Category talk:Main-belt-asteroid stubs

Why are you doing this?

Now, If I wrote an article about my Uncle George, who is of real interest to hundreds if not thousands of actual people, it would get deleted immediately as non-notable. How do any of these articles tell about notable things? Who in the world would ever want to read an article about 38947 Blicknbech, one more tiny speck of a rock that has nothing at all to do with anything? If each of these gets an article, you all owe an explanation to each person of minor fame whose Wiki article was deleted. Explain yourselves, please! Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple really, the asteroids have coverage in reliable sources. Your uncle George probably doesn't (but if he does, we could probably have an article on him too). henrik•talk 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So that makes them notable? These rocks are not notable! Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And many non-notable people have coverage in reliable sources. Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Precision

Some of these stubs still have a ridiculous number of significant digits in their orbital period, but with no indication of the precision or uncertainty. Some of them also don't match the data given in the source. (10126 Lärbro for example.)

If these bot-created articles are going to live here, then somehow the bot should maintain them. Otherwise all that we've got is an out of date, broken, copy of the NASA web site. APL (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Why not just merge all the information in all of these pages into a chart on the page [asteroid belt]?Chrisrus (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it would have 15,000 rows? Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Jeez, is that all? Seemed like more than that. Well, how about a link on that page to mega-chart, if you're determined to provide this information to some imaginable person who might actually need/want it for some reason I can't figure. Are there any statistics as to how many page views any of these articles have? Does anyone actually read these things? Chrisrus (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete whole category?

Why not one article of about two or three paragraphs serving to define all of these astronomic objects? 18:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unoquha (talk • contribs)

Adding redirects?

I thought I could throw in a suggestion. Most of these articles seem rather pointless, in all honesty. Although it may be a tedious task, I thought these articles could be turned into redirects to the 'List of minor planets' series (example: List of minor planets: 7001-8000 for 7672 Hawking). Honestly, I think those larger 'list' articles are entirely fine and more organized in giving a simple description for a minor planet, rather than having 17,000+ untidy, short, and redundant articles that seem to all be almost identical and for the most part, pointless, so to speak. What would be you're take on this? I am willing to change all of these articles into redirects. It's a tedious operation, but I can handle it. The whimsical enigmatic Solo Toady! 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do it. You can use WP:NASTRO and WP:BOTREQ. Chrisrus (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll get onto it ASAP. The whimsical enigmatic Solo Toady! 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continued at WP talk:Astronomy#Minor planet redirects from March 2014 about what to do with these ~300 redirects that were made.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This was entirely the wrong place to discuss this issue. There are three WikiProjects that are concerned with this. WP:AST . WP:ASTRO . WP:SOLAR and both AST and ASTRO have several years worth of discussions concerning the conversion of asteroid articles into redirects to the list -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)