Wikipedia talk:Notability (extrasolar planets)

RfC on adoption

Comment is requested on whether the proposed policy for determining the notability of extrasolar planets, their host stars, and other planetary-mass bodies should be adopted as a supplement to WP:NASTRO.

Proposal 1: new policy

Oppose

• Oppose Why do we need a separate guideline from WP:NASTRO? Criteria#3 under that guideline should be enough to cover notability of exoplanets. Stars are already covered under NASTRO, so why would you have a second potentially conflicting guideline for stars? We could just add a section to the Examples section on listifying exoplanets, as we currently listify asteroids. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• oppose Seemingly already covered by WP:NASTRO (perhaps better proposed as a modification thereto?). Also, instruction creep. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is is already covered so this discussion is redundant. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This should not be separate from NASTRO, it's too early in the discovery of these objects to start making specialized criteria for them, and in any case I don't see what needs fixing in the general NASTRO criteria, which would seem to apply perfectly well to these objects. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:David Eppstein. The requestor has failed to make the case why this supplement to WP:NASTRO is necessary. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The indication of where to listify a planet can be made as a modification of NASTRO. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Whilst it all seems eminently sensible, most of the article is just a restatement of WP:NASTRO. I suggest a better approach would be to draft 2-3 paragraphs containing just the points which are specific to exoplanets - e.g. the whether to have a separate article or include in the article on the star - and then propose inserting them as a separate section of NASTRO. This is the approach adopted by minor solar system bodies, for example. Modest Genius ^talk 13:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that there should be some guideline concerning the creation/management of exoplanet articles. However, as Modest Genius said above, it would be best to propose some language that can be added to WP:NASTRO. Speaking from experience, getting a notability guideline adopted is a long and soul-sucking process. Far easier, and with more soul-intact, to modify NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I also believe that an ideal course of action is condensing this page and adding its contents into WP:NASTRO. I think that this proposal can pretty much be accurately summed up in about 3–4 paragraphs or so, which then could be added to the policy (after a straw poll, of course). In short, I support what Modest Genius and AstroCog say. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2: as a section of WP:NASTRO

Oppose

• For the same reasons I oppose making this a separate policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And what would that reason be? Rainbow Shifter (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe a section called "Dealing with extrasolar planets", inside section "#Examples"? It doesn't seem specific enough to merge into the general "criteria" section, in my humble and not-really-very-informed-about-this-topic opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious to know if User:Wer900 has a test case in mind. This proposed guideline seems so needlessly technical and specific (although I am a history major and not too bright about the sciences). The proposal looks so much like a solution looking for a problem that I have to believe there's a host of articles in the crosshairs. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at all of the articles that have been created for the borderline-notable planets of Gliese 667 C. They are, in general, extremely short stubs, conveying no information beyond that given by the star article. Wer900 • talk 19:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. That helps. What I fail to understand is, you have one Wikipedian (User:Artman40) creating stubs like Gliese 667 Cf that your proposal seeks to prohibit, and you awarded the user a space barnstar. If you don't think we should have stubs like these, wouldn't it make more sense to just discuss this with the Wikipedian in question? Was there any prior discussion about your proposal anywhere? I think you might be right about your proposal but I'd like to see that it's necessary before I endorse further regulation. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Gliese 667 Cf is not the best example. Gliese 581 g would fit the criteria better as it is unlikely that this planet exists. --Artman40 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gliese 581 g has a discovery history long enough that it warrants an article. I don't see that with the two-line stubs for the planets of GJ 667 C. Wer900 • talk 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Artman40 is not the only offender. You need only go through the list of planets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft in order to find scores of other similar articles, created by others, on planets which would not survive under the proposed policy. I gave Artman40 the space barnstar because he contributed to Gliese 667 C and other necessary articles, not for the redundant ones you identified him as creating. Wer900 • talk 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work. Kudos to all who contributed. Merge it with WP:NASTRO. Provide instructions for removing en masse enormous numbers of space object articles that fail this and WP:NASTRO. As this will have to be done by bot, there are many technical issues. Probably all info regarding objects failing this and nastro should be moved from articles to lists. Exactly how the list should be set up to receive this information should be discussed. Alternatively, the info could be dumped and re-gotten whenever it's needed from the same place it was gotten in the first place. This and NASTRO have to be not only ceremonial documents but also actually implemented in terms of the masses of articles failing this and NASTRO that have all been created. The bot should be taught to seek out and delete all NASTRO failing articles, and either re-place them on a list or just get rid of their contents. Please help because the existence of NASTRO failing articles defies NASTRO, WP:GNG, and makes it difficult to say that Wikipedia articles require notability when they clearly do not as long as these articles exist. Chrisrus (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a job for a f'ing bot. -- Kheider (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)