On Feb 4, 2008 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But I do
advocate [[WP:V|A third party source]] as a minimum inclusion
criterion (Perhaps this is why I've been called "an inclusionist
troll"), and only galaxies which've been catalogued in some
publication should have articles - maybe 2 million tops. Which some
such articles might not be of interested again for a while, they're
certainly verifiable and encyclopaedic, and not doing any harm.
If they haven't been mentioned in anything more than a catalogue, it's
impossible to write more than a sentence about them (name, date of
discovery and location is about it). I thought substubs were frowned
Err, depends on how detailed the catalogue is - I've never looked at
SDSS galaxy data, so I'm not sure, nor derivitive catalogues. Some
"catalogy" datasets actually contain a reasonable amount of
information with which to write a few sentences.
Substubs are probably a fiction anyhow - there'll be a backlash
against "classification creep" before too long - the featured articles
of 2004 are the B class articles of 2008.
But as for writing from catalogues - not five minutes ago I wrote
from essentially two
catalogue entries + a naming citation - while slightly more than a
single catalogue entry, but the point still sticks - [[9912
Donizetti]] is clearly a stub, not a "substub" - it contains almost
all the important bits of information on the body. I actually noticed
now it has a type from an SDSS catalogue, which means the article, so
three cataglogues + naming citation .. fine, the point remains.
Useful, short, acadmic, written from catalogues + a naming citation.
Three sentences, true, because most of the information is better
presented in an infobox. Without that, it'd be two or three
paragraphs. But almost all this information is available in a single
catalogue from the Minor Planet Center, yet supports a reasonable
article ... and certainly more informative catalogues exist to boot.