Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 3

Meanings of minor planet names: completely empty lists
I was browsing a bit and came across dozens, if not over a hundred of completely empty lists. These lists contain literally zero items. I am talking about the articles in the category Meanings of minor planet names: 494001–495000. Take, for example, Meanings of minor planet names: 419001–420000 494001–495000, 461001–462000, 514001–515000, and 523001–524000. Many only contain one or two named minor planets. Surely, this is not a preferable situation? I believe that, right now, we could have a list for "Meanings of minor planet names: 500000–599999" and it would be reasonably short. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The full list of lists is at Meanings of minor planet names. I'd say that anything that doesn't have at least one entry should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A "list" with only one or two entries is hardly a list at all either, I would say, hence why I suggested merging them. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 23:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that a local consensus here would likely be enough to G6/uncontroversially delete the completely empty ones. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone complaining about the deletion of empty pages; with the exception of 516k the entire 500k+ pages are empty. I've cross-posted this to WT:AST but if no one says anything in the next week or so I'll just go ahead and G6 'em all as blank/unnecessary. I'll probably AFD the 516k just to be safe, though a redirect to the list might suffice. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are placeholders, due to the randomness at which number receives a name. There are, and possibly forever will be, unpopulated named-regions in the numbered-MP landscape. So the only problem I see is with the navigation headers, which need to cross progressively larger 'unpopulated valleys' of pages to hop from inhabited island to island at the higher numbers.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are no named MPs above a certain page, then I don't see any issue deleting those pages (which can be refunded in the future of course).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair points re: island hopping. But you'd be okay with deleting everything above 516k, since they're all completely empty? Primefac (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct.
 * Courtesy ping to, in case he is planning another batch update, or if there is an MPC update coming up in the near future (they are quarterly?).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * MPC batches come out each full moon, with some exceptional months without MPCs announced in advance. I don't really see much of a difference between the last unnamed island and the ones that fall between names; I would favour keeping them all, even if the last few are completely empty, simply because then the start of redlinks shows how far numbers have been assigned. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@ and : yes you are correct, there are plenty of empty lists. While such empty lists are not a "beautiful" solution, they are consistent with the overall minor-plant project and the best solution I can imagine. I created them so that other editors can easily add new naming-citations, without the need of creating a new list first (probably copy/pasting it from an existing list without remembering all the small little details that need to be changed).

As stated before by, the naming of minor planets has increasingly become random in terms of their number (e.g. new naming per 25 Sep 2018 with being the highest numbered one in that batch). Historically, only low-numbered bodies were named (current distribution statistics), but that has already started to change and it will intensify considerably in the near future.

I don't want to change anyone's mind, I have already learnt that this is hardly possible, but if you really want to create a "mega-list" like the proposed "500000–599999" (actually that should be "500001–600000"), you might also want to consider changes in Template:MoMP, and amending the last column in the List of minor planets, e.g., because as soon as "500000–599999" will be split into, say, "500000–549999" and "550000–599999" due its growing size, more and more inconsistent cross-references will appear elsewhere. R fassbind – talk  10:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for checking InSight page against B-class criteria
With recent attention and developments in the page, I'm confident it could be upgraded to B-class, or nearly b-class (with one or two criteria unchecked). Unfortunately, I don't have the skill or knowledge to properly assess the article. Nickrulercreator (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback at Kuiper belt
Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Kuiper belt to discuss improvements to the first sentence at this Featured article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrectly labeled figure on Antitail page
I came across a few related articles here describing so-called "Type I" and "Type II" cometary tails. In all cases I found in article text, the tails are described correctly:
 * Type I tails are the ion-driven tails oriented in a straight line away from the sun.
 * Type II tails are dusty and often curved.

A useful reference for this material can be found here (and may even be open access): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ARA&A...6..267B

The antitail article here has a figure where the tail labels are swapped (curved dust tail is incorrectly labeled "Type I" and straight ion tail is incorrectly labeled "Type II"). If this had been a text error I would have added a correction myself. Reproducing the figure would take more time than I have at the moment, hence this report instead. I wasn't sure how/whether to mark this figure as misleading in the article itself (I'm new to Wikipedia editing) and couldn't readily find information on best practices. Sivs422 (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you should contact the image creator first; they might still have the original image and can quickly update it. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FAR for Ceres
I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor planets: 500001–501000 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Moon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Solar System for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jupiter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jupiter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Mars for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of images of surface of Venus
Discuss at Media copyright questions. A2soup (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Round up
,, , , , , , , ,  , , . , , , , , , , ,.

Just trying to see who is still active in this Wikiproject. There are ongoing issues, particularly regarding the impending Ceres (dwarf planet) FAR. I want to know who is ready to take these things on, because otherwise it's time to declare this project inactive.  Serendi pod ous  01:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am here. Just spending most of my time on Near-Earth asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am still here, but too busy at the moment. Don't count on me for this issue. Renerpho (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Still kicking, but going on holiday tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm watching. After the Planet Nine FAC I've been resting.  It was a lot of work. Jehochman Talk 12:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try to help. :) Ruslik_ Zero 16:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm here at least, but not very active this summer! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My time is rather limited these days, but I'll try to keep up on what is happening. Ckatz chat spy  21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent expansions at Solar System
Solar System is a featured article, but it's recently received a few expansions of stub-like quality. Could also be giving undue weight to certain objects over others. Additional eyes are required. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Planetary science mission costs
The Planetary Science Institute has recently released detailed costs for all NASA planetary science missions (all numbers are in millions of US dollars). There are headline totals for each mission, and comparisons by year, celestial object and funding stream. Detailed annual budgets for each mission are given, before and after inflation adjustment. This could be a valuable source for dozens of articles. Modest Genius talk 11:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Surface features by space objects
I was searching for Russian names on planets, moons etc and I was thinking maybe a template like Template:Surface features of space objects would be useful, so I created it, and I've added it to List of geological features on Mercury. What do you think, is it useful? Shall I add it to more lists like List of geological features on Mercury - Avram25 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

wrong mass for Pluto
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html

this NASA website states a different mass for Pluto. I believe the wikipedia article has got the wrong mass, as well as the wrong order, since Eris is more massive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.32.242.158 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no discrepancy. Our article says $1.303$, and theirs says $0.013$. Those values are equal. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tfd Template:WikiProject Solar System invite
Being proposed for deletion as unused. (Not by me.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough  17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

History of Venus (and other planets)
The redirect has been nominated at RfD. The discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20 has also touched on similar redirects for other planets. Your input into the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Another myth, or theory, concerning former planet turned asteroids
My brother and I are students, and practitioners, of astrology but not in the "traditional" sense. Both of us are studied in the esoteric and the occult, with a particular interest in matters pertaining to spirituality, and we are in the endeavor of rectifying what is wrongly believed and practiced by all schools of astrology and in the hope that astrology will eventually be given it's recognition as being an actual, though ancient and long since lost, legitimate science. My brother, however is far more erudite than myself. He has about six, or seven, university degrees the last time I checked. I, myself, have one book published on a historical event and what astrological conditions there were at the time. That being said, so as to assure all we take this matter to be of some higher degree of importance regardless of anyones' contrary opinions based on academic studies that are of the school of belief that matters pertaining to religious and, or, spiritual beliefs and lore shouldn't be on the same page with that of scientific conclusions. This matter concerns what my brother once informed me of having read, in such a tomb of esoteric-occult origin, but couldn't remember exactly what. He said, he read that Lucifer shattered the planet that existed between Mars and Jupiter so as to confuse mankinds' psyche. I suspect that he may have read this in the book "Hamlets Mill", but having never read the entire book myself, I can't substantiate that. Does anyone know of such lore, or myth, for those that prefer. Regardless, knowing my brothers degree of honesty about such matters, I think that should be mentioned in this subject. It would be wonderful, however, if it can be attributed to the source. Just my opinion and a suggestion, is all. I apologize for I do have an account but it has been so long since I've used it that I've forgotten it. I use the moniker, vajrapanee, on google, and for google mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A920:1AF0:8C17:65C6:1739:3303 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing we can do is look at the source, if it exists. If neither you nor your brother remember the name of the book, then the random facts rolling around your heads will (unfortunately) have to stay there. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Earth
I just put some commentary on our Earth article. I don't think it meets the FA criteria, and I don't have the time to bring it up to standards. Any volunteers here? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Converting WikiProject Moon to a task force of this project
Hello! I want to convert the semi-active child project WP:MOON to a task force of this project for better focusing on topics related to the Moon. Any thoughts? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have formed a draft of the task force at User:Soumya-8974/Moon task force. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The rotational period isn't a physical characteristic
&mdash; Black Walnut talk 00:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC).

FAR of Earth
I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Once in 800 years: all hands on deck
An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests#Once_in_800_years_! TFA discussion here] about this event. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jupiter Featured article review
I have nominated Jupiter for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging WP templates
Should WikiProject Solar System be merged into WikiProject Astronomy? I.e. add a 'solarsystem=' flag to the latter? They are using the same importance and quality ratings, so combining them should make it easier to maintain. As an example, I just changed the WP:ASTRO rating on Talk:617 Patroclus so now they don't match. Praemonitus (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess if WP:SS were a taskforce of WP:ASTRO, that might work. Praemonitus (talk)
 * Yeah, they're technically separate projects so it doesn't make much sense to merge them. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * But unlike other parts of the universe, the Solar System is not solely the purview of astronomy and astrology and scif; aerospace and astronautics is also a going concern. Colonization of the various parts of Solar System is not an astronomy topic, but it is a Solar System topic. Asteroid mining is not an astronomy topic, but it is a Solar System topic. To me this doesn't make sense to have WPSOLAR as part of WPASTRONOMY. Rather, a WPEARTH taskforce should be added to WPSOLAR. With the efforts of Bezos and Musk, there should be growth in the non-astronomy content for WPSOLAR that would overlap with WPSPACEFLIGHT, also not an astronomy topic except where it launches astronomical space probes. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well this is more a question of maintenance than of separation of subjects. There's little benefit to maintaining two sets of reviews when one will do. Praemonitus (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of separation of subjects. Also, it does not help maintenance when the importances are hidden by a low score for astronomy, overshadowing any higher score for SolarSystem. There are vastly different importances with WPSOLAR and WPASTRONOMY when it involves spaceflight, space construction, and space colonization. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not reflected in the documentation for the importance ratings, since it's the same for both. Ergo, you're just claiming a need based on tribal knowledge. Praemonitus (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, because the Solar System is our cosmic backyard that we are actively exploring with spacecraft and rovers. Astronomy is still useful of course in this ongoing effort, but the greater areas beyond our home system is the exclusive domain of the various branches of astronomy, the Voyager spacecraft notwithstanding. Apples and oranges, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this argument that they should be kept separately. Merging the two complicates the scope of each project our concerns with these areas of astronomy and how they are explored which seems that it also complicates the maintenance of the two as well.Swsn26 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Transit of Venus Featured article review
I have nominated Transit of Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Asteroid impact avoidance in solar system
The asteroid impact avoidance article currently focuses a lot on avoiding asteroid impact on earth. However, avoiding asteroid impact on other planets in the solar system seems just as important. The idea is that if another planet is hit by a large enough asteroid to pull it out of orbit, those altered pull/repel forces of those planets may also alter the orbit of the earth, as it is kept in balance by their pull/repel forces. Chance of that happening seems way higher then just the chance of the earth itself being hit by a (large) asteroid.

Can the article be altered to mention this ?

Another thing I'm thinking of is that the creation of a lunar base could (in the future) also help in improving the capability of deflecting asteroids which could potentially impact earth or other nearby planets in the solar system, as the launch of missiles or crafts that can alter the asteroid trajectory will be easier (and they may get much more kinetic energy, due to absence air resistance at launch). Can't find any refs, but perhaps someone can look into it. --Genetics4good (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Almost all asteroids are less than one millionth the mass of Mars. They could seriously damage the surface of Mars or other terrestrial planet, but not alter its orbit by as much as one tenth of a percent. Even the few that are that big are in the Main Belts and in no great danger of straying into a real planet's path. Also, the time is at least a century away when someone will be ready to pay to set up a station anywhere, ready to throw something meaningful at a dangerous asteroid. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment - Popular pages
Today, at Assessment I added wikilink for It is bot updated monthly. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Solar System/Popular pages


 * Thank you! I find that WikiProject popular pages feature to be most helpful. Jusdafax (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021
Hi! I am here to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo, infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to List of geological features on Venus
FYI, a mass deletion of redirects to the list article List of geological features on Venus has been proposed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Mars
I have nominated Mars for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal AstroCrete --> Lunarcrete
There is a merge discussion at Talk:Lunarcrete to merge AstroCrete to Lunarcrete. AstroCrete does not appear to be have sufficient independent notability and could instead be dealt with in a section in the existing article Lunarcrete. The previous merge proposal received zero comments and was closed as no consensus so I am re-listing and posting at relevant wikiprojects to attract some comments from interested editors. Thank you Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment notice
SpaceX Starship has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Solar system
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cinadon36 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Planet at FAR
I have nominated Planet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Artem.G (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

90377 Sedna - featured article review
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Supernova
I have nominated Supernova for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Mercury transit
Transit of Mercury is now a redirect to Mercury transit after a recent move. Anyone with an opinion on the article title might like to comment at Talk:Mercury transit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The same editor is requesting a category rename for Category:Transit of Mercury, although the process wasn't completed. Praemonitus (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Mars
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Solar System
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Solar System/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC on American or British English at Ceres (dwarf planet)
There is a discussion as to what variety of english should be enforced at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#RfC:_Shall_this_article_be_deemed_American_English_or_British_English_only? Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)] Please help form consensus by joining in the discussion party :) Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Stupid spacecraft statistics
Your serious feedback or crumpled smile would be appreciated at Talk:Timeline of the far future. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Martian craters discussion
There is a discussion at that could use additional input from this project. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Planet
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Baptistina family and 298 Baptistina
Quick notification that I started a merge discussion over at Talk:Baptistina family that is not getting any attention. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)