[WikiEN-l] Asteroids

[David Gerard]

On 30/08/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> We currently have somewhere north of one thousand articles on
> asteroids; maybe 1200? Only two seem to have been deleted after AFDs,
> and at least one of those was a one-sentence stub; that said, there's
> only been about six deletion debates. So there seems, on the face of
> it, to be a vague acceptance of them.
> This group of articles should, at least in theory, be something that
> could be filled out with bots - the basic asteroid article is "was
> discovered by A on B, named for C, part of group D, here are orbital
> elements E and very sketchy composition details F, external links to
> databases G and H." The main reason this is simple is that for
> asteroids studied in detail, we've usually written the article
> already!


Sounds good. But fergoshsakes just put the info in a table. Worst
thing about the town rambot articles is that they're pretty crappy
prose but it never gets edited, ever; second is that the demographic
information came from a table and should be presented as a table, not
as crappy prose.

As for notability and verification - they wouldn't have numbers if
they hadn't been verified sufficiently to get one.


- d.