Category talk:Minor planet redirects

How important is this category?[edit]

There are ~17,000 minor-planet redirects and only 619 of them are here (~3.6%). My question is, should this cat be: 1) emptied, then deleted, 2) filled, or 3) left alone and incomplete?

As a possible, but not very adequate, surrogate, {{WikiProject Astronomy}} has a much higher completion % of these redirects (> 90%). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an underlying question which is unanswered: How important are redirect categories in general? But purely for the purposes of establishing which item are in fact minor planet redirect it should be present on all of them. I imagine this would make the current task you are looking at easier, for example.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Is that something that is (or can be) decided by the corresponding Wiki Project (WP:AST), or the Wikipedia community at large? I.e. can WP:AST decide whether to do #1, #2, or #3, or not, or maybe a discussion between the two? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:AST notified at WT:AST#How important is Category:Minor planet redirects?) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be much simpler to find MP #Rs if they were all in this category. Right now, (almost) all "worthwhile" MP #Rs (excluding #Rs for typos, renames, misspellings, etc.) are in the Category:Minor planets hierarchy, but alongside legitimate articles. To find the MP #Rs, I need to recurse that cat about 5-6 times in AWB, then sweep though that list (again with AWB) to extract only the #Rs. I'm somewhat ok with doing this, but it makes the complete listing of MP #Rs inaccessible to other editors. I only recently discovered this category, and am wondering why it's been so neglected, given its usefulness. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]