

I found these 4 lesser discrepancies, which swap MPC's hyphens for WP's en dashes (WP consensus is for the en dash, regardless of JPL & MPC designations), or use a special character name (all are articles except Reißfelder):

• 4015 Wilson–Harrington
• 7968 Elst–Pizarro
• 79360 Sila–Nunam
• 30851 Reißfelder (JPL=ss, WP=MPC=ß)

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Tom, for the JPL/MPC comparison. As you know probably know, I did a check on Wikipedias Minor planet list versus their corresponding MPC's lists (i.e. Discovery Circumstances: Numbered Minor Planets, such as (1)-(5000) and (5001)-(10000)).

1. As the Minor Planet Center has different lists and views, with contradicting names displayed, I need to know what source(s) you are using at the MPC website (URL). Otherwise we might reach different conclusions.
2. As for the hyphens vs. en dashes, yes, that's a wiki convention, but that shouldn't apply to the P-L designations themselves, as in 6344 P-L. Long story short: I asked the guy who changed P-L into PL-dash versions a few weeks ago for his rationale, but haven't yet noticed any response).
3. As far a I can see, for all mentioned cases, an additional redirect-alias is the best way to go (either created directly or by a move/rename). Do you agree? Rfassbind – talk 08:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you take care of the diacritics. I Latinize all diacritics, then check the name with JPL and flag any discrepancies for investigation, which yielded my list above (I should clarify what the JPL and MPC versions for each are). This is before going through the additional 2,775 MPs that were made, but I have a feeling they're essentially pristine :)

For #1: whenever I say JPL, I use this link for the SBDB search. Whenever I say MPC, I use this link. Are these effectively identical or effectively different to what you use?

For #2: I agree, though someone could make the argument that it's short for Palomar–Leiden, which, yeah, it is, but it's a designation 1st, an initialism 2nd, and something you'd say as its full name 3rd, or never. You could ask WT:ASTRO what the consensus is (I'd first assume that it's what exists, but I could be wrong).

For #3: Ideally, I would like to see ((R from JPL discrepancy with MPC)) or ((R from JPL/MPC discrepancy)) or something similar, but that might be too specific, or maybe not. I'm really not sure, but I'll look into it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  05:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Tom. About JPL vs MPC sources for names: Here are two explicit examples:

• For (2000) Herschel, 2000 Herschel
  • JPL – http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2012638, using the SPK-ID shown in the view (essentially a left, 2 + n-Zero-padded, seven-digit string)
  • MPC – http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=2000 using the object view with the plain IAU-number as "object_id" parameter value
  • So it looks we're on the same page. However, when using the MPC-form you posted, an additional parameter: utf8=✓ is added to the query url (example). This may or may not change the result from the version I use. Although I don't think so, I need to run some checks to be sure.
• For (12638) Fransbrüggen, 12638 Fransbrüggen
  • MPC by plain IAU-number gives: see here. Using the your posted search form and entering the minor planet's name ("Fransbrüggen") does not work and renders an Error "Unknown object: Fransbrüggen".

It seems that the MPC is too much of a chicken to really address the issue. Instead, they offer different versions, without being explicit. Well I won't go too much into detail, so:

1. the MPC object view serves as first iteration for all diacritical names. Exceptions must be mapped (handled by our applications)
2. the ASCII-name versions at JPL that do not match the ASCII-version at MPC must be mapped as well.

On wikipedia, for non-diacritical-aliases, e.g. 12638 Fransbruggen, it seems helpful to reference their correct diacritical version 12638 Fransbrüggen, as they both are redirected to the list of minor planets. That's why I add the "((R avoided double redirect|12638 Fransbrüggen))" to keep the connection. The issue for the three different types of apostrophes and hypen/enDash versions are only partially handeled.

Note: I will use Template:R from incorrect name for wrong names on JPL (uncorrected erratas of first MPC circular publication) until you tell me a different tpl.

Question: Is it correct to remove the cat "Main-belt asteroids" when there is a category such as "Flora asteroids"? (I saw a few changes). Please tell me / give me a link, so I don't need to do corrections. Also, the sort key for the Category:Minor planet redirects is probably the ASCII version of the article's name, not the article's name itself (as it say in your description), correct? Pls let me know, and if you have made up your mind, you could tell me whether you prefer uppper-case on the sort-key's first letter only or not. Thx Rfassbind – talk 09:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that into the Category:Main-belt asteroids text because not doing that results in overcategorization, especially with such a large category. I took the wording from another similar category (can't recall which one).

Yes, the sortkey should be the Latinized verzion of the name, and apostrophes can be used (') as long as they're not the 2nd character in the key (all of the details are listed in WP:SORTKEY). I updated Category:Minor planet redirects text with this.

The first letter should match the page, even if lowercase.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with the MPC db on this, the Julian day#Variants section, and Epoch (astronomy), which all use DMY/YMD/variants to refer to epoch, and the large number as the JD. I'm making a program to update ((Infobox planet)) orbital parameters from JPL (since I've lost access to the MPC) and will likely adopt MPC (and our) notation (JPL is often not as careful as the MPC, as we all know!).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, thanks on getting back on this. Indeed, I recently started to swap the data displayed in the infobox from (e.g. Lecus):

• from Epoch 13 January 2016 (JD 2457400.5)
• to    Epoch 2457400.5 · JD 13 January 2016

after I saw someone making this amendment. I have assumed this was correct and that I had made a systematic error in hundreds of my previous edits. Now I see that MPC displays "epoch JD 2457400.5".

Are you saying that the infobox should rather read:

• Epoch JD 2457400.5 (13 January 2016)"?

Fortunately, I only changed an additional 5 articles so far. What do you mean with losing access to MPC? Sorry, I'm currently pretty consumed by my running tasks on wikipedia, that I do get to read anything else on the talk pages. --Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 22:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• |epoch=13 January 2016 ([[Julian day|JD]] 2457400.5) is how the first 15 MPs do it (with the exception of 3 Juno), so I will most likely base my code off of that. I'm still going to look through a larger sample of low-numbered MPs (maybe 30-50 total) before deciding, but this is definitely the standard so far.

And check my last msg here for my problems with the MPC, heh.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Tom, that's the format currently used in most articles. But is it correct? I thought you suggested a different format something else, or didn't you? As for the access problem, you do not really access that database, do you? You do, just as I do, do http-requests to the webserver, don't you? With JPL I almost daily have connection errors/failed http request. But I think that's not related to me and the number of request I'm doing, but has to do with internal processes. As for the MPC website, I never had any problems, yet did not make thousands of requests per hour as you did. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they logged the http user requests and set a limit. -- , Rfassbind – talk 00:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the correct format that I was referring to that matches the MPC, Epoch (astronomy), and Julian day#Variants.

At my peak, I was making between 3000-3600 http requests/hour (0.8~1/sec), and I've cycled through all the 25k-ish MPs several times as my set of things-to-correct grew (from finding more and more discrepancies, and developing more sophisticated checks). I guess that was too much... Thing is, I was doing twice that with JPL before I started using the MPC, and no problems (except for their sporadic interruptions).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it here: User:Tom.Reding/List of JPL & MPC discoverer aliases, in case it's of any use.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While going through and updating MPs' infobox data from JPL, I'm finding some inconsistencies in color (I thought all MPs were |background=#FFFFC0). For the inconsistent ones, I looked back to see how long they had been a different color and saw you were involved with most of the ones I've come across (only a narrow sample at the moment). I also vaguely recall someone talking about developing a color scheme for MPs (was it you?). Do you know the result of that discussion, and should I or shouldn't I be using |background=#FFFFC0 for all infoboxes? Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The color-schme is the starting point and central part of what I am doing on wikipedia on a daily basis for the last 6 months. I'm surprised how little this has impacted your infobox edits so far. Rfassbind – talk 15:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Well I think that discussion happened and got archived while I was still on wikibreak (I found it in Archive 21). I've only update infobox data for ~10% of MP articles, and I've skipped the ones with a different color (1-5 might've been changed before I noticed). I have been changing |bgcolour= (deprecated) to |background=, and I've only added the default color to uncolored infoboxes (checking & coding for the color scheme, however, doesn't sound enjoyable to me so I'll leave that to you).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-29925-7_6276, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, it seems that my entire edit labelled "overall revision" is now strikethrough in the edit history. The removed content is not copied directly from the copyright web page (Springer.com): The removed content is a citation of the Minor Planet Circular, of the IAU/MPC, prepared by the name giving astronomers, mostly the discoverer themselves. If you compare it to the official MPC citation, you can see that my edit does not contain any of specific modifications made in the Dictionary of Minor Planets (copyrighted Springer source), but that the publishing house (Springer) shows a virtually verbatim version of the Circular. I would have very much appreciated if you had modified the few remaining verbatim sentences from the original MPC publication or simply asked for clarification. Instead my entire edit, which is 10 times larger than the removed content, is no longer visible, giving me no longer the chance to verify if you correctly re-added the other 90%. This is disturbing and inefficient. It also very disencouraging. Thank you very much, indeed. --Rfassbind – talk 23:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=7092 is also marked as being copyright, so you can't copy from there either. The content you added matched that website as well. These descriptions have to be re-written in your own words, not copied verbatim. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your addition to 5028 Halaesus has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material from here to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you've got some evidence that these descriptions are in the public domain, please present it. The Springer page is clearly marked as being copyright. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally getting down to the finer details of MPs' infobox standardization:

1. I've been unicodifying   to its unicode character, but the unicode char is harder to see and/or confirm that it's there, so I'm going to go back and un-unicodify back to  .
   1. While I'm doing this, I'm thinking that it's also a good idea for me to put   between all numbers/values and their <ref>/((efn))s, as long as   or   exist anywhere in the infobox are used between values and <ref>/((efn))s at least 40% of the time in the infobox. This is all written down on the code page, points 2.4 and 2.5.
2. I've noticed that using | observation_arc = ((nowrap|### yr (#### days))) has no effect on the rendered infobox, so I'm not using ((nowrap)). I think it was used as a legacy work-around, back when/before |width= was deprecated. The infobox now does a good job of managing its width.
   1. The only way it can effect the width is with many trailing  s. Testing this on a few MP infoboxes with many, many parameters, I actually do like the trailing-  option, since it effectively removes whitespace between the name of the parameters on the left and the parameter values on the right, without changing the width of the infobox (until a certain threshold is crossed). I have seen that being done. Were you involved with that? If so, what did you use as your desired infobox width and what method(s) did you use to calculate the width of the existing text? I'll probably be able to replicate that in C#, since there are functions to calculate the width of rendered text; I just don't know if they'll work in AWB yet (dependencies, etc.).
      1. Come to think of it, it's better if this is done on a static display-parameter like |discovered= since it will never need to be updated. I'll put a comparison together in my userspace and see if there's any support for it. (Discussion here) Taken care of via the new parameter |label_width=.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. The vast majority of MPs between 2-100 don't use commas in their displayed values, so I'm also excluding them (i.e. for |observation_arc= & |period=).
4. For |period=, I've been wikilinking d to Julian year (astronomy), since the best description of a Julian day as used here, that I could find, is in the lead of Julian year (astronomy).

What do you think about these?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I get back to you as soon as I have finished checking all naming citations. Rfassbind – talk 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am nominating template:source for discussion. Apparently you used the template meant for template:code. Can you change from ((source)) to ((code))? I appreciate that. By the way, I invite you to the discussion at TfD. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

changed tpl "source" to "code" in order to avoid error messages on this talk page. Rfassbind – talk 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5254 Ulysses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This MP desperately needs your help!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Tom. I reinstalled the redirection for 55196 Marchini, as there is no physical information available, apart from being a named outer main-belt asteroid. To the anon editor 80.116.253.132, who started the article, I'd like to say thank you, but unfortunately, this article better remains a redirect (there are 10,000 other redirects for which an equal amount of information is available). Here's a selection of more notable minor planets which needs attention (revisions or rewrites). If you want to, you may try one of those and I'll be glad to help you as good as I can. Best regards, Rfassbind – talk 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with that page. I am a real novice to Wikipedia so I really appreciated your input.Jamaica solar (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I'll do my best with Solar power in Jamaica. Rfassbind – talk 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent edits have been done to this page that, seem to me to introduce inconsistencies in the layout. In particular, the table of "Top countries for 2015" would be better placed under the sub heading "Deployment by Country" and follow the pattern of subsequent years. I would attempt it but, being a novice and seeing where many of the edits in 2015 were done by you, I would prefer to defer to your expertise. I notice also that most, if not all the forecasts for 2016 are now out so, the forecast section appears a little outdated. Again I would do some updates but, do not have the confidence that I would do as good a job as you have done.Jamaica solar (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for letting me know. I'm happy that others have edited this article. I'll check it out as soon as I can and try to reinstall consistency. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something is weird and possibly broken in your post on my talkpage. If I try to respond as I normally would I seem to break it and my text gets put in the middle. What sorcery is this?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for causing trouble. I removed all templates/ wikitable from my post on your talk page. When opening your entire talk page in the edit-view, the syntax highlighting is different from the very top your page (i.e. regular text is not supposed to be highlighted, but on your page, it is). Hope it works now. Otherwise just cut/paste my post to here, OK? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 09:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I'm thinking about moving the newest table header

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="min-width: 80%;"
! colspan=2 | Designation
! colspan=2 | Discovery
! rowspan=2 | [[:Category:Discoverers of minor planets|Discoverer(s)]]
! rowspan=2 class="unsortable" | Ref
|-
! style="min-width: 100px;" | [[Minor planet designation|Permanent]]
! style="min-width: 60px;" | [[Provisional designation in astronomy|Provisional]]
! [[:Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery|Date]]
! [[:Category:Minor-planet discovering observatories|Site]]

into ((List of minor planets/header2)) so it's easier to mass-update and should save ~4.5 kB from the edit window. This'll probably impact your discoverers update, so let me know if you want me to hold off.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the advantages. I think you can start whenever you want to. Note, however that the links for Site and Discoverer(s) were revised in the table header. I can continue my edits unaffected by your changes and if we cross with an edit-conflict I wouldn't be bothered. Thx for letting me know. Rfassbind – talk 14:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still useful to have some basic bottom-navigation on the LOMP & MOMPN pages (especially since you're filling out each LOMP to its intended size (1000)). I've seen editors add meanings-info to the numbered list instead of the meanings-list, so having a meanings-link in the ==See also== & ((MinorPlanetListFooter)) is ok by me. The footer also provides a link back to the master index. For ultimate redundancy, maybe we can add your "Back to top" button to the footer template?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My revision of pLOMP-footers was done in April for the first 200 pages

• comment (merging 10 subpages into main list (10×100→1000)

and now I'm also doing it on the pages above 200k, which never had subpages. I never considered a bottom navigation (especially to a different series of partial list) useful at all, because clicking on any bottom-nav link will lead to the top of any target page. Instead I have 2 different ideas/proposals, maybe you'd like to comment on them:

1. The back-to-top link (btt-lnk), as you just mentioned. I would propose, however, to use such btt-lnk on each end of section, not just on the pages footer (where it also could be placed in addition). Now, since you have added a ((List of minor planets/header2)) to each 100-items table on the entire series, it would be much easier to implement it. The idea is to add the btt-lnk as the first line in the template's content (see example below). If the template had a "do-not-show-back-to-top-link=yes"- parameter type of option the first table header of the page could be prevented to display a back-to-top-link.
2. A toggler-link: if we wanted to tidily relate pLOMP with the corresponding entries on "meanings" why not add a link on both type of partial lists that point to one another? I think the table-header, again, would be a candidate location to place such a "toggler"-link. But linking corresponding sections (potentially of 100 entries) may still be somewhat unclear. So, alternatively, a specific link for each named MPs could be added (there are 20,000 named MPs for which a toggling could be added). This however would lead to an additional a new table-column for the toggle link, and in most cases (448,000 out of 468,000) the cell would be empty though.

''example of a back-to-top link, placed in the header of each section (equivalent to a version where the link is actually part of the "header2" template)
== 420901–421000 ==
((Anchor|901))
((float|[[#top|back to top]] [[File:WWC arrow up.png|link=#top]]))
((clear|right))
((List of minor planets/header2))
|-

What's your take on this, Tom? Rfassbind – talk 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is the best navigation of course, so if there are plentiful btt-links then that's probably good enough to do away with the less-functional ((MinorPlanetListFooter)).

1. I like this idea, but prefer something simpler like |top-link=no.
2. ((See also)) at the top would do the trick. For the LOMPs I think I can seamlessly add it to ((List of minor planets/intro)) without editing any list pages. The MOMPNs are a different story.
   I'm not a fan of adding a mostly-empty column (nor a column that appears only for ranges for which it is non-empty, which is another "solution"). Two 'meanings' links, one at the top and another on the bottom, is good for now I think.

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Since you introduced templates, changes only need to be done once; and we always can modify it as we go along.

• Referencing MOMPNs at the top in ((List of minor planets/intro)) seems the best solution, especially since it also has the needed page-parameter to construct a link to the corresponding pMOMPN. Rather than a ((See also)) hatnote, I would prefer a textual cross-reference, such as "This is a partial list of numbered minor planets, running from 268001 through 269000, inclusive. See List of minor planets § Main index for a list of all such partial lists. Also see the corresponding Meanings of minor planet names: 268001–269000 for details on any named body in this range." because if the corresponding MOMPN-list does not exists, it would display a redlink, which a hatnote should not have.
• As for the "back-to-top" link, please do what you think best. We later might format and amend the CSS of the link/table header, so that it looks OK in any browser and on any zoom-level.
• Thinking about MOMPN, it actually nothing else than a List of named minor planets. Don't you agree? It's just that it doesn't show any discovery information (such as in LOMP), but only its naming cite with no other information (such as in an existing article). The more I think about MOMPN, the less it seems helpful to try to make a "close" connection between LOMP and MPMPN, because, since you added the ((MPCdb)) to each item in LOMP, the naming citations are just one click away. (The only exception are the lowest-numbered MPs, which are not cited in MPC's object view).
• Also, there is no Category:Named minor planets. The MPC in MPC Archive Statistics (section "Orbits And Names") says that there are 20,071 named minor planet (out of a total of 469,275 numbered ones), which suggests a split-up into several possible subcats, such as:
  • Category:Named near-Earth objects with subcats for Apollo, Amor and Aten
  • Category:Named Mars-crossers
  • Category:Named main-belt asteroids
  • Category:Named Jupiter-trojans
  • Category:Named centaurs
  • Category:Named trans-Neptunian objects

I'm a fan of large and complete rather than fragmented but incomplete categories, so a single "Category:Named minor planets" would be fine by me. Also, I created MP#R for all named bodies, this category would be complete (and in fact would help to spot any missing items). What is your thought on this.Rfassbind – talk 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good to me, and I'll get to the smaller changes soon. Category:Named minor planets needs some caveating, but in a good/useful way b/c it will help us force a standard onto the Category:Minor planets hierarchy one way or another. Here's my internal thought process:

1. Since Category:Named minor planets is similar in intent to Category:Numbered minor planets, it should also not contain #Rs, lest it become what no one wanted Category:Numbered minor planets to be (a place for all numbered MPs, article and #R).
2. Category:Minor planets named for people has 10.5k members, most of them #Rs. Do we remove those #Rs to conform to Category:Numbered minor planets? No, that'd be silly since 1) it's not a direct child of Category:Minor planets, and 2) keeping Category:Numbered minor planets pristine (no #Rs) is useful b/c all named MPs are also numbered, so we have a reliable method (cat-arithmetic) to separate all the #Rs from non-#Rs in the Category:Minor planets by source of name tree. (I think I'll add this to Category:Numbered minor planets's description so it's more clear - whether or not this was the original intent I'm not sure, but it is quite useful!)
3. We can apply point 2. to Category:Named minor planets, giving a good reason to include both #Rs and articles in it, nullifying point 1..
4. Now we just need to figure out the best place to put Category:Named minor planets—directly under Category:Minor planets seems best, so it doesn't interfere with Category:Minor planets by source of name and so that it compliments Category:Numbered minor planets and Category:Unnumbered minor planets.

I'll let that stew for a bit before notifying WT:AST.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. Sorry, your comments above are a bit too compressed and or contain premises I can't follow. I reiterate to see if we're on the same page or not:

1. Categories "Named minor planets" is about the 20,000 named MPs, while "Numbered minor planets" (aka "Articles about minor planets") is about articles only. They are two different things: the former should contain MP#Rs, that latter must not. They may co-exists in an article. That would be perfectly fine.
2. Category:Minor planets named for people has 10.5k members, yes, but that not bad, since there are further subcats that can be created (e.g. I already mentioned "named for astronomer" once). In addition there is a "named for awards" category, which is another subcat containing students form the ISEF and others. Last but not least Kheider mentioned once something like a "celebrity" category (maybe "Forbes" magazine would be a useful source here). All in all there are many possible subcats for "Minor planets named for people", so I (unfortunately) do not understand what's your reasoning in #2.
3. Consequently, I cannot follow this. Sorry.
4. I think I understand. Since "Numbered minor planet" is not what its name says (as mentioned in #1), then "Named minor planets" cannot be a subcat of it (which otherwise it would naturally be). "Named minor planets" can also not be a part of "Minor planets by source of name". So I agree that "Named minor planets" needs to be directly in the root of Minor planets (at least for now). The important question is the sorting for "Named minor planets". I think it should be by name and not by number (both are possible).

I hope this made sense. Since, I trust your judgement, I'm sure it's certainly going to be an improvement. Of course posting on WT:AST may give an additional backup (next to mine) for any changes you make, but I'm not so sure how many people are still familiar with the intrinsic categorization issue. Best Rfassbind – talk 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to preempt what I thought could be a possible objection to, or issue with, Category:Named minor planets; I should have just boiled it down.

I'll clarify my point #2 in Category:Numbered minor planets's description soon.  Done

Agree, Category:Named minor planets should be sorted by name.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see.

• As far as I remember, the renaming of "Category:Numbered minor planets" (which is a duplication of LOMP and therefor not really useful) to something like "Minor planet articles" was criticized by Hunster calling it a "meta-category". I haven't done much digging into this subject and whether there are any guidelines about it, as my motivation for changes is always based on my experience I gather while working intensively on the minor planet topic. I think this is also true for you.
• As for the "Category:Named minor planets", I have no idea what the objections might be. I only know that there are quite a few people on wikipedia, that are neither familiar with the current status of the project nor are interested in improving it. In fact, communicating intended changes only begs for objections from editors that wouldn't even notice otherwise, while, on the other hand, some wikipedians have made large but incomplete (and therefore inconsistent) changes in the MP-categorizations with no one ever objecting (examples are Category:Asteroid spectral classes and the ((DEFAULTSORT)) in MP articles).
• Current status: good job on adding the "back to top" link" / amending header2-template with param on the LOMP. I'm currently revising the CS1-errors in accessdate and biographies about astronomers linked in List of minor planet discoverers. As soon as I'm finished I will start on a revised version of List of observatory codes (identical to IAU codes), so that the LOMP-column "Discovery site" can be systematically revised the same way as I did with LOMP's discovering astronomers/institutions. After this, I plan to do an overall revision of the main page of List of minor planets (see working version here) and to colorize the LOMP-tables. In parallel to these tasks, I'm working on the minor planet object articles and on any other unexpected "complication" that might pop-up in the meantime.

Hope that wasn't too long to read. Best, 10:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Btt-links are  Partly done; only missing the bottom-most btt-link on each page. I'd like the btt to be within a template so it's easily changable, but I also don't want to make a special template just for it (unless that's the only option). The easiest/nicest thing I can think of is making ((List of minor planets/See also)), which has the btt right before the see also section header, and creates the auto-generated link (or links) to the corresponding meanings' page(s).

I like your User:Rfassbind/Minor planet list index#Index section; it's ~twice as compact as the current List of minor planets#Main index and easier to read.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btt-links now  Done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rfassbind, Thank you for your initial input on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#Category:Asteroids named as an award. Obviously you care a lot about this topic and I'm assuming good faith here. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While my wording in the post was poor (as this is unfortunately far too often the case), I can assure you that my selection of notified editors was not biased. In fact, I called each and every expert on the topic I could think of. There are only a handful of them, and I know them from WT:AST and based on the articles' and categories edit history (not because I know them well personally). They may or may not agree with me (or may not even care), but they need to know of this discussion since they should know best. Now, since I notified all experts and this little warning-icon above is rather intimidating, it is probably best for me to stop here. Thanks for letting me know about WP:Canvassing. Best, Rfassbind – talk 02:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bad English. One of the two transwiki go in German wiki at the voice "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuneo_Niijima": this it's right or not? 84.253.136.14 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno! Scusa mi italiano è poco sviluppato, ma credo che posso provare. Per questo astronomo giapponese la informazioni è bastante simile en varios wikitesti:

• List of minor planet discoverers#T. Niijima
• de:Tsuneo Niijima, it:Tsuneo Niijima, Tsuneo Niijima

A qual differenze su domanda fare riferimento?

• a) Asteroidi scoperti? – Il totale è 32 (29+2+1), → MPC discoverers
• b) Amatoriale ou professionale? – non ne sono sicuro → MPC for (5507) Niijima. Solo en la versione tedesco Tsuneo Niijima è considerato un astronomo amatoriale. Può essere ser la discrepanza?
• c) Il riposo della informazione (per esempio la data di nascita) mi sembra identico.

Saluti, Rfassbind – talk 09:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The voice "List of minor planet discoverers" as said the title is a (beautiful) list of discovers, Ok? If you click in Russian you go in, I suppose, the same list in Russian, but if you click on German you go only at the voice of ONE asteroid discover, that of Japonese Tsuneo Niijima. There is a big difference between a list of discovers and an unique discover. My question then is: do exist really in German Wiki a list of asteroid discovers or not? Best greetings. 84.253.136.14 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I removed the transwiki link to de:Tsuneo Niijima from the footer of List of minor planet discoverers. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 10:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, now there is the same problem with Spanish transwiki: "Antonio Garrigós Sánchez" (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Garrig%C3%B3s_S%C3%A1nchez). 84.253.136.14 (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was said several times in the first CfD that "it will be populated in the near future", and that the CfD was recently relisted, I'm willing to populate it as a means of potentially swaying votes to the keep side. Do you have, or can you make, a list of asteroids named as an award and I (or you, or we) can populate it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post an (incomplete) list on my project page tonight and ping you here, when I'm done with the first batch. Rfassbind – talk 19:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding::  Done, I created a list of about 200 items: "Batch A" consists of 2 groups. They include the mentors of the awardees (as I consider them as being "awarded" as well). Rfassbind – talk 21:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you easily identify which ones are of mentors of the awardees? I don't think this category needs any more unwanted attention, since categorizing mentors would raise some flags, especially since more-eyes-than-normal are on this cat. We can add in mentors later, I just want to properly populate the cat for now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Well. The JPL discoverer text contains the word "mentored". I use my documentation I made for the creation of non-existing redirects. Next to each listed MP#R there is an external link "[r]" to my webtool , which displays JPL's citation, e.g. for 30149 Kellyriedell → r. Do you want me to go through the list one more time and remove the "mentors" (they mostly come in clusters)?

Yes, please, as long as it's not too much trouble. If it is, you can send me the documentation and I can have a go at it with regex and/or excel.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll remove them and let you know. By the way, my "documentation" is on wikipedia.Rfassbind – talk 23:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding::  Done the "mentors" are now separated from the finalist/awardees. See Batch A and B. They contain close to 400 items in total. As far as I'm concerned, the mentors could be placed into a subcategory of the awardees (and they themselves into a ISEF / Broadcom MASTERS subcategory later). Rfassbind – talk 00:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Category populated with 303 additional awardees from batch A & B.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Category populated with 64 additional awardees from batch C & D.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added new items to list Batch E and F (+26 finalists; +1 mentor). Rfassbind – talk 14:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Category populated with 26 additional awardees from batch E & F Rfassbind – talk 10:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just voted below you in a CFD. I use this syntax highlighter, and your signature caused it to highlight everything below your signature, making the highlighting useless. Could you please move the opening <em> to the beginning of your signature? The highlighter expects html tags and link markup to be closed in the reverse order they are opened. Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Indeed, the tags were not properly nested in relation to the wiki-link markup. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 10:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rfassbind, your signature caused problems at the RfD page for Margaret Bandele Olayinka. All entries below this entry were not able to load their Wikipedia:XFDcloser gadget menus. After I removed the <em> tags, it worked. Jay (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Jay, for bringing that to my attention. I replaced the <em> with an old-fashioned <i> tag in my user profile. That should resolve all issues. Rfassbind – talk 18:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's created a new page at Asteroid 17473 Freddiemercury. Isn't that against Wikipedia naming policy for minor planets? 2.99.207.130 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that name is not according to conventions. The article was also redundantly created. It's now fixed. Thx for noticing, Rfassbind – talk 23:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astro list redirect comment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 02:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→ See result of the discussion here. Rfassbind – talk 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this subsection—I think I helped contribute to it since I only added ((Redirect category shell)) where there were 2 or more ((R))s, and not when there was a solitary ((R)). Want help fixing them?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to MP#R you've done more than anyone else on wikipedia. I checked the cases where only a single ((R)) was used inside the shell-template. I was puzzled because, by definition, this should never be the case for all of the 961 lat-MP#Rs (latinized redirects to MP-object #Rs or articles with diacritical names). Yet, you're right, there were 27 lat-MP#Rs with a R-shell and 1 only ((R)). They were all instances of ((NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes|r-templates=off)), which have turned off the standard templates. So instead of removing the shell, I added ((R unprintworthy)) to it. Besides those, I didn't find any shells with a single-((R)). Hope that makes sense to you, Rfassbind – talk 13:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there can be other #Rs with only 1 ((R)) in the shell; for example Latinized MP#Rs that point to the LoMP. The only ((R)) in that case I think should be ((R avoided double redirect)) (((R to diacritics)) doesn't apply since it's pointing to the list), but I could be forgetting about some of the other 100s of ((R))s out there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason not to use a ((Redirect category shell)) when there is a solitary ((rcat)) in the first place? When I read the documentation of Template:Redirect_category_shell#Notes and Template:R_to_diacritics#Usage I find several examples where this is explicitly done. To me, using a R-category-shell-template to add one or more appropriate redirect category is perfectly fine. The documentation of the template also says so. No? Rfassbind – talk 14:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem using ((Redirect category shell)) with a solitary ((R)) (I'm offering to help place them, after all). I'm just saying that ((R to diacritics)) doesn't belong on an #R pointing to the LoMP.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your fist post, I obviously misunderstood you, thinking that "fixing" means remove the shell-template, rather than adding it (see my first post). As for your second post, saying that ((R to diacritics)) doesn't apply when there is a ((R avoided double redirect)), I understand that this technically correct, and that you have done a revision on October 4, removing said rcat such as in here (btw: is there a bug in your anchor generation? it has four digits), so sorry if I have coincidentally interfered with a recent revision of yours I wasn't aware of. As for your offer, the answer is now obsolete and I thank you for your help.

But isn't it a bit short-sighted not to add the ((R to diacritics)) to secondary redirects (to LOMP)? Whether or not it is a LoMP-list entry or a dedicated page (article), the target is still a diacritical version of a MP-name. At least that's my interpretation of the word "essentially" in the template's documentation. Moreover, keeping ((R to diacritics)) in LoMP#Rs serves a practical reason. If the (primary) redirect should ever become an article (which is not that unlikely), the diacritic-rcat will have to be added manually (i.e likely to be forgotten), while the ((R avoided double redirect)) will be re-categorized and its target likely amended. I just want to do the right thing on the long term. We have worked together on these MP#R for (almost) a year now. The usage of ((R to diacritics)) was never an issue, never criticized or removed by anyone (including you) up to this month. Again, if it is better to remove the R-diacritics then so be it, I'll finish the secondary non-diacritical MP#R revision to maintain consistency and change the code later (PS: this probably will also be the case for the upcoming MPC-batch). Rfassbind – talk 15:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean; it's tempting to use ((R to diacritics)) for all Latinized MP#Rs, and indeed I've either added it or ignored the fact that it was there most of the time. Now that we've organized the ((R))s though (via ((NASTRO comment))), the other ((R))s stand out more. Even with a liberal interpretation of ((R to diacritics))'s text (re: essentially the same page name with diacritical marks), it's technically incorrect to put it on an #R pointing to a List of minor planets (LoMP) though, so any r-template gnome would have no reason to hesitate taking it off, and the argument for keeping it is very specific to WP:AST. The best way to make it permanent, and self-consistent, is to find an R-template that suits our needs, or to make one:

• ((R from modification)) sounds like it could work. It's distinct from ((R from misspelling)), which doesn't have the appropriate wording (re: The correct form is given by the target of the redirect), and would be used for actual MP misspellings anyway. The only MP#Rs that could legitimately contain ((R from modification)) are secondary MP#Rs to the LoMP. Any other MP#Rs with this ((R)) that don't point to the LoMP (i.e. they point to the developed diacritized article) can be easily searched for and corrected.
• ((R from alternative transliteration)) (in Template:R to diacritics/doc#See also) doesn't have the right wording (re: to a more common variation).
• ((R from ASCII-only)) seemed promising, but doesn't have the right wording either (re: to a title with differences that are non-ASCII symbols).

Paine Ellsworth, you've done a lot of editing in the ((R ...))-space, what do you (& Rfassbind) think is the best solution here for redirects such as 5031 Svejcar?

1. Continue to use ((R to diacritics))?
2. Use ((R from modification)) in place of ((R to diacritics))?
3. Use one of the other ((R))s mentioned above (or some other one) in place of ((R to diacritics))?
4. Alter the wording of one of the ((R))s mentioned above (or some other one), and use it in place of ((R to diacritics))?
5. Make a new ((R)) that is valid for both cases: 1) for 5031 Svejcar pointing to List of minor planets: 5001–6000#031, and 2) for 5031 Svejcar pointing to 5031 Švejcar (if/when it gets developed), thus removing the need for future maintenance? (template name & wording to be determined)

Aside: I just ran through my last 25,000 edited pages to check for 1, 2, & 4-digit anchors just in case. I didn't find any so it looks like you've fixed them all (how many were there?). I've recreated the anchor-making part of my code in various ways a few times, so it looks like this last time had a conditional bug in it. Thanks for that.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your research, I just think that ((R to diacritics)) perfectly describes what the #R is all about, even if it is an avoided double redirect and the target is a list. As for your question: it was the only instance of a 4-digit anchor I found; I'm glad to hear that there is no systematic problem. I also encountered (more serious) mishaps where I had used a completely wrong name, besides some MPC-errors such as 1655 Comas Solá, and dozens of missing NASTRO-comment templates. So the overall revision did some good after all. Rfassbind – talk 20:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll use ((R to diacritics)) until (if) we find something better.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tom.Reding: Hi and thank you for including me in this. First of all, you both deserve a huge lot of gratitude for your work with minor planet pages and redirects, so thank you both beyond words! The question seems to be, "Is it okay to use ((R to diacritics)) when the article is a list and the redirect is anchored to a promising list item?" I looked at the Explanation template and the Naming convention guideline, and it looks as if it would be okay to do so. The diacritics rcats just need a little clarification in their texts, so I've used ((R to diacritics/sandbox)) to test a possible modification. Please let me know if that version suits your needs, or feel free to make further mods to it. And again, thank you for your great work on these redirects, and especially for your applications of the ((Rcat shell))!  Paine  ^u/c 11:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, thanks, and thanks for the ((R to diacritics/sandbox)) version; I think it's enough to keep future well-intentioned editors from mistakenly removing it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tom.Reding: It's a pleasure! and I'll add similar text to ((R from diacritics)) and the associated categories for consistency.  Paine  ^u/c 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job amending ((R to diacritics)) as described above! Thank you. This will not only apply to latinized redirects on minor planets, but also to redirects on mp-discovering astronomers (e.g. Jan Manek) and possibly even named comets one day. Rfassbind – talk 12:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now split into several partial lists. Rfassbind – talk 13:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove values for |moid=, |jupiter_moid=, & |tisserand=?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have given you my feed-back about your "Update infobox with JPL data (code) using AWB" revision a long time ago. We never had a detailed conversation about some of the differences in your adoption of my initial version, except for the orbital color-code and the usage of UTF-8 spaces instead of html-entities. Although I tried to support some of your changes and subsequently incorporated them into my revisions (such as the |mean_motion= parameter), some other differences I had to ignore in order to keep my frustration level low. The minimum orbital intersection distance is such as difference:

• moids: I do not display them if not mentioned in the article and/or if these figures are above a certain threshold value. Threshold values for (Earth) moid is a = 0.8 AU (this includes all NEOs and MCs, as well as several Hungaria-MBAs) and a similar value for parameter |jupiter_moid=, which is only used for JTs, CEN and outer main-belts (JPL definition) and has a limit at 0.95 AU
• tisserand: I have not yet defined an algorithm when to display/not to display |tisserand=; but it is never displayed when the value is significantly above 3.

Hence for 1781 Van Biesbroeck, I removed "moid" (1.1 AU) and "jupiter_mode (2.7 AU) amd "tisserand (3.5). I know these above parameters are always given for each and every minor planet on MPC's and JPL's object views, irrespective of the body's orbital type. But this is not a sensible usage, and not encouraged by WP:Infobox. Rfassbind – talk 13:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; but why set limits for whether or not to display a given parameter? The reader doesn't know the difference between it not being available vs. it being larger than some value. Don't worry about having to include all the infobox params in the article prose, especially if they're above your threshold. Maybe include them in the text (if you want) if and only if they're below that, or some smaller, threshold.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're gonna have to carefully reapply the <noinclude> & <onlyinclude> tags so that the 1000s MoMPs work with the 10,000s MoMPs (i.e. Meanings of minor planet names: 220,001–230,000 is quite a mess atm). I can help later this week if needed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these tags intentionally. These lists need to be simplified: obsolete header-templates need to be deleted and the ((Meanings of minor planet names)) amended (or dropped). The 10k pages are another complexity that is not appropriate. If you think it is better the keep them (adding a list of 10 partial MoMP lists), rather than redirecting or deleting, then I'm fine with it, but the non/onlyinclude tags really have to go. Instead the 1k-lists need fixing and updating, what I am about to to as soon as the syntax is consistent. Rfassbind – talk 12:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you're thinking of getting rid of the 10,000s, great! They are a bit clumsy, and not as important now that we've linked to and integrated the MoMP lists a bit more.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to introduce section headers has broken pages such as Meanings of minor planet names: 100,001–110,000 that relied on the onlyinclude tags to display the page correctly. Your edits have placed a large number of new pages in the category Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. I don't know what's the proper fix, whether it is to undo your changes that added section headers, or reintroduce onlyinclude tags. Let me know if you need more context into the issue... I personally don't know what the correct fix is. — Andy W. (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Andy M. Wang. Yes I know some 36 pages do not work anymore. This is a transitional effect. These 10k-pages (as listed in ((Meanings of minor planet names))) will be taken care of. As for the category "DEFAULTSORT conflicts", I didn't change anything, but it seems obvious to me that this "confilct" is due to fact that the one and only existing category has its individual sort key already defined (see below). So either this sortkey or the ((DEFAULTSORT)) line has to be removed in order to fix it. Rfassbind – talk 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

((DEFAULTSORT:Meanings of minor planet names 392001-393000))
[[Category:Lists of meanings of minor planet names|392001-393000]]

Tom.Reding, I checked on "What links here" and I'm positive, that, if the 10K-pages links in ((Meanings of minor planet names)) are removed, then the 36 pages won't be linked-to at all. I don't know what to do best with these pages: delete, redirect, or turn into a list of links, as, for example, in List of Jupiter trojans (Trojan camp). Also each table header in pMoMP now links to List of named minor planets (alphabetical), which, I think, gives a much better overview (not just over a number range of 10K but, "good lord", over a much larger range). Pls, let me know what you think. Converting the pages to a "link-list" may not upset the original creator of these (no obsolete) pages as much as a deletion... Rfassbind – talk 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a link list is a good tentative solution. Redirects to the first 1000s list in each 10k page's name is probably the best semi-permanent solution, so that, just in case, if someone wants to resurect the 10k's again, they could see how they were done and adapt it instead of starting from scratch.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: FYI I've applied Rfassbind's link list fixes to all other 10K-pages to avoid DEFAULTSORT / potential DEFAULTSORT conflicts post-task. — Andy W. (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Banstar Barnstar
		A long-overdue award for multiple temporary bans from the MPC database, and probably others!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi I would like to suggest that your figure "Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977" would provide more information about recent years if the vertical scale were logarithmic, like the two panels below yours in Solar cell#Declining costs and exponential growth. Of course, such a change will soon be unavoidable! Thanks! Layzeeboi (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead an with the update. Your proposed log-scale seems to be a good idea. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 08:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is a main-belt asteroid so I don't understand why you moved it from the category of main-belt asteroids. You can find this classified as a main-belt asteroid onIAU Minor planets Excuse me if I'm wrong. JohnSmith678 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3121 Tamines is a Florian asteroid, which are inner main-belt asteroids; and Category:Flora asteroids is a subcategory of Category:Main-belt asteroids. Best, Rfassbind – talk 22:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I thought I might have got that wrong. Thanks for explaining. JohnSmith678 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested swap and histmerge for (7675) Gorizia and 7675 Gorizia. Named minor planets do not use parenthesis on English Wikipedia. Rfassbind – talk 11:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't canvass editors to vote with you in AfDs, like you did Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#AfD Pronunciation of Trojan asteroid names. Leaving a neutral message at a relevant Wikiproject is no problem, but yu shouldn't post messages stating everything that is right with the article and wrong with the AfD, and then asking people to "take a look". Fram (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also shouldn't create pages like User:Rfassbind/Pronunciation of Jupiter trojans, as this is a copyright violation. Copying within Wikipedia but without attribution is not allowed. Fram (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx you for your feedback. I have completely removed the assessment part of my post on WT:AST. Also, I'll blank the above mentioned backup pages in my userspace as soon as possible. If you tried to put yourself in my shoes, what would have been the appropriate steps? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 13:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a neutral note on the project talk page at most, or just letting the normal AfD process go through and accept that it sometimes ends in results you don't like or agree with (it happens often enough to me). Fram (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course, if you believe an article at AfD should be kept, say so in the AfD. If possible, add policy reasons to support your keep, and add sources indicating that it is a notable subject or otherwise argue why the page is necessary. It probably wouldn't have helped in this case, but not contributing to the AfD certainly won't help. Fram (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that makes sense and follows the guidelines mentioned above. Thank you. Rfassbind – talk 12:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfassbind, Thanks for your edits to the Société Ramond page, very helpful. May I ask just one thing; why have you renamed the page? Most of the references I've seen to it are to the French name, and if you look at Category:Learned societies of France you'll see that most French learned societies retain their French name. Is there a WP policy about this, or is it done on a case-by-case basis? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ericoides, that's an absolutely fair question whether the article's title should be Ramond Society or Société Ramond. I think that whenever an English name/translation abundantly exists, it should be preferred over the foreign/original version. The English version, "Ramond Society", is used in various sources, for example:

• The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science, Volumes 27-28
• The "Station de Planétologie des Pyrénées", EPSC Abstracts, Vol. 10, EPSC2015-913, 2015, European Planetary Science Congress 2015
• Henry Russell, the Irishman who conquered the Pyrenees
• Pic du Midi. One Hundred Years of Life and Science at a High Altitude Observatory, by Emmanuel Davoust. Translated by Barbara Jachowicz

Of course, I can't be sure whether "Ramond Society" is a better title than "Société Ramond", as I don't have a guideline at hand. So we need to find the corresponding policy... Rfassbind – talk 11:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RFassbind, Thanks very much for your long reply. On reflection, I would have thought that since you "can't be sure whether [it] is a better title" and lack any explicit policy directing you to make the move that it makes sense for you to move the page back to its original title, in accordance with the WP convention respecting the original naming/language (eg BrEng or AmEng) in articles. There are as many, possibly more, instances of "Société Ramond" as there are "Ramond Society", including this by Kev Reynolds, probably the best-known writer in the English language on the Pyrenees. Moreover, a quick search comes up with numerous other instances. Furthermore, it is a de facto WP convention (see Category:Learned societies of France) for such societies to largely be in their original language, at least where French is concerned. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rfassbind, I just found the diskussion about my updating of the Orbital parameters of the planets. Did you read this talk too? I agree when you say, that there were maybe to many diggits behind the comma, but instead of deleting the unnecessary diggits you reverted all the other aspects of my edits too, everything! like * the references are not anymore in the articel e.g. Jupiter, * the adjustment of the order of the pamater in the code and in the one in the article e.g. Saturn, * the updating of the values e.g. Uranus, * better number format e.g. Mercury) And yes, in my refs there were missing epoch, date and access-date, but is this a reason to revert all the work I did? Your reverts took 5 min, my edits 3 hours. Now it is too difficult to reactivate my edits with less diggits,.. there are to much edits since than. You wrote I'll revert and ask W like wiki – did I miss something on my talk page? This way of working makes me sad. Regards, --W like wiki (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC) (Sry for my poor English)[reply]

@W like wiki, sorry that I forgot to leave a message on your talk page as I intended. But the reverts I did should have popped up as notifications/alert anyway. Don't be disencouraged. You made major changes in featured articles without prior consensus (WT:AST discussion (archived)). These things happen. Please start a new thread on WT:AST if you want to reintroduce your changes and refer to the just mentioned previous conversation. All the best, Rfassbind – talk 10:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfassbind, usually I dont pay attention to the popups, too confusing layout, my mistake. But the discussion was just about the preciseness of the parameter not about my other edits. And you reverted not only the numbers of diggits you reverted my other edits too, with no consensus before. Please try to correct it. Thank you! --W like wiki (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm probably the only one watching the Martian crater pages, since I created them, but holy crap that's a lot of notifications! Thanks for doing this, even if it blows up my inbox (at least I know they're all the same and can basically ignore them). Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get this done as soon as possible. There are about a thousand named Martian craters, so this will spam your "inbox" for some days. Apologies in advance. Best, Rfassbind – talk 12:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the files I removed (File:MinorPlanet-2007uk126-19970930.gif, File:2010EK139-OCKS-KBO3.gif, and File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg) from List of trans-Neptunian objects is licensed as non-free content which means that each use of the file needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can see this by going to each file's page and looking at the licensing being used. None of these files are licensed as Template:PD-USGov-NASA and none of them list NASA as the author. Official NASA websites (like other official government websites) do sometimes host photos created by others, and these files are not always in the public domain.

It's possible that they were uploaded under the incorrect licensing, and if you clearly believe this and are able to show this (i.e., provide a proper search showing they are public domain, and that NASA is the copyright owner, etc.), then you can change the files' copyright tags to something more appropriate. If, however, you just think they are likely public domain but aren't 100% sure, then you can (1) ask for feedback at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC, or (2) start a formal discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought you outcommented File:Eris and dysnomia2.jpg (a per my comment). I was mistaken. Keep up the good work & thx, Rfassbind – talk 22:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There are lots of files in that collage, so it's easy to get them mixed up. For what it's worth, I was going to leave a note on the artile's talk page about filling in the gaps I left. I wasn't sure if the order was just random or if it was done for a reason, so I didn't do so myself. Anyway, you took care of that, so there's no need for a post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you were able to delete 47171 Lempo when it was mistakenly #R'd to 47171 Lempo-Hiisi. Where were you able to request permissions to do that? Very useful! I've put in my fair share of G6s & C1s recently, so this looks quite appealing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.Reding, users are able to move pages over a redirect provided the only edit to the page is the pagemove itself. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Ah, ty. I was hoping for more than that.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the Page Mover right, but Rfassbind doesn't have it. PMs can move any page to pretty much anywhere. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Good to know that one can impede other users form moving the page back over a self-made redirect by making an additional, second edit (...). As far as I see, 47171 Lempo-Hiisi is still a redirect and was not deleted. Rfassbind – talk 18:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do that back before I had the mop and someone started move-warring. It was a fairly useful trick, despite being somewhat dodgy. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rfassbind, I just corrected an edit you had made to the article 385446 Manwë in March 2017. It seems you had changed the orbital elements to those of asteroid 12345 (1993 FT8). Since the change (which went unnoticed for 8 months) seems rather odd, I want to make sure I don't miss something (after all, it is 3 o'clock in the morning here so I may just need some sleep).Renerpho (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho. Oh dear, (12345) 1993 FT₈, "one-two-three-four-five", seems like a dummy Infobox generation; I must have copied from the wrong tab in my browser with sleepy eyes, also around 3 am. Now, several edits with 385446 Manwë do make sense in retrospect. Thank you for spotting this. By the way, how did you find out that the orbital elements are those of (12345) 1993 FT₈? Rfassbind – talk 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious what had caused the issue. I suspected this was a real orbit for a wrong object, so I consulted https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb_query.cgi. With somewhat lose constraints (Q=2.8-2.9, q=2.0-2.1, a=2.4-2.5, e=0.16-0.17, i=3.3-3.4, node=105-110, peri=310-320) there was only one match, and it matched perfectly. See https://imgur.com/1ds1a0l. Funny enough, (12345) 1993 FT₈ does not have its own article.Renerpho (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, your query does indeed pinpoint a single body. This also demonstrates that orbital elements rounded to 2 digits in the infobox remain unambiguous (adding &query=1 to the URL forces JPL's Search Engine to display the results rather than the query form). Why is it funny that there's no article for (12345) 1993 FT₈? Rfassbind – talk 03:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I found the wrong elements, I thought these maybe belonged in a different article (after all, they were well formatted and all). That there is no article for (12345) 1993 FT₈ makes them look even more out of place. How did you come up with those elements when you added them?? But, as you said: Sleepy eyes. And poor 12345 isn't only the worst password, but also strikes as a dummy asteroid. Poor thing...Renerpho (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I use an online tool to generate infobox elements. It seems I confused (12345) with (385446). Thx again for noticing. Rfassbind – talk 11:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rfassbind. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfassbind,

as someone who used to visit that page quite often, I was deeply disappointed with the result of your big edit in october, which as I understand it completely replaced the tables that are the heart of this article, omitting information I consider crucial - namely the objects' orbital elements. I always found it most helpful to sort these tables by average orbital distance (and wished I could have merged them for this purpose), and quite enlightening to compare their other orbital elements. As they are now, I find those lists very uninteresting and wish they would revert to their former contents.

I would really appreciate it if you found a way to restore those tables to their original functionality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.147.92 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sad to hear you find the list of trans-Neptunian objects "very uninteresting". It seems to me, what you are looking for is this:

• JPL-SBDB query on all TNOs (sorted by a, ascending), 2467 matching objects

I still plan to work on the list of trans-Neptunian objects, adding a dedicated column for an object's semi-major axis. However, there is just no way to have a single table (or even a single article for that matter), as the number of TNO-discoveries will be growing by more than 40,000 according to LSST-projections. Please consider the article's talk page for further feedback. Best, Rfassbind – talk 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: ((subst:NPR invite)). Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, I think your map of PV watt per capita in Europe (commons:File:Europe WattPerCapita animated sequence 2008-2013.gif) is very nice and useful. However, it has not been updated since 2014. Are you planning to add 2015 and 2016? I understand there has not been such a fast growth in Europe recently, but I think it's nice to have updated images anyway. Also it would be better to change the title to reflect the eventual updates in the future (that is, remove the years). Let me know how can I help in case. Thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Ita140188! Sure, the PV-per-capita-animation can be updated. Could you help me find the "installed-capacity-by country-figures" for 2015, 2016 and maybe even 2017? I think I documented the sources in detail for each slide (2014, and for tentative 2015). Best, Rfassbind – talk 09:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rfassbind. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,435 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

FYI someone is having a go at turning this former #R into an article. It's not on the #R shortlist nor a candidate #R, but perhaps it's on one of your todo lists :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding, thx for noticing.

@DrVogel, please note that the way you handled minor-planet redirect 30000 Camenzind – that is, moving it to invalid 30000 Camenzind (minor planet) and then editing the original page, rather than the target you created – was not OK and created extra work to me and others to resolve.

As for 7377 Pizzarello, this one does not pass WP:NASTRO. Even if Pizzarello was notable, you'll have to provide sufficient information from reliable sources, otherwise it will be reverted back to redirect status. When in doubt, and in order to avoid frustration, please contact me or any other core editor about a particular minor planet before you start editing. We're glad to help you. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 01:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be accusing me of doing several things wrong, but I don't really understand why. After I did my edits, each article was left at the correct address, and I made sure all redirects were pointing to the correct pages. I did not break anything and I did not put anything in the wrong place, so I'm not sure why you're accussing me of creating work for you.

Also, you've deleted the content I added. The content was supported by 3 reliable sources. How does removing this sourced content make Wikipedia better? Could you please explain?

Also, if you don't mind, would you please be able to explain to me how your behaviour is not WP:OWNERSHIP? I'm sure you're not doing that, but I can't really tell the difference, because I'm a newbie. If you could please explain, that would be great.

Thanks very much, DrVogel (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure DrVogel, here is why: you duplicated 30000 Camenzind by moving the page including its history to 30000 Camenzind (minor planet), before you started editing the original page 30000 Camenzind. Why would you do that, duplicating the same subject, leaving them unrelated to each other? Moving pages means renaming them; you should only do this if you know what you are doing. Due to your subsequent edits I couldn't just move it back. I had to make a request, and the admin had to do an additional merger of the splitted history (so we could keep your edits). As far as I see on your talkpage an other editor left you a post concerning a "page move" you previously did. So no one is accusing you of doing incorrect page moves... people are telling you that you must not do such thing.

As for 7377 Pizzarello, the three reliable sources you mention are the two data base entries at JPL and MPC. Did I miss another source? Please take a look at the text message on top of the redirect page (WP:NASTRO).

If you think I'm inappropriately possessive about this article as per WP:OWN, you may complain at the notice board or raise the issue about 7377 Pizzarello at WT:AST. Of course, since there is a broad consensus on Wikipedia that redirects like this one should not be turned into articles, defending these widely agreed-upon policies are quite tiresome so that I'll be less forthcoming in the future. Rfassbind – talk 02:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DrVogel, Rfassbind's behavior is that of vast expertise and experience - he is the reason we have so many start-class minor planet articles instead of stubs and redirects. Your good-faith efforts are appreciated, though, and I think it's just a matter of time before you get a working-level of knowledge about out how Wikipedia operates and how the article creation & expansion process goes. Have a look at any of the minor planets on this list with " Overall revision" next to them to get a good sense of what a notable MP's article looks like. Look through the history to see how they looked before, and how they got to look the way they do today. If you can't find a reasonable number of secondary sources on a particular MP, then it has no hope of getting anywhere near that level of quality, and will remain a micro/stub, and thus be redirected to the List of minor planets, per our WP:NASTRO policy. One of the other things you can do is go through Category:Stub-Class Astronomy articles to find stubs to expand, or Category:Start-Class Astronomy articles for slightly larger start-class articles to improve on, and you can ask for help at WT:AST.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A question. In your latest edit of near-Earth object, you consistently changed "km" into "kilometers" resp. "m" into "meters". Why is that? I thought using symbols is OK in line with this passage in MOS:UNITNAMES: "symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". Rontombontom (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Apologies. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 10:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Meanings of minor planet names: 374001–375000 & the top of List of minor planets: 374001–375000 makes me want to center everything... Would that mess anything else up for you? The only place it might not look good is on List of minor planets#Orbital groups, but parameters can be made that default to margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; (centered) if not specified, and % based left and right alignments otherwise. It might even look better left-justified or centered on List of minor planets. What do you think? If done, then I would followup with centering the corresponding TOC templates of course.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Tom, thx for letting me know & pls go ahead. Best, Rfassbind – talk 00:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeaaah, that's the stuff...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The horizontal alignment looks good im p-LoMPs and p-MoMPs. The centered color code template on List of minor planets § Orbital groups is even better than before. FYI: I requested TE-status as several templates became protected lately; and it was immediately granted (below). Hope I can continue to count on your help when I'm in doubt. Best, Rfassbind – talk

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ((ping)) for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Swarm ♠ 02:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion about asteroid discoverers named Lopez because there are 3 people bearing that name. So the table you added in Álvaro López-García article is wrong, he actually discovered 12 asteroids only (in cooperation with H. Debehogne). 2nd one is Àngel López, according to my calculation he discovered 58 asteroids, 3 by himself and 55 in cooperation with R. Pacheco (here is his site with asteroid table). 3rd Lopez is Jean-Marie Lopez (J.M. Lopez), he discovered only 4. Even MPC calculated number of their discovereries incorrectly. Can you check it and correct these tables accordingly? I think tables in Álvaro López-García and Àngel López articles on Polish wiki where I edit are correct Pikador (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thx! Indeed, Alvaro and Angel are both listed as "A. Lopez" on MPC's Minor Planet Discoverers page. In addition, great that you mentioned the third one: Jean-Marie Lopez. It is wrong on en-Wikipedia as well (Juan M. Lopez, taken by me from a legacy list). Due to these errors, the list of minor planet discoverers, two discoverer categories and dozens of minor-planet articles and redirects will have to be fixed in addition to the discovery-listing you mentioned. Well done that man! Thank you, Rfassbind – talk 13:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lopez situation should be resolved now:

• Álvaro López-García, discoveries 12, cat
• Ángel López Jiménez, discoveries 58, cat
• Jean-Marie Lopez (#R), discoveries 4, cat

Plz let me know if something is still missing, Rfassbind – talk 01:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks OK now, thanks a lot. I also noticed many asteroids are missing in Gary Hug article and 2 asteroids are incorrectly assigned to him - (420597) 2012 HK40 and (421809) 2014 QG38. I updated the table in article about him on Polish wikipedia, you can use it as a reference. Pikador (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Charles William Shoppee for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
The page is a redirect, not an article. I'm confused as to why you are marking it as such.
As for the article, well, I'm working on that. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template according to WP:R#DELETE > 7. > WP:G8 -- Rfassbind – talk 03:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how ((infobox ship)) is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mpf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I rather not edit already made pages. That defeats the purpose of what im doing. Im trying to eduacate people on things that has very lityle information. Not ones that need more editing . FLuca89 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Be well. Rfassbind – talk 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (this post refers to my previous post)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind, just noticed you were editing the categories with the minor planet pages between 300 and 400. However, I noticed that a few of these pages in this range had an irregular sort as DEFAULTSORT:0003XX instead of the normal DEFAULTSORT:Name-of-the-minor-planet used by the rest of the pages. Since you're presumably pretty busy with all the other amazing edits you've been making on these pages, would you want me to make these DEFAULTSORT corrections, or were you already going to (while making the Category:Background asteroids edits, etc.)? Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very kind of you. Rfassbind – talk 03:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if it wouldn't be too late by then, sometime tomorrow (Jul 18) I'll try to fix the sorts on the categories for that range of minor planet pages. Although I wouldn't know if any of the pages would need to switch categories (e.g. "Vesta asteroids" → "Background asteroids"), I can fix the sorts on the categories the pages are in. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping default sortkey from padded-numeric to latinized-name – in conjunction with the sortkey change for individual categories – would be great, anytime. (I'll do the changes in asteroid family classification in the meantime). Most minor planet articles below #1000 still have the numeric sort key. Info: in 2015, Exoplanetaryscience introduced this zero-padded-sortkey, which is a useful type for many categories (but not as a defaultsort). If he reverts any of your sortkey-changes, please let me know. Rfassbind – talk 03:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed the table had a problem with the leftmost column, and took a stab at fixing it per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Please take a look at my version and let me know what you think. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

((Largest Jupiter trojans)): I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a bug but a feature which allows the table to be sorted by the three different surveys (size estimates) while the static ranking column remains unchanged. Rfassbind – talk 10:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the explanation. You might want to look at it in various browsers. In Firefox the static column is noticeably shorter than the sortable ones, and the rows don't line up. In Safari the heights are very close but the rows still don't quite match. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, for the info. Since FireFox still accounts for 5% global usage it would be great to fix the styles. I'll try to amend the CSS. In the meantime, if you have any suggestions, please let me know. Rfassbind – talk 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken... at least I wasn't going on about how it looks in Opera. This page is fun to play with for Wikimedia sites browser information, though I've not figured out how to separate information for individual sites (e.g. en.wikipedia as opposed to de.wikipedia), which would be interesting. Good luck with the CSS. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you have any ref about the change name of the association? Because I have never seen the association called "Amateur Aastronomers" anywhere, and it's not it's name.

I think even in english texts the name is always the original one -Asociacion Argentina "Amigos de la Astronomia"-.[2]

Regards! --JoRgE-1987 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I shouldn't have made that move. I'll fix the first sentence of the article as soon as my request to move back the page has been executed. Thx for your helpful scrutiny. Rfassbind – talk 22:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done -- I also adjusted the first sentence of the lead.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your AWB access request has been completed successfully. Please be sure to review Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser carefully before using. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyperbolic asteroid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperbolic asteroid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

→ The result of the discussion was keep – Rfassbind – talk 00:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this one at 212977 Birutė make performing a null edit on corresponding ((r avoided double redirect))s such as 212977 Birute necessary to clear them from CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE. What is the purpose of your "temp wikidata" edits? Best regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are five more pages polluting the aforementioned category today due to your actions, e.g. 85970 Fundacaoterra and 95785 Csanyivilmos. Again, I will have to clean it up. Please cease such actions, find a better way to do it that does not require cleanup, or at least explain why it is necessary. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your first post. No problem. I'll check Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated myself and clear out those secondary redirects listed due to cache issues with a null edit, so they won't show up there for no longer than, say, 30 minutes. Thanks for letting me know. How many #Rs did you already remove from said category? Rfassbind – talk 07:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have not had to fix too many. Out of curiosity: What do those "temp wikidata" edits do, create/allow the creation of a wikidata entry? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are made in order to associate a Wikipedia redirect to a Wikidata item (otherwise the target of the redirect would be associated), so the redirect needs to be temporarily deactivated (description of workaround).Rfassbind – talk 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you getting into Wikidata, Rfassbind. There's a handy tool I like called Quick statements that you might want to use if you're making lots of repetitive or systematically structured edits.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the info. I did not know this cool tool. It will certainly become very helpful as we further progress on the systematics of the minor-planet project. Rfassbind – talk 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to use ((#invoke:ResolveEntityId|entityid|<page name>)) to resolve WP pages to their associated WD QID. E.g. ((#invoke:ResolveEntityId|entityid|Ceres (dwarf planet))) -> Q596. I've customized this to provide wikilinks to both the WP and WD pages, for convenience, and some additional info, at Module:Sandbox/Tom.Reding/Tools.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to many minor planet articles. Hadron137 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why if you thought I did something wrong you didn't come talk to me back in February and waited until now tell someone else that you thought I handled something poorly? ~ GB fan 10:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please don't start a new, unlinked thread referring to a feedback I just posted (and which also pinged you). My concern is with requests handled at/by WP:RMT. My feedback to Anthony Appleyard, who I consider an expert on the subject, may or may not be of any value towards improving WP:RMT, but I encourage you to post your rationale there. Rfassbind – talk 12:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern has absolutely nothing to do with your thanking of Anthony. His talk page is not the place for me to ask you this question. ~ GB fan 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, if either my post or my feedback has offended you in any way. For what exactly should I have come talk to you without delay? Rfassbind – talk 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a concern about my action back in February that you say I handled poorly, Why didn't you ask me about that action? I had no idea that you thought my action was a problem. The first I knew that you had a concern about that action was you telling another admin that what I did was a poor response to your request and that it somehow "undermines the concept of preserving a coherent edit history of this naming-anomaly." So my question to you is why didn't you come to me and explain your concerns about my action so I could address those concerns in a timely manner? ~ GB fan 14:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not for me to lecture administrators on how to deal with requests at WP:RMT, or why pages should be moved rather than created when the subject's title has changed. As you didn't consider my request when submitted, why would you listen to me later? (Actually, looking at our discussion here, you still did not acknowledge anything.) That's why I gave a feedback to an expert on the subject. I'm sure we both agree that Anthony is an expert. And if he cares, he will tell us what's right and wrong. I will certainly listen to what he has to say, and I hope you will do so as well. Rfassbind – talk 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually misclicked rollback on your edit . Sorry for the inconvenience. Kpgjhpjm 11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just undo your own rollback. Rfassbind – talk 11:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truly just curious here, why are you removing the redirects? 48767 Skamander for example. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just temporarily to make a connection to Wikidata (also see § "Temp wikidata" edits. Rfassbind – talk 20:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just noticed that if all goes according to plan, Hayabusa2 will bring asteroid samples back to Earth in 2020 and will still have 30 kg of xenon propellant left for its ion engines to flyby another target, tentatively: asteroid 172034 2001 WR1 ([3]) in 2023. Although it is a plan that may or may not take place, it would be nice to have an article on this asteroid, if you have the interest and time. I have no experience creating articles for minor planets so that is the reason I contact you. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created (172034) 2001 WR1. Best, Rfassbind – talk 07:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will link it to the Hyabusa2 article. CHeers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing ((copyvio-revdel)) on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For excellent contributions to the Wikipedia, especially in regards to outer space. Fotaun (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rebestalic here again. Expanding on my reply to your post on my talk page--what would you like me to do? Should I revert all my changes to the minor planet articles or should I remain stationary? Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebestalic, sorry for my late reply. I recommend to pause further edits of the kind described on your talk page for the time being. I don't think you need to revert anything right now. OK? (Note: let's continue the discussion only on your talk page, as linked above. It's typically a bad thing to start parallel discussions on different pages. You also might want to read about Template:Ping and/or Template:User which generate a special user-notification.) Best, Rfassbind – talk 13:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Rfassbind,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind! I just noticed there's a category Category:Unclassifiable asteroids (Tholen), with 1566 Icarus as its most prominent member. I can not find anything regarding this in the article text, nor do I see any sources (outside of Wikipedia) indicating that Icarus's spectrum is beyond what Tholen can handle. What's the purpose of that category? Same for unclassifiable asteroids (SMASS). Renerpho (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho, for Category:Unclassifiable asteroids (Tholen) and listed items, see Tholen's dissertation (description on p.74; example on p.123, 650 Amalasuntha), as well as PDS – Asteroid Taxonomy (data file), where --- has been replaced with ***. Rfassbind – talk 11:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know on the page of 2019 AQ3, that I would prefer in the spirit of scientific accuracy if the size inaccuracy of 2019 AQ3 was properly represented. While we have 2 'approximate' measurements of its size, from the MPC and an almost public-end site, neither of them are using any more data that they personally have access to than we do. I'm not sure where the ESA gets its size measurement from but I'm assuming it's a very generic one on average asteroid size, but I do know for sure that the MPC only marks asteroids as being 1 km+ if they have a possibility of being that large, not necessarily a firm size constraint. Currently the best I can say to constrain the diameter is that it's between ~500 and ~1800 meters, and anyone currently claiming to have a more accurate diameter than that is making completely unfounded assumptions. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exoplanetaryscience. Thx for your feedback. It makes sense to emphasize that these figures are estimates and not measurements (although the article never suggested that) and explore the range of possible sizes (see latest edit and follow-ups). It is unclear why ESA and the MPC (as well as CNEOS?) decided to base their size estimates for 2019 AQ3 on an albedo of 0.08 and less than 0.15, respectively, but they obviously do, so to properly cite the best available sources seems pretty damn good to me. I only wished that all 3350 minor planet articles would receive the same amount of scrutiny. Rfassbind – talk 02:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's now become notable (since it's involved in the largest asteroid-to-asteroid collision in recorded history), the article 6478 Gault was apparently recently created. I've tried to help add missing categories and template, but I know I didn't get everything. Since you're one of the main editors of minor planet pages and ensuring they're consistent, you might want to take a look at (or possibly revise) this awkwardly cobbled-together asteroid stub (especially since it's become a bit of a popular-ish article). Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for letting me know. I'm on it, assuming you are currently no longer amending 6478 Gault (otherwise plz tell me). Rfassbind – talk 03:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not amending it right now. Thanks so much! Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The minor planet category continuity situation is currently pretty confusing. I have no problem with the categories' use & descriptions as they are (they are definitely an improvement), but retaining the history, and retaining the correct/appropriate histories could be improved. Laying this out as systematically and neatly as I can:

1. What was done: Category:Minor planet object articles (numbered) was created, referring to Category:Numbered minor planets in the creation edit summary.
   What I think should have been done: Category:Numbered minor planets (which was for articles only) be moved to Category:Minor planet object articles (numbered).
2. What was done: Category:Minor planet object articles (unnumbered) was created, referring to Category:Minor planet redirects in the creation edit summary (doubly confusing).
   What I think should have been done: see #5.1.
3. What was done: Category:Minor planet object redirects (non-primary) was created.
   What I think should have been done:  OK.
4. What was done: Category:Minor planet object redirects (numbered) was created, referring to Category:Minor planet redirects in the creation edit summary.
   What I think should have been done: Category:Minor planet redirects (formerly the largest cat) be moved to Category:Minor planet object redirects (numbered) (now the largest cat).
5. What was done: Category:Unnumbered minor planets (for articles) was moved to Category:Minor planet object redirects (unnumbered) (doubly confusing).
   What I think should have been done (1): Category:Unnumbered minor planets (which was for articles, not #Rs) be moved to Category:Minor planet object articles (unnumbered) instead.
   What I think should have been done (2): Category:Minor planet object redirects (unnumbered) be created instead of moved.

Re: use of "object" in the new cat names. What do you think about this hierarchy:

Parent: Category:Minor planet articles and redirects instead of Category:Minor planet objects

Children: "object" removed from their name?

If we decide to remove "object" from the cat names, I think I can round-robin move all of them around to make all (or nearly) of the above changes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, thx for adding ((Category redirect))) to Category:Numbered minor planets (my bad):

• Could you please tell me what exactly is confusing to you (current vs. the previous situation)?
• Why the term "object" bothers you so much?
• So basically, you disapprove that I moved Category:Unnumbered minor planets [Category:Minor planet redirects] to Category:Minor planet object redirects (unnumbered) rather than Category:Minor planet object articles (unnumbered)‎ [Category:Minor planet object redirects (numbered)]] and that I newly created Category:Minor planet object articles (numbered) rather than moving it from Category:Numbered minor planets. [corrected as per response below, Rfassbind – talk 06:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Sure, you are perfectly correct to point out that categories should/could have been moved rather than recreated. This would have been much simpler as well. However, creating a new, stand-alone category was an intermediary step and helped me to identify numerous mis-categorization among the nearly 30,000 pages. (It also helped me to avoid making new mistakes.) Reading your post is disappointing to me, because in my view, it is not constructive (knowing things better after the fact) while it is missing the obvious issues that still need to be tackled. Unfortunately, you don't even mention any of them. Rfassbind – talk 07:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I explained above exactly what is confusing - "What was done" vs. "What I think should have been done". I've now added emphasis to be clearer, and identified the most confusing actions.

- "Object" is redundant. Are there non-object minor planets? Why not nest the categories directly under Category:Minor planets? If this is an intermediate step of sorts then disregard.

- No. And the fact that even you are having a hard time retracing your own recent actions, let alone another editor happening across them for the first time, is exactly my point. Category:Minor planet object redirects (unnumbered) was moved from Category:Unnumbered minor planets, not Category:Minor planet redirects. See #5.1.

I'm advocating history retention, continuity, and ease of deciphering this category jumbling. How is that unconstructive?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might help you with your confusion.

• Look at this edit. This is a redirect of an unnumbered minor planet that belonged to Category:Unnumbered minor planets, as all pages of this specific type did. Yet in #5 you assert that said category only contained "articles", not redirects. Here's another example. So who exactly is having a hard time retracing his own actions? A ((histmerg)) should solve #1 and #4. The typo in the edit summary unsurprisingly demonstrates that I'm not perfect either.
• You made the point that the errors I made in my first post (which I corrected) are somehow indicative of me jumbling with the categorization. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as I took great care in transitioning all the pages and amending templates and documenting categories, fixing several inconsistencies in the process.
• You claim that the term "object" is redundant, as there are seemingly no "non-object minor planets". This completely ignores the fact that Category:Minor planets is about the topic and not the plural of "a minor planet" (which of course is always an object). Grouping all objects into Category:Minor planet objects (a child of Category:Astronomical objects and a sibling of Category:Cometary objects) concurs with grouping all lists into Category:Lists of minor planets (a child of Lists of Solar System objects and a sibling of Category:Lists of comets). Your first proposal ("Category:Minor planet articles and redirects") is a misnomer. Your second proposal (nesting the categories directly under "Minor planets") is certainly a possibility. Rfassbind – talk 06:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanted to run the idea by you since you seem to be a primary contributor to the article. I was thinking of reformatting Asteroid family so that more data would be easily searchable/sortable: Basically a sort of info table with stuff like a,e,i,age,members etc, as right now it seems to only serve as a cursory summary of asteroid groups when adding more detailed info would likely take up just as much space. What are your thoughts/input into crating that? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exoplanetaryscience Sure. Are you referring to this table I sourced from Nesvorny's publication, or are you talking about the one below, or both? As the first table already contains some of the data you suggest, it would be very helpful to me if you could make a (simple) example so that I better understand. Will this information come form a single or dozens of sources; and do they exist for most families at all? Rfassbind – talk 07:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I compiled an example using the Pallas and Juno families that is effectively a full version of what I was suggesting. User:Exoplanetaryscience/sandbox#List of asteroid families. The sources used are specifically the JPL SBDB for "current epoch" elements, as well as AstDyS for proper elements (hopefully if I can come up with a concise way to process those for large quantities of asteroids) and using the source in the tables you mentioned for the asteroids in the families. Maybe the vectors (node and peri) are too much, but the others would definitely be helpful, especially if I eventually become knowledgeable enough in asteroid orbits to reliably calculate proper elements. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your example of a 20-column table:

• I will try to replicate your proposal with one of the other 122 listed families, one that is not as prominent as the Juno and Pallas family.
• Again my question: are just talking about expanding Nesvorny's 122-family table, or does your suggestion include the one below with alternative family determinations by Zappalà, Milani and Knežević, and others?
• Just to rule out any misunderstandings, and since these families (in both tables) were determined by the hierarchical clustering method (a chaining-method using an arbitrarily defined cutoff distances by the individual astronomers), how do you intent to derive the orbital elements for the families from your mentioned sources, namely "the JPL SBDB for "current epoch" elements, as well as AstDyS for proper elements"?
• Do you know the Small Bodies Data Ferret which also list Nesvorny's family members using synthetic proper elements? And my listing of Nesvorny's asteroid families I did some time ago?
• Which of the 12 newly proposed columns do you think are most important? And which (beside Ω and ω) are least important to you?
• Why does your example not include the last two columns of the existing table ("cat" and "LoMP"). Do you think they are unhelpful?

Till soon, thx for the effort. Rfassbind – talk 07:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand we quickly run into some issues with original research on wikipedia. I'll try to address all of the points:

• I think we should take as many sources for proposed asteroid families as possible. In the end it is fairly subjective what constitutes a 'family' versus a bunch of coincidental asteroids (as it quickly appeared the Juno family may have been when I looked into it), but I would say if something has been researched to the point of a paper being published (and accepted) on it, then there's a good case for listing it, even if they dont necessarily agree on what is what.
• I'm not entirely sure. What I used in the table was just a maximum range, maybe we should use some sort of FWHM as error bars from the orbit of the primary asteroid, accounting for 'noise' from background asteroids. The situation is complicated, and any attempt at simplifying it from that I feel would compromise the quality of the data, even if it takes longer to do this way. Still, the problem exists that I need to find the precision and accuracy of the various sources of proper elements, as well as arbitrating which asteroids to include in a family when multiple sources disagree (For what it's worth, AstDyS has quite a thorough independent listing of asteroid families, but it's sadly much less thorough on that than the papers you listed. For instance, it gives about 30 asteroids in the Pallas family despite Nesvorný et al giving over 120.)
• I was using the SBDF for the example chart I made, combined with data from JPL and some 'advice' from AstDyS.
• I would say the most important are the age, semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination (which I should hopefully be able to change to proper elements if the SBDF turns out to be reliable with its proper elements). I would say while not critical, the 'cause' would be useful to distinguish dynamical groups from physically related groups. And I might even shy away from including the former entirely, lest you end up having to get on a slippery slope of including planetary trojans, plutinos- every resonant region in the solar system. Even then, it would still be useful to distinguish from so-called impacting families composed of little pot-shots taken off of large asteroids, or the so-called collision families composed of an asteroid or two that completely disintegrated, which should be easily identifiable with families that don't have an obvious 'largest asteroid'. (not to disgress more than I already am, but it would be interesting to check the orbits of these collisional families against each other and see if any 'intersect' i.e. were each other's culprit). Some of the less important stuff would be the mass (since we cant constrain that very well for some of the smaller asteroid groups) and the fairly redundant perihelion and aphelion distance which one could probably infer from the eccentricity range.
• I didn't include the Cat and LoMP because for the former, wikipedia's articles are largely incomplete and if you look at the Juno family for instance, besides Juno, only 7 of the 19 other largest members even hare real links to them, and even then, exactly none of those are actual articles and instead redirect to the minor planet list. As for the LoMP, I do consider that to be relatively unhelpful, especially for collisional families, as that only links to a single member when the family isn't necessarily defined by "here's the main asteroid", "oh and here's some others that we can tack onto that". In a way, that's what I wanted to focus on with the proposed change, focusing less on a supplemental article for the primary asteroid and some general details surrounding it, and more into the specifics of the family. If you hadn't mentioned in the article on 6478 Gault that it was a member of the Phocaea family, I doubt anyone would have noticed its relation at all for months at least.

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfassbind: Any updates? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanetaryscience, I'm deeply sorry and will answer today. Rfassbind – talk 07:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanetaryscience, what I hate most about myself is to make promises I don't keep: I'm sorry for my prolonged absence. I have not been active on Wikipedia for the last few weeks and I probably will be absent until the end May (except for any M.P.C. release). I believe the used HCM-based model and your proposed "block"-definition of Asteroid families in the 3D-proper-element space are incompatible and will lead to contradictions. However, if you are convinced that your proposed 20-column table can be produced (that is the required data can be properly sourced and/or derived from existing sources), then I'm glad to assist in preparing that table. Since that will be a very large table, I suggest to create a stand-alone List of asteroid families / List of minor planet families and keep the existing simple version in the original article. Once again, I am sorry to have kept you waiting for so long and I hope I can make up for it some day. Rfassbind – talk 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't worry at all about your preoccupations or activity. I've suffered from a lack of activity in projects I've told people I'd work on as well and definitely know how things can get out of hand. I'll try and make a more complete list and make sure it's appropriately referenced in my sandbox. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a very correct assessment by you on the matter. The situation is not helped by the fact that I am the one why created the redirect at the Italian Wikipedia. I am unsure how I can improve the our coverage of the subject, however. I would like find some way to write in the limited amount of space available that 175563 Amyrose is named after her. I can't find a good way to do that. Do you have any suggestions? Pls Ping Response―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the List of minor planet discoverers, the last column contains a link to the MPC citation for those astronomers that have a minor planet named after them (such as for Amy E. Rose). Any additional biographical information can be added to the corresponding MoMP-entry (meanings of minor planet names) if there is no stand-alone article and no corresponding stand-alone minor-planet article for that person. By the way, the LoMP table, which is the redirect target for asteroid 175563 Amyrose, also provides a link to the MoMP-list (3rd column of of table). Hope this was helpful. Rfassbind – talk 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I replaced the external with an internal link, so that the last column in List of minor planet discoverers § A. E. Rose now directly links to the corresponding entry via (175563). In this way LOMPD (list of discoverers), MOMP (list of naming citations) and LOMP (minor planet catalog) are all directly interconnected. Rfassbind – talk 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rfassbind, oh my gosh, you are a genius! Thank you a ton!!! That really fixes all my problems here. I really appreciate it! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (I honestly really like the changes. I am so glad I asked for your thoughts on the matter!) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rfassbind. I see that you reverted my single table of asteroids for each discoverer. I believe that having multiple floating tables is not a good idea, for multiple reasons:

1. The floating tables don't always align horizontally. On my Firefox, the asteroids for Gene Shoemaker look like this: [4] . Notice how the asteroids are out of order: the blocks go left, center, right, next row right, then next row left, center right. People won't be able to easily scan the table.
2. On mobile phones (such as Android), the multiple floating tables don't look good either (see [5]). The entire table turns into a single column, but the columns aren't aligned.
3. Multiple stacked floating lists are an WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem. If blind people use screen readers to read Wikipedia, they get a separate spoken entity for each table, which is confusing and slow.
4. Wikipedia is often used by automated scraping algorithms to populate databases (see, e.g. [6]). Using multiple tables when there is one semantic table will confuse any scraping.

If you really want multiple columns, then I would suggest abandoning tables and using ((div col)) and ((div col end)). The nice thing about these templates is that they can adapt to the width of the user's browser. The sad thing about these templates is that they cannot represent the three separate columns that you have now: you'd have to do something like '''[[2430 Bruce Helin]''', 8 November 1977, ((LoMP|2430|list)) ((ref label|codisc|A|))

If it were up to me, I would go back to the single table and three columns. What do you think? —hike395 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hike395, thx for your feedback. Your suggestion to hide overly long lists is very much appreciated (irrespective of whether or not using the collapsible-attribute for that purpose is the right choice). The floating-table layout in these kind of articles already exist for years and have helped to avoid horribly looking articles. As for #1 and #2, I'll do some cross-browser checking and CSS testing. As for #3 I'm all for accessibility, so that the visually impaired have less troubles with their screen readers. That said, and since I'm a sighted person, I will have to contact my colleges (who actually use these devices) to tell me whether the floating tables issue is actually their biggest concern (I presume you are not visually impaired). As for #4, I doubt that search bots should define the layout of a article, if this means that an overly-long, single-column table will force the reader to scroll indefinitely. Rfassbind – talk 04:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that these are such low-pageview articles that no one bothered to fix the disordered table layout for years. I don't think we can take that as a sign of consensus.

I object to the floating tables, and would prefer another solution. Should we ask for other ideas at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables, WT:ASTRONOMY, or both? —hike395 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, how about breaking each list into 2 tables that automatically go side-by-side if there is enough room? I've created an example of this at User:Hike395/asteroids. I gave headers to each table and used "display:inline". I also placed fixed widths on the columns, in order to look good on mobile (where the tables may be stacked on top of each other). —hike395 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "display"-attribute set to "inline" looked strange on the individual table headers (chorme/ubuntu) up to this version of your example. I thought the enlarged table-widths I added to the discoveries by Eugene Shoemaker solved the problem of the staggered tables... or didn't they? Rfassbind – talk 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't judge the earlier versions of the test: I was testing it on various combinations of browser + astronomers and ended up tweaking the parameters. Does the overall two-column table idea look ok to you?

Sadly, the enlarged table widths in that version did not make a better layout, for Ubuntu+Firefox 65, see [7]. I was trying different ideas here, and came to the conclusion that anything more than 2 columns could have the possibility of a strange layout: I couldn't guarantee that it would never layout in a strange order. —hike395 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the ((rough translation)) tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• ((db-blankdraft)) was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, re. your Template:Largest Jupiter trojans, the figs indicate that IRAS and Akari have the sizes down to the nearest 10m, and WISE to the nearest meter. That is, of course, not true. Could you either include the margins of error, or round off to the number of significant figures? Thanks — kwami (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of articles on individual Jupiter trojans, specifically in the Orbit and classification section, include "...ahead of the Gas Giant's orbit..." or "...behind on the Gas Giant's orbit...". These don't seem grammatically correct, as "Gas Giant" should not be capitalized. "Behind on the..." also doesn't seem right, and I suggest changing that to "Behind its", referring Jupiter as "it". There is also another issue with L5 Jupiter trojans, where "trailering" is used instead of "trailing". I've edited some Jupiter trojan articles although there is much more remaining. I'm not sure if you had not noticed this mistake during your revisions on these articles. Nrco0e (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]