On 8/31/06, ScottL <scott(a)mu.org> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/08/06, Daniel Mayer
<maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not a good idea since that is all we know about most asteroids and
those data
would be far more
> useful in a big table of asteroids, not on
individual pages for each
space rock.
In fact,
the basics are already in the List of asteroids tables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%2839001-40000%29
We can just add to the table.
Excellent! So what we need then is a forest of redirects.
- d.
Ok, this is an even better idea. I am a strong believer in the idea
that 50 articles that have no hope of ever becoming more than a stub can
(sometimes) make a single good article. We might want to add links to
the various online DB's that are essentially the primary sources for
most of this as well. I think most of the major astro catalogs are
available online now days.
SKL
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
I would be happy with that if we don't have a lot of information
about them.
I suspect that over time with researchers working on studies of these bodies
more information will become available about them and we will be able to
expand some of them into legitimate articles.
Regards
*Keith Old*