On Feb 4, 2008 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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 opon.
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9912_Donizetti 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.
Cheers WilyD