Template talk:Impact cratering on Earth

Threats
@Ikluft: Why do you think Apophis and 2004VD17 are still "potential threats"? They have been determined to be non-threatening to Earth and downgraded to Torino scale 0 long ago, and I'm not aware of them being under "active observation" any more than other NEOs not listed here. IMO only asteroids with a significantly non-zero impact probability (as determined by a Torino scale level ≥1 or some similar scale) should be listed here. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the list of potential threats section of the template is not to be a news service. It is to list asteroids which have Wikipedia articles which show this topic is real.  Criteria for listing in that section should be broad enough to relevant current topics, not just what JPL currently lists as Torino Scale 1 and above.  Everything which has been at Torino Scale 1 now has a history as a significant NEO and remains part of telling the whole story. Apophis in particular has the 2029 "keyhole" issue - it is definitely under active observation to determine whether it will pass through that area which would cause an impact in 2036.  Using the guidance from article notability that "notability is not temporary", any asteroid which has been Torino Scale 1 should continue to be considered relevant for that section.  After the section fills up, this criteria may be revisited to reduce the total number of items.  But for now, please retain everything that is or has been relevant in order to adequately cover the subject. Ikluft (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course this is not a news service, but it should still take into account years-old information which make previous infos outdated and incorrect, just as any WP article. And listing objects as "Potential threats" which are now known not to pose an above-average threat at all is just incorrect. So if you want to retain these, the "title" of that list must be changed accordingly, e.g. to "Potential threats and former potential threats" or something like that.


 * BTW, the "keyhole" threat of Apophis has been rebuked 5 years ago, according to its WP article:
 * "However, a possibility remained that during the 2029 close encounter with Earth, Apophis would pass through a gravitational keyhole, a precise region in space no more than about a half-mile wide,[6] that would set up a future impact on April 13, 2036. This possibility kept the asteroid at Level 1 on the Torino impact hazard scale until August 2006, when the probability that Apophis will pass through the keyhole was determined to be very small."


 * And note that there are lots of NEOs which had Torino Scale 1 in the past which are not listed here, see the list in Torino_Scale. They would certainly "fill up" this section.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's hypothetical to talk about the list filling up. It was short, with notable articles listed.  It got slashed down to unnecessarily few.  "Very small probability" is imprecise language which effectively describes all these NEOs anyway.  So let's turn this in a productive direction.  Don't take too narrow a view on a template which is intended to help navigate articles relevant to the subject.  The ones which are listed have been in the news and are arguably notable by the prior attention they got.  Again, use Wikipedia's guidance that notability is not temporary.  There can be multiple criteria for relevance to readers of this subject.  But the ones which are listed rose to sufficient notability, which does not go away - they should not be removed from the list without consensus about thresholds for being listed. Ikluft (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Apophis was mentioned in the media again today: see "Asteroid debate rises to next level" at MSNBC's Cosmic Log. Ikluft (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not at all "hypothetical to talk about the list filling up" (which you started talking about, BTW) - as I said, by the criterion you suggested, it would already be "filled up", consisting of some 15 entries. I don't dispute that the objects in question remain somewhat notable, but they are listed under an incorrect heading. Correctness of facts does change as newer info becomes available. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to rephrase my statements out of context as if you could convince me I meant something else. Since you haven't responded with other relevant Wikipedia guidelines, this is unconvincing. Just leave it as it is. I consider this discussion done. Ikluft (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your guideline does not provide for keeping Apophis et. al. in this list - I didn't dispute that these objects remain notable (as former potential threats now). The most basic guideline of WP is that we only give accurate information from reliable sources, and your guideline does not preclude this. Claiming Apophis to still be a "potential threat" without giving an up-to-date reference for this (i.e. since after it was downgraded to Torino scale 0, which made it "officially" not a potential threat any more) is just as absurd as claiming that Pluto is still a planet, which was considered true until some years ago, but is no longer. Information that was correct in the past need not remain so forever.
 * I've deleted a statement of mine that may be considered out of context (sorry for that), but my main points stands: You said above: "Using the guidance from article notability that "notability is not temporary", any asteroid which has been Torino Scale 1 should continue to be considered relevant for that section. After the section fills up, this criteria may be revisited to reduce the total number of items." As you can count on Torino scale, there are 15 objects that have been rated Torino scale 1 or higher in the past, which in my opinion would fill up the section. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining brevity in the navbox
We had a multiple revert situation which I'd like to resolve here. , it's commendable to want to follow the Manual of Style. But MOS:INITIALS was intended for article text. Navboxes where dots are already used as separators is not addressed. There are many varied circumstances where efforts are made to remove redundant link text or other fluff, to resist growth of the screen real estate in navboxes. Please go along with the effort to maintain brevity and prevent unnecessary growth of the navbox. Any increase in size of the navbox shouldn't be taken lightly, and most need scrutiny. Ikluft (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to nitpick on the smallest of the characters (literally: you can't have something smaller than a dot/period), you may want to eliminate commas in the same links – or even eliminate extra initials altogether. cherkash (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The best advice I can give is to take this seriously but not personally, per WP:AGF. The biggest concern in this case is that dots are already used for separators, and cause unnecessary visual clutter when used for initials. It works fine without them; it has problems with them. But there are many temptations for editors to expand navboxes without considering the bigger long-term picture, especially for a high profile topic like impact cratering. The life cycle of an unmaintained navbox would be something along the lines of incremental growth until someone decides it's too big and slashes it down to the opposite extreme, eventually leading to TfD deletion of a nearly-empty navbox. Resisting unnecessary growth of various kinds prevents reaching the slashing phase. Ikluft (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)