Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconGeology: Meteorites Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Meteorites task force.

Commons?[edit]

Should the task force page include links to some Commons categories? For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meteorite ?

For sure. Perhaps in the Resources section? Feel free to add it and any others you are aware of. -Arb. (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Template modified[edit]

I had {{WikiProject Geology}} modified to include the fields |meteorite= and |meteorite-importance=. This is not exactly as requested on the task force page, but it is consistent with the way the articles have been tagged. Articles in this task force are now grouped in the category Category:Meteorites articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I've similarly modified {{Infobox meteorite}} to populate Category:Wikipedia infobox meteorite articles without coordinates‎ if Lat_Long= is omitted or blank. The new category is grouped in Category:Meteorites articles. -Arb. (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Almost forgot... modified some days {{Infobox meteorite}} ago to populate category Category:Meteorites by name, most easily accessed from the {{Meteorites}} navbox. -Arb. (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite journals‎[edit]

Only Meteoritics & Planetary Science is listed in {{Meteorites}}. Are there any others of note? -Arb. (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know Neil Degrasse Tyson said about Pluto that in science "You can't have a category of one". We could add some journals that sometimes cover meteorites: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, ... or merge the box with another one. Maybe Organisations and Journals? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ended up as Category:Meteoritics publications (discussion elsewhere) with three entries at present but scope for many more. -Arb. (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

As a general rule, it's good to have an infobox at the top of any article that is part of a set. To that end I've built a list of all meteorite articles that lack one. The first three groups are listed for information / completeness. The last three merit discussion.

Introductory and lists

No infobox required

Journals, organisations and cultural objects

Done

Falls, fields and hunting

No infobox required except...

IMA rejected minerals

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocks_and_minerals#Category:Meteorite_minerals

  1. Any idea which infobox to use? There is an inconclusive discussion at User_talk:Chris.urs-o#Meteorite_minerals


Mineralogy and petrology

Some questions for folk with domain knowledge:

  1. Are there any important articles missing from the list?
  2. Are there any that should not be here?
  3. Is there a good way of structuring these?
  4. Is there a need for an introductory article on this topic?
  5. Do any fit more naturally in Classification (below) or elsewhere?
Classification

This is the most interesting one. Some questions for folk with domain knowledge:

  1. Are there any important articles missing from the list?
  2. Are there any that should not be here?
  3. Do any fit more naturally with Mineralogy and petrology (above) or elsewhere?
  4. Is there a good way of structuring these eg using the tables for type/class/group and structural classification given at Template:Infobox meteorite/doc?
  5. Do they (or subsets of them) have any attributes in common that would lend themselves to the creation of a useful infobox for the topic?
  • Meteorite classification – introductory so no infobox required but could do with being reworked for clarity and structure

-Arb. (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The discussion took place elsewhere but infoboxes have been added and categories amended to resolve this as far as is possible at present. -Arb. (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

Recent findings and creations:

Tektites[edit]

Should Tektites be included? -Arb. (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard call to make. I would vote no because they have a composition similar to the impact target and not the meteorite. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Nevil Story Maskelyne[edit]

Does anybody know if we can get this picture for the Nevil Story Maskelyne article (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mopa1/5710965695/)? He is one of the creators of the modern meteorite classification. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly upload it to Wikipedia under the "fair use of old photos of long dead people" licence (or whatever its real name is). The upload dialogue will guide you to this. Others might or might not copy it to Wikimedia Commons in due course, which would be fine either way. -Arb. (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 Done Picture just got reviewed. I looks like we can keep it. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Do we need a category "meteoritics scientist" or whatever that would be more elegantly called? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if it turns out there are enough of them to make a separate category worthwhile. For now, let's continue to categorise all people into Category:People associated with meteorites. -Arb. (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt a meteorite[edit]

Meteorites template[edit]

I fiddled with the template a bit to conform to modern classification but also include other and older approaches. The template can be viewed here. I still have to research a couple of more terms before it is ready to go live (User:Tobias1984/Sandbox_6) Feedback would be nice. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteoric iron[edit]

Has meteoric iron reached c-class? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Have reassessed it to C. Might even be B but best if someone knowledgeable outside the task force rates anything higher than C (unless blindingly obvious). Any idea who we might co-opt? -Arb. (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really know whom or where to ask for help. Maybe we could try the astronomy project again? It is anyway difficult to run a task force with just two people. I think we have to try to get the project into signpost or something, to generate some publicity and get a couple of more editors. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know User:RockMagnetist or User:Vsmith well enough to ask? They both seem straight forward no nonsense guys who would make good reviewers, able to clearly explain what's needed to move an article up a grade should it fail their review. -Arb. (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that User:Vsmith did a couple of edits on the article. It would probably be a good thing to ask him then. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User:Vsmith was so nice, to take some time for this. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meteorite group[edit]

I've derived a new template {{Infobox meteorite group}} from {{Infobox meteorite}} and used it on IAB meteorites and IVB meteorites. Please check that the values used there make sense.

It generates Category:Meteorite groups a sub-category, for now, of Category:Meteorite types (but see next thread).

It includes the following fields for which I've found no use. Should they be removed?

|Clan =
|Number_of_specimens =
|TKW =

And are there any fields obviously missing?

Update: {{Infobox meteorite class}} and {{Infobox meteorite type}} to follow.

-Arb. (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "clan" can stay. I think it is practical for some meteorites, but of course not for most. Number of specimen could also be called "number of meteorites". I filled in 14 in IVB meteorites but it would look nicer with "Number of meteorites". I would prefer if we settle on this style: "A Meteorite is from a single fall, and can have many fragments. From both of these, specimen are cut." Not sure about TKW - Maybe some people would like to fill it in for the smaller meteorite groups to emphasize how little mass has fallen on earth. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Did exactly that for CI chondrite (number of meteorites & TKW). So we'll keep them all. -Arb. (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meteorite types et al[edit]

This is a proposal to change part of "our" category tree. Discussion welcome.

  1. Create a new Category:Meteorite classification (under Category:Meteorites) with sub-categories:
    1. Category:Meteorite types the existing one repurposed to hold only the items in column one of this table ie Chondrite, Achondrite, Iron & Stony-iron.
    2. Category:Meteorite classes for the items in column two of the table.
    3. Category:Meteorite groups; exists (see thread above), for the items in column three of the table.

Question. Does this account for everything currently in Category:Meteorite types and if not, what's left?

-Arb. (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem, that is also pointed out in the publication by Weisberg, is that none of these names like type, group, clan, class, etc... are used consistently by scientists working on classification. We have a huge mixture going on ourselves. The table says that types are chondrites, achondrites, iron and stony-iron; but in the category "meteorite types" it lists a collection of groups (aubrites), clans (lunar meteorites), structural (octahedrite), etc... - I think the most neutral thing would be to rename this category as "Meteorite subdivisions". The second row of the table is a also a mix. Rumurati for example is group and not a class. A more neutral category name would be "Meteorite groupings" and could replace the two categories at the bottom of your list. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for resolving the red question marks in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites#Recommended meteorite classification scheme Tobias; a very comprehensive set of links. Second, I agree it's a mess. Perhaps we need a new article to describe for the layman what the external links you gave mean in practice. This should be OK; while Original Research is a no no here, Synthesis is allowed and that's what we'd be doing. Care to give it a shot? It's clearly "our" biggest unresolved issue. -Arb. (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meteorite subdivision[edit]

How about we generalise "Template:Meteorite group" to cope with all the variants in terminology without trying to impose structure on them (that seems to be a square peg, round hole task):

  1. Rename it "Template:Meteorite subdivision" or similar
  2. Add a new, top parameter |Classification_term = Type/Class/Clan/Group/Sub-group/Grouplet/Duo/...
  3. Output {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Meteorite {{{Classification_term}}}s]]|}}

These output categories (including the existing but re-purposed "Category:Meteorite types") would all be sub-categories of your proposed "Category:Meteorite subdivisions" or whatever we settle on. Thoughts? -Arb. (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, step 3 would be better done as a switch. -Arb. (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. I find the template rather practical for all kinds of subdivisions. I think it would be a good idea to split the field type into "type" and "compositional type". This would be helpful for the iron meteorites. They would all be "compositional type" = "Iron", but some would get "type" = "Achondrite" (e.g. IVB) and some would get "type" = "primitive achondrite" (e.g. IAB). --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done {{Infobox meteorite subdivision}}

Focus for January?[edit]

Suggestions any one?

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites#Focus for the month

-Arb. (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad were only a two-people task force. Otherwise we could have a vote ;). I always like the bottom-up approach when I'm dealing with a topic. I'm not yet confident enough to rewrite the major articles until I did all the ones leading to it. I think we should still take care of those red links in the bottom infobox. There are e.g. 8 iron groups missing. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, red link elimination was my thought too. So we have agreement. Shame no one else cares to join in but another month should see it mostly done provided we maintain the intensity we've been at... -Arb. (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention question[edit]

Meteorites[edit]

The meteorite article names seem to come in three forms:

  1. <Name> meteorite
  2. <Name> (meteorite)
  3. <Name>

Does anyone know the background to this and what, if anything, is the significance of each variant. -Arb. (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably organic growth of different naming styles. If we wan't consistency we probably need a bot to do all those renaming. I prefer the first variant, but that's just me. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox meteorite/doc advises the use of the official name from the MetSoc DB in the template itself which makes sense. Whatever we decide we should probably have all three for every meteorite (and perhaps other variants as well) with all but one being redirects; another bot job.
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(astronomical_objects) says:
Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous.
and
In general, the official name of an object should be used (e.g. Jupiter). If another object shares a name with something more notable, the type of object should follow in parentheses. (e.g. Mercury (planet))
I was half expecting to find sister guidelines for Geology and/or Rocks and minerals but these do not seem to exist. -Arb. (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created several articles about meteorites and I usually followed these rules:

  • Officialmeteoritename
  • Officialmeteoritename (meteorite) if the title Officialmeteoritename has got other meanings
  • Official abbreviate name + redirect from Officialmeteoritename if the (official) abbreviated version is much more common (eg. ALH 84001)

It sounded a good approach (I suggested it here and there were no objections). I preferred "Officialmeteoritename" or "Officialmeteoritename (meteorite)" over "Officialmeteoritename meteorite" because in my opinion they are more precise. I mean: it should be clear that Toluca (meteorite) is not the "meteorite of Toluca", it is just the "meteorite called Toluca". Moreover usually the official name is not something like C/1995 O1, but it is the name of the nearest geographic location, so it is not "obscure". We have Mercury (planet)/Mercury (element) and not Mercury planet/Mercury element or Quartz and not Quartz mineral. Nevertheless some people found "Officialmeteoritename meteorite" more natural... well it is not a really "wrong" name and english is not my mother tongue so I respected these opinions. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite subdivisions[edit]

Meteorite subdivision names are almost all singular which sounds very strange to my ear; they should be plural being a group. This is confirmed by the fact that most of them lead with the plural form in bold! Given the status-quo we are stuck with the singular but I will create plural redirects for them all so we can use either form as seems best in a particular circumstance. This will, incidentally, deal with the fact that a couple of the plurals I tried redirect to a subsection of another article entirely (I forget which). -Arb. (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on this... These really, really need to be plural a) because it sounds better and b) to clearly distinguish them from individual meteorites. Unless any one objects in the next few days I'll aim to get this done sometime during January. Will probably need administrator help as moves over redirects and such will be required. -Arb. (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Africa 7034[edit]

Should we nominate Northwest Africa 7034 for DYK? It was started today by User:Jokestress. I expanded it a bit and it has a picture and looks pretty neat. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup; I'll do it. We should nominate everything eligible; gets extra eyeballs on a few articles each time which has to be a good thing. Most of our new articles are under the 1500 character limit, unfortunately. A recent exception was IIG meteorites which I noticed a day too late... Nonmagmatic meteorite is close needing only another 225 characters; tomorrow is its last eligible day. -Arb. (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I don't really feel very comfortable with the content of nonmagmatic meteorite at the time. My two books about meteorites are a lot newer than the 1970s, so they are of no help about that whole discussion. I will see if I can find a older meteorite text book at the library. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it anyhow while we are still within the time limit. Gives at least two weeks to bring it up to scratch. -Arb. (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largest meteorites[edit]

  • Mbozi meteorite is pretty short, but I will try to get to the other two this month. Thank you for pointing out the imagery. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I'm trying to get an image of Mbosi/ Mbozi for commons. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mbozi/Mbosi looks better now. Couldn't find anything about the discovery, and there is not much in the scientific literature that I can access or find. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a 11 km ride on a dusty road, only in the dry season possible. A forgotten place. Added Chupaderos and Armanty. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seven Most Massive Single Meteorite Fragments on Earth has some text, but the website fails on MS Internet Explorer. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I just thought that we could should maybe make a list of largest meteorites. Maybe sorted by type and continent. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is already done, isn't it? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Meteorite#Largest meteorites --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are irons and stony-irons achondrites?[edit]

Because of some recent edits I did some research into the whole achondrite debate. The best two quotes I could find are:

  • McSweeny 1999: "Meteorites that form form the crystallization of magma are called achondrites ...."
  • Weisberg, McCoy, Krot 2006: "Achondrites resulted from a high degree of melting of chondrites and include asteroidal (angrites, aubrites, howardites-diogenites-eucrites, mesosiderites, 3 groups of pallasites, 15 groups of irons plus many ungrouped irons) and planetary (martian, lunar) meteorites."

Unless somebody comes up with a more reputable source I think we should stick to this scheme:

  • Complete melting and crystallization: Achondrite
  • Partial melting and crystallization or residue of that process: Primitive achondrite (chondrite with very high petrologic type)
  • No melting: Chondrite

I think at the moment the thing that our collection of articles lacks the most is consistency. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the Achondrite article currently reads: "An achondrite is a stony meteorite that does not contain chondrules". The sentence is unsourced and the paragraph cites a book from 1962, although from a reputable source. I think that this intuitive meaning of achondrites (no chondrules) was expanded quite a bit since that time. If nobody has any complaints I'm going to update the article to the new definition. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask User:Basilicofresco, he did some recent edits, and edited many articles on meteorites. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well any book I read about meteorites defines achondrites as stone chondrites. The above definitions probably relate to stone meteorites. For example the A.E. Rubin classification (2000) divides differentiated meteorites in:

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines achondrite "any stony meteorite containing no chondrules". Within the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Meteorites, irons and stony-irons are "differentiated meteorites", not achondrites. Almost any website (eg. The Natural History Museum) defines achondrites as stony meteorites. Almost any book on Google books (eg. 1 2 3 etc.) does not define iron meteorites as achondrites. The Meteoritical Bulletin Database defines achondrite: "A stony meteorite that lacks chondrules and originated on a differentiated parent body". On Wikipedia we have to "assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "achondrite" in order to indicate all the non-chondrite meteorites is deprecable because it creates a lot of confusion and it is not consistent with the widespread meaning of the word "achondrite". On the "Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 1: Meteorites, Comets and Planets" (winner of GSIS Mary B. Ansari "Best Reference Work Award" 2004.) by Andrew M. Davis, Heinrich D. Holland and Karl Karekin Turekian, at page 84 there is the table with the modern classification of meteorites: it divdes meteorites between chondrites and nonchondrites. Within the same page you can read: "Based on their bulk compositions and textures, meteorites can be divided into two major categories, chondrites and nonchondritic meteorites; the latter include the primitive achondrites and igneously differentiated meteorites." (This phrase is taken from Krot et al. 2003) If we want to use these modern classification schemes that divide meteorites in chondrites and nonchondritic, then I strongly suggest to use the word nonchondritic (Krot et al. 2003) or differentiated (A.E. Rubin, 2000). -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you mean this? Meteorites:
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


We could also adopt the Geochemistry treatise scheme. It think it would look like this:

  • Acapulcoite, Lodranite, Wonaite, IAB, IIICD, IIE
  • Angrite, Aubrite, Brachinite, Ureilite, HED
  • Asteroidal, martian, lunar?

Of course the infobox would need to be adapted to this new scheme. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for User:Basilicofresco's opinion. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support this category tree. If a meteorite is asteroidal, martian or lunar; is another category tree, and its scientific consensus might change with time. Or are all up to now differentiated meteorites (achondrites)? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it this way, User:Basilicofresco used "differentiated or nonchondritic meteorites" as synonyms. User:Basilicofresco is silent. I guess that it's ok. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to revise my test template to our current consensus. It is not up to date with our current template, but the organization can be seen (User:Tobias1984/Sandbox_6). --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about template:Infobox mineral (Nickel-Strunz classification of the mineral and Dana classification of the mineral).
Material: stone (ST), iron (IR), stony-iron (SI)
Geochemistry treatise scheme: chondrites, primitive achondrites, achondrites, mesosiderites, pallasites
NHMCat classification as on Meteoritical Bulletin Database
MetBase classification as on Meteoritical Bulletin Database
It might be easier to fill in the infobox. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we should add more than one classification into {{Infobox meteorite}} and {{Infobox meteorite subdivision}}? That would concern mostly the higher order assignments, as most classifications agree on the name of the group, although there are exceptions.
The partition into stone, iron and ston-iron goes into the current field compositional_type. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, I just saw that compositional type is only in the {{Infobox meteorite subdivision}} and not in the {{Infobox meteorite}}. I think most people find that field useful. For example in the IVB meteorite article we could fill out "compositional_type = iron" and in the field "type" we could put "differentiated" which would also address User:Basilicofresco's concern that the irons should't be called achondrites (see discussion above). --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A hierarchy is useful in botany, zoology and mineralogy. NHMCat classification and MetBase classification don't agree with each other sometimes so they have to keep separated as on Meteoritical Bulletin Database. It'd mean many edits, I don't say that you should do it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I've recently started using WikiProject Military history/Assessment and in particular their Assessment/B-Class (and B-Class FAQ) as recommended at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Using these criteria a *lot* of our articles are underrated. At some point we should have a drive reassess them all; perhaps February's focus? In March we might expand all stubs... Then it's spring and the Wikipedia season is over till October or there about :) -Arb. (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIAB meteorites[edit]

IIAB meteorites is good to go for DYK. Are you going to nomination procedure Arb? We are really generating a lot of publicity for our task force. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup; intended to do it earlier but got distracted... -Arb. (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Dense collection areas[edit]

Do we need an article that covers dense collection areas? The meteoritical society has a page dedicated to those areas (http://meteoriticalsociety.org/index.php?page_id=61). The article could cover a few places like NWA, QUE, etc.. and explain why meteorites are so easy to find in those places. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If u don't mind Tobias. Your first option should always be an article section. An stand alone article is for very notable things. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your right of course :). We could, as an alternative expand the Meteorite hunting article and cover the dense collection areas there. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do u mean Meteorite hunter? Or dense collection areas instead of meteorite hunter? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few people would like to move the article from meteorite hunter to meteorite hunting. Now that I think about it, it could also be a section in the general meteorite article. But I'm not rushing into it. I'm kind of busy at the university at the moment. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this userbox?[edit]

Meteorites and Meteoritics
task force

I thought we that we need our own infobox. I am still open to suggestions, as I am not very good with design. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe like this: --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user supports the
Meteorites and Meteoritics
task force
I like the simplicity of the first but the second is more standard. Make both available and let folk decide for themselves. -Arb. (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit confusing because "task force" is not easy to see with that dark lettering. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rieskrater Museum[edit]

In case you're not watching WP: Museums I wanted to let you know that I've started this article per your request. I don't read German and English sources are thin on the ground so hope someone will come along and help us both out. Good luck with your creation drive --User:Star Mississippi

I can take a look at that. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tobias. The information that you found and translated gave me a few other English search terms so I was able to fill in a little more. I found a few other German sources while I was researching. I'll drop them on the talk page when I have a moment for the next passing German speaker who might want to expand it further. StarM 00:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ups forgot about this one. I think Arb did all of the tranlation :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dmadeo did some work there too. Tobias, as you are DYK addicted, this article might be another possibility ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always like it when article are on Wikipedia's front page :). The article looks good, but it is most likely too short for DYK. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the DYK deadline? I can see what I can dig up if there's some time for you to submit StarM 21:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK rules say it has to be nominated within 5 days of expansion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just put some of the other sources I found on the talk page. Not sure if they provide any useful info that folks haven't added, but FYI in case. From what google translate tells me about the German articles, it's intricately tied to the Geopark and that (German) article is long. Perhaps there's info to be gleaned & translated from that one. English sources I've found don't clearly explain the distinction between the crater & the geopark. Maybe the main article lives at Geopark Ries and the museum is a subsection? Not sure StarM 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geopark Ries: Pflegstrasse 2, Donauwörth
  • Geopark Ries-Infozentrum Nördlingen: Eugene-Shoemaker-Platz 3, Nördlingen
Rieskrater Museum: Eugene-Shoemaker-Platz 1, Nördlingen
Geopark Ries shouldn't be an article, a subsection of the Nördlinger Ries article would be better. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People associated with meteorites[edit]

Category:People associated with meteorites: mineral buseckite in honour of Prof. Peter Buseck, Arizona State University. He could be another person in your to do list.[2] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites&oldid=1131903349"