Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:15, 19 January 2011 [1].

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons[edit]

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: RandomCritic, Urhixidur, Serendipodous, Wikiproject Solar System, Wikiproject Physics, Wikiproject Astronomy

Promoted some time ago, this list is showing its age. I've asked a couple of the primary contributors to fix the issues listed on the talkpage, but little has been done since I notified them that the list was "at risk". So, formal process, here we are. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical WikiSilliness. The point of the article is to present information, not to meet some arbitrary standards of prettiness dreamt up by editors with far, far too much time on their hands. The list is being condemned, inter alia, for having blank cells (e.g., in the image column where no image is available) and for using bold letters in what is claimed to be a non-standard way! The whole thing is ridiculous. RandomCritic (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the list on the talkpage contains more than just a recommendation not to have blank cells, e.g. failure to comply with WP:MOS (one of the basic criteria for WP:WIAFL), dead links, WP:ACCESS issues etc. It's not a condemnation of anything, it's an opportunity to improve the article, thanks for your input to the process of trying to keep our featured material up to the highest standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore the author of this nomination hasn't even bothered to understand the content of the list he's critiquing. "WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well." But in fact the use of color is entirely redundant to the information provided in the cells: the Designation and Planet/Number Designation columns. You could monochrome the entire table and no essential information would be lost. I don't understand the purpose behind this entire rigmarole of a process -- for any real issues with the list -- e.g. broken links -- why not simply either fix the link, or make a note on the talk page asking to have the link fixed? Why does anybody think that this process is the first step to be taken? RandomCritic (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert in this subject so that's why it's here for improvements to be made. And yes, now you've added planet names to each of the rows without planet names in, colour has become redundant. Thanks for fixing the links. And as for this being the "first" step, you know 100% that it was not. I placed this "at risk" a week ago, (and notified you) and none of my comments (which I gave the following day) were addressed. This is the second step. And if the article is improved to meet our current criteria (including compliance with WP:MOS) then there should be no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The names I added are redundant; if you look at the Designation column you will see the letters "J", "S", "U", "N" indicating the planet to which the moon belongs. That information has always been there; I didn't just add it.
And no, putting something on an 'at risk' page which has no formal or official status isn't a "first step", it's not a step at all. You never linked to this page, so as far as I know it exists only in your mind. And you never produced a list of problems until I insisted on it; you put them first on my talk page, not on the Timeline talk page; and you never gave sufficient time for the editors to consider and discuss the problems (or, mostly, pseudo-problems) which you purported to identify. This entire procedure has been bass-ackwards from the beginning.RandomCritic (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can tell you feel indignant that someone would try to keep the standards of this featured list up to the current criteria. You were aware of the issues since 10 November. If you don't want to help, don't, but please stop filling this page with unhelpful rhetoric. I've tried to do this in a friendly, slow build-up way, but you just want to argue about it, rather than address the "pseudo-problems" (as you put it). If the problems are so trivial then I would imagine you could have fixed them in the time it's taken for you to explain what a foul-up I'm making of Wikipedia. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't linked to this discussion from the talk page. How do you expect editors of the article to respond when you aren't even letting them in on the discussion?RandomCritic (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morning, just popping in before I fly. Actually, you're wrong again. The talk page of the article has a big notice right at the top, letting the world know about this discussion. Also, you and the two other major contributors were personally notified of this nomination. So, I think you need to re-think your point of view. And as for me not contributing anything of substance, well I suppose if you discount the 37 featured lists, 9 featured articles, 2 featured topics, 1 good article, 7 DYKs and 4 ITNs, yes, I suppose you're right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - just to be clear, this list's primary contibutors have had plenty of opportunities to fix these issues, but nothing has been done. Several other lists have gone through the experimental "at risk" process and improvements have been made accordingly. The advice here has been rather unfortunately vehemently rejected and treated like some kind of personal attack, when all it was trying to achieve was ongoing excellence in our featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Okay firstly get over yourself. There are some issues here and you were given adequate notice, crying about it helps no-one. The one thing you can hopefully change is standard of the list and, if so, there will be no problems in keeping this list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Massive WP:V issues.
    • Or "Metis" ref 63 doesn't mention March 4, 1979, its name, or the designation S/1979 J 3 or Synnott Voyager I, or designation XVI
    • Take "Puck", ref 75, same problems
    • I'm finding these throughout.
      • I have fixed all of these by adding about a hundred billion gajillion inline citations to the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature; this was previously an external link. Reyk YO! 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the "lead" is actually a key. I'd make a ==Key== section for that info. Also consider using {{Col-2}} templates to reduce the space the colour legend takes up
  • That would leave your lead consisting of This timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their natural satellites charts the progress of the discovery of new bodies over history. Historically the naming of moons did not always match the times of their discovery. Just provide some introduction. Influence of technology on discoveries, using imaging instead of observations. Issues with the naming not matching. Reasons and references.
  • I'd consider moving the one 1950s entry into the following section. As "Early" and "Late" 20th C. are not strictly defined it might as well be split down the middle.
  • "References/Notes" is a suitable header in prehistory when they are written about but for alot "Herschel[xy]" isn't a Ref or Note. I assume this is who (or what) discovered it but I shouldn't have to. Try and find a more suitable header.
    • Seems that someone has taken care of this. Reyk YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Planet/Number Designation" heading is also confusing. Especially later when there is also a "Designation" column as well.
    • Seems that someone has taken care of this. Reyk YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "(Jupiter)" or "(Saturn)" mean? Is it speculated it belongs to that planet, is it that is just hasn't been designated a roman numeral (if not, why). Inform the reader.
    • Removed Clarified the last offending one. Reyk YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)edited Reyk YO! 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "January 16, 2007 (?)" – what is the ? about.
    • In the Key it is stated that it means the date is uncertain. Reyk YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later there are some empty "o: ". Why?
    • Appended a '?' to those two. Reyk YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The state this is in is not what one would expect of an FL and without improvements I would recommend delisting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are very sound critiques.RandomCritic (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that those aren't "very sound critiques" is truly laughable. Do you think I spent half an hour making up problems to amuse me? More specifically, are you saying there aren't massive problems with the referencing. If so care to point out where the couple of unreferenced examples I pointed out are verfiable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One entry into Rambo's Revenge's list, the insufficient reference, is enough to complain about. Your comment that it's not a "sound critique" is just... incomprehensible. It's not a sound complaint to point out insufficient referencing? Really? --Golbez (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the list is somewhat far from current standards, but could we NOT make contributing to wikipedia the opposite of fun? This lis more tricky that the 100th discography FL, so could reviewers care to have some understanding? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm well aware this isn't a "cookie-cutter" but I'm not going to let a sub-standard list through because it is unique. I have plenty experience working with unique lists so I don't really grasp why I'm being told to have "understanding". Furthermore, what would be the correct reaction to being told my review isn't sound. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - It fails WP:ACCESS at the very least, but also fails WP:LEAD. Many of the references also don't use the correct reference templates {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}. Although an easily fixable issue a lot of the references seem to be formatted weirdly (examples Ref 6, 160, 168). Also not a big issue, entries "Epimetheus", "Helene" and "Janus" look to be unnecessarily over referenced. I'm confused over the Prehistory formatting as well it appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the article to say the least. Afro (Talk) 13:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing some of the issues :
    • I'd consider moving the one 1950s entry into the following section. As "Early" and "Late" 20th C. are not strictly defined it might as well be split down the middle.
"Early"/"Late" normally means first fifty years, last fifty years, so there is little doubt where the 1950s entry should go.
    • What does "(Jupiter)" or "(Saturn)" mean? Is it speculated it belongs to that planet, is it that is just hasn't been designated a roman numeral (if not, why). Inform the reader.
Fixed.
    • "January 16, 2007 (?)" – what is the ? about.
It means we're not sure. What else could it mean? I guess it could be expanded to "(uncertain)". A note has been added in the key.
    • Later there are some empty "o: ". Why?
Because we have not been able to find those dates. These empty entries are an appeal to contributors to fill them in. I guess they could be filled with "(uncertain)".
How does a non-expert understand what a blank "o" signifies? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the references seem to be formatted weirdly (examples Ref 6, 160, 168).
I fail to see the alleged weirdness. Please explain.
Very odd (in my mind) to link to a known dead link (e.g. ref 6). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen a reference say "if an error occurs, go to this URL" or "freely available copy". Afro (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former case is because the direct URL will not work, for reasons beyond me; the workaround is unavoidable until someone figures a direct URL that will work. The latter case occurs because recent IAUCs are accessible by subscription only, but since this is a sliding time window, they will eventually be freely accessible. Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't verify the information theres no point in keeping the dead link in the article. The point I'm making is not that the second requires a subscription, as far as I know these aren't discouraged, however I fail to understand the "freely available copy" part of the reference. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Entries "Epimetheus", "Helene" and "Janus" look to be unnecessarily over referenced.
Quite necessary: the references are all brief, and these objects took literally decades to get figured out. Urhixidur (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the references are referencing different elements of the row, then there are many over-referenced items here. The time taken to "figure out" these objects is irrelevant to how they should be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CITEKILL. Afro (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. There is no single source that ties together the story of these discoveries: the series of brief telegrams referenced must be read in sequence to understand what went on. Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References should be to Verify the information in the table not to tell the story of these planets. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through a few of these communications, it seems to me that all the sources are necessary to verify all of the information for a given entry. Reyk YO! 03:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly sure about that, Reading over the sources for example "Himalia" it seems Ref 30 backs up some of the information given in the table (not all) while 33-37 seem to just verify this information while not giving any new information on the announcement of the first publication nor information regarding its name in the period of 1955–1975. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give another explanation in hopes of moving along the FLRC. For "Leda", Ref 30 confirms Date of Discovery, Discoverer and Date of first Image. Ref 57 to 60 makes no mention of Date of first publication. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional comments
  • "found in Voyager photographs" link "Voyager" appropriately for non-experts.
Fixed.
  • Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced.
  • Typo - millenium.
Fixed.
  • Other Designation in that table (a) should be Other designation and (b) according to whom? What qualifies for "other designation" in this case?
I think you refer to those cases where the column shows "nth Planet" as well as IAU-approved permanent designations such as "Saturn VII". The former designation enjoys no "official status" but has nevertheless seen extended use.
  • Permanent Designation ->Permanent designation, similar for Discoverer(s)/Notes - make it ../notes.
Fixed as "...and notes".
  • References 4 and 5 (and maybe others) are footnotes, not references, and should themselves have references.
Fixed.
  • Ref 91, MPEC links to a disambiguation page.
Fixed.
  • Ceres unreferenced.
Fixed.
  • Same for Haumea, Hi′iaka, Namaka...
Fixed.
  • Some entries have multiple names, e.g. Himalia, this should be explained in the key.
See the expanded paragraph. Does it address this point satisfactorily?
  • Don't superscript "th" or "st" or "rd" e.g. 9th per the WP:MOS.
Actually, that's in Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Typography; WP:MOS only bans superscripts from centuries and millennia. Fixed. (I don't like that rule, for the record)
Disambig page created.
Disambig link created.
  • Reitsema is overlinked in 1980s.
Fixed.
  • Cassini–Huygens should have an en-dash separating the words, not a hyphen.
Fixed.
  • Can you explain how, for instance, ref 169 is definitively the first time anything was published about S/2009 S 1? Is there definitive evidence somewhere that ciclops.org is the de facto origin of such publications? Bear in mind we are non-experts...
IAUCs are definitive references, and this one just happens to have been mirrored on ciclops.org. Otherwise it'd be another one of those "subscription required" links.
  • Avoid mixture of date formats in the references, e.g. Ref 1 has 2010-03-12 while ref 6 says 5 March 1656.
Fixed. (Although I would think using a more compact format for "access dates" is better; enhances their different nature)
Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In a significant procedural violation, not this page but my talk page was linked to from the article under discussion. Accordingly the following material was placed on my talk page, from which I have removed them. It should be apparent that the fact that this discussion is ongoing is still only apparent to two or three editors (apparently randomly chosen) of the article.RandomCritic (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect again, as I said to you above, this page is linked to from the banner at the top of the talkpage of the article and has been done since the start of this FLRC. Please stop deliberately deceiving people. Gosh, this isn't easy is it? The people I personally notified were the top active editors in the article history, found here. Please don't fill this up with ongoing vitriol, just try to save the list, eh? And for what it's worth, you got exactly what you asked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The below is 6 revisions originally at RandomCritic's talk page which they C&P here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

The above list has been identified at WP:FLC as being "at risk" of delisting. This basically means that it's still in a reasonably good shape, but that it needs updating in line with current featured list standards. I'm letting you know this as you are a major contributor to the list. If the list is not improved, then it will be nominated at WP:FLRC. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RC, thanks for your note. Some pointers to help the list achieve current standards...
  1. We no longer start with "This is a list..." or "This timeline..." - we now expect an article-standard introduction, so, in this case two or three paras of good prose to explain what were about to read, which adequately summarises the list.
  2. References to online sources could use accessdate parameters.
  3. WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well.
  4. Inline links such as "Systema Saturnium ", " Kosmotheôros" etc should be avoided.
  5. Bold is discouraged to indicate a particular property, per WP:MOSBOLD.
  6. While the table footers aren't explicitly discouraged, they are highly unusual, and not really needed.
  7. References/Notes -> what does "Herschel" mean to a non-expert? Perhaps "Discovered by Herschel" would be more obvious.
  8. Consistency on linking is required. You don't relink Kuiper, for instance, but you do relink Kowal.
  9. Blank cells are not great, for those without images, I'd suggest an en- or em-dash. Same for those blank cells for nameless moons.
  10. What makes the first of the External links reliable?
  11. The Hawaii.edu link is dead.
  12. As is the aa.usno.navy.mil link.
  13. Some refs are actually notes, e.g. [4] and [5]... and they need to be referenced.
  14. What is IAUC? Is it linked/expanded anywhere?
  15. Checklinks (here) says four links are dead.
This is a quick sample of some of the things that stood out. The "at-risk" category is new, so thanks for your feedback, I'll ensure future lists in this category receive more explicit detail on how to match up to current FL standards. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Just to let you know the list will be nominated at WP:FLRC on 15 November should these issues not be dealt with. This usually means you and other interested parties will have a fotnight to fix issues in the list before it's demoted. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working comments:

1. We no longer start with "This is a list..." or "This timeline..." - we now expect an article-standard introduction, so, in this case two or three paras of good prose to explain what were about to read, which adequately summarises the list.

I expanded that a bit. I don't want the intro to get too long, particularly considering how much the Key section explains what is about to unfold.
Still starts incorrectly and isn't long enough to adequately summarise the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. References to online sources could use accessdate parameters.

Too late for most of those. Can't be helped.
Not at all. Just add the accesdate parameter to each use of {{Cite web}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well.

The colour-coded information is redundant with the cell data. For instance, all Jupiter moons are identified as such by their designation(s).

4. Inline links such as "Systema Saturnium ", " Kosmotheôros" etc should be avoided.

Fixed.

5. Bold is discouraged to indicate a particular property, per WP:MOSBOLD.

Well, they don't hurt.
If they contravene the manual of style, the list fails the criteria, so will need to be delisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. While the table footers aren't explicitly discouraged, they are highly unusual, and not really needed.

Not needed? I beg to differ. Some of the sections are so long the column titles scroll off the top of the screen; repeating them like has been done here helps the reader to keep his orientation.

7. References/Notes -> what does "Herschel" mean to a non-expert? Perhaps "Discovered by Herschel" would be more obvious.

That column now reads "Discovere(s)/Notes".

8. Consistency on linking is required. You don't relink Kuiper, for instance, but you do relink Kowal.

I think that's fixed now: within each section, only the first occurrence is linked.

9. Blank cells are not great, for those without images, I'd suggest an en- or em-dash. Same for those blank cells for nameless moons.

Fixed.

10. What makes the first of the External links reliable?

I don't know. They are just in alphabetical order.
No, I meant what makes them reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11. The Hawaii.edu link is dead.

No such link now.

12. As is the aa.usno.navy.mil link.

(Hilton) Not dead now.

13. Some refs are actually notes, e.g. [4] and [5]... and they need to be referenced.

True. This remains to be done.

14. What is IAUC? Is it linked/expanded anywhere?

IAUC, MPEC now linked.

15. Checklinks (here) says four links are dead.

All fixed now.

Urhixidur (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC

I have nominated Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can I get an update on what has been fixed and what still needs to be addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure as to what's been fixed but there are some problems regarding referencing I think most noticeable WP:CITEKILL, other problems include Access and Lead issues. Afro (Talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on a quick revisit, I can see the following:

  • WP:OR in the lead (. Possibly the most famous instance ....)
  • Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced.
  • WP:MOSBOLD is contravened in the tables.
And what would you suggest? Bold type is used to mark satellites; italic type is used to mark planets. Serendipodous 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest compliance with the WP:MOS, in other words don't use bold to designate something. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No explanation as to where or what "other designation" means.
  • No explanation as to why "permanent designation" actually isn't permanent and has changed for many objects many times.
  • No explanation as to what "temporary designation" means.
  • Some odd entries (e.g. "S/1981 N 1= S/1989 N 2" and "Ortiz, Aceituno Castro, Santos-Sanz)[30][157] or (Brown, Trujillo, Rabinowitz)[158][159]" for instance - footnotes would greatly assist the non-expert here).
  • Per Afro, CITEKILL is evident.
That's unfair. These aren't historical discussions; they're physical and orbital data on large floating balls. Other than simply reiterate the same information, I don't see what an alternate source would do. Serendipodous 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CITEKILL means you're using too many citations for a given fact, and that becomes confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what part is unfair, CITEKILL is a clear issue with the article. Afro (Talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 editorial work

Addressing each point raised in December 2010:

  • WP:OR in the lead (Possibly the most famous instance...)
Could you clarify what you mean? All I read in the intro are statements borrowed from other WP articles. That is to say, established facts. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying something like "Possibly the most famous instance" is original research. Unless you have a citation that says this, or says it is the most famous instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. It'll make the text very dry to read indeed, if one can't throw light-weight affirmations like this into it. I've "neutralized" ("neutered"?) the "offending" sentence. (Sounds like Thomas Bowdler would be proud of WP:OR). Urhixidur (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you understand! Bowdler wasn't trying to write a neutral POV encyclopedia, obviously!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced.
And what would you suggest? Bold type is used to mark satellites; italic type is used to mark planets. Serendipodous 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest compliance with the WP:MOS, in other words don't use bold to designate something. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one is free to ignore bolding and italicizing (it is redundant), so does this nevertheless contravene MOSBOLD? Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an WP:ACCESS issue. It's not about ignoring it, it's about making sure it's not the not the only thing that designates a property. And it should comply with WP:MOS per WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No explanation as to where or what "other designation" means.
  • No explanation as to why "permanent designation" actually isn't permanent and has changed for many objects many times.
  • No explanation as to what "temporary designation" means.
All three types of designations are now explained or linked to explanations in the key. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some odd entries (e.g. "S/1981 N 1= S/1989 N 2" and "(Ortiz, Aceituno Castro, Santos-Sanz)[30][157] or (Brown, Trujillo, Rabinowitz)[158][159]" for instance - footnotes would greatly assist the non-expert here).
For the former, they're just synonyms. See Larissa (moon) for details. I've removed the equal sign.
For the latter, read the Haumea article to understand. I've added an explicit (see the Controversy over the discovery of Haumea) to the box. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Afro, CITEKILL is evident.
That's unfair. These aren't historical discussions; they're physical and orbital data on large floating balls. Other than simply reiterate the same information, I don't see what an alternate source would do. Serendipodous 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CITEKILL means you're using too many citations for a given fact, and that becomes confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what part is unfair, CITEKILL is a clear issue with the article. Afro (Talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very, very weary of REMOVING citations after all the effort that went into identifying them in the first place. I'll look into the cases when time allows, and mount a defence. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well consider this FLRC has been running for quite some time, so it may be that if these are not all resolved very soon then the list will be demoted. Please note that this doesn't stop you from renominating it once all the issues are fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started working on the CITEKILL issue by merging blocks of citations (as suggested by the CITEKILL page). What strikes me, though, is that CITEKILL is not appropriate to this list: the long strings of citations all occur at the end of boxes listing the discoverers. They do not impede the flow of sentences, because they do not appear within sentences. This said, grouping citations leads to only a few remaining "problematic" boxes (of more than 3 citations): Janus (both appearances), Adrastea, Epimetheus, Helene, and the Kalyke through S/2000 J 11 series. Urhixidur (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note This FLRC has lasted over two months, and although it was initially dragged down by procedural issues and off-topic commentary, a lot of good work has been done to improve the list. However, there are still significant concerns regarding the lead section, referencing and MOS issues that need to be resolved. In light of these problems and the overall consensus at this FLRC, I am going to delist this article from FL status. I encourage all editors who have participated in improving this list since it reached FLRC to continue, so that we might soon see the bronze star in the top-right corner again. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons/archive1&oldid=1089074972"