Talk:List of impact craters on Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth sciences Portal
List of impact craters on Earth 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.
List This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

I'll be adding to this page, there are still a bunch of craters with wikipedia articles already so I'll go for them first, then add in the other craters that still need work. Hope people find this page useful! --Fxer 18:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Purpose

The list of earth impacts on the Impact craters page wasn't very impressive, it'd be nice to have a page with more stats on the craters at a glance, plus the coordinates link gets you right to the google satellite map of the area etc... --Fxer 18:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard

Wow, nice additions! That's a ton of info, it just quintupled (or so) the size of the article :) --Fxer 02:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing

  • The Sirente crater field, the main crater lake only 140 meters across, but the first found in geologically-young terrains of Italy [1]. I'd make the Sirente article myself, but there are dozens of y'all more competent. --Wetman 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It does have a page and I've now added it to the "unconfirmed" table. There is a lot of controversy about this one; looks like a small impact crater, but equally good arguments that it is a man-made water storage feature. --Zamphuor 09:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCraters

I was thinking we should increase info on craters into a wiki for them what do you guys think--Jk305 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silverpit

Shouldnt the UK's silverpit crater be included in these lists? Jamie|C 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's there now in the "unconfirmed" table, until such time as someone drills it and confirms the purported impact origin. --Zamphuor 09:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungen crater??

Hello anonymous user... what source do you offer for the recently added Hungen crater? I can find nothing indicating that this meteorite fall produced a known crater. There is no wiki article about it as there are for other craters. No listing in the Earth Impact Database. Neither Google Earth or a Google search on "Hungen crater" produce any discussion of this impact, to say that a crater was produced. And the coordinates do not even match what is listed in the meteorite fall databases. --GregU 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the link back to this page on the Hungen (the town) wiki page. Seems to have been a well meaning confusion between meteorite fall and impact crater. -- Zamphuor 12:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wabar Crater, Saudi Arabia

I came to this via the Kabaa page, where it said that part of the Kabaa at Mecca, the Black Stone, is thought to be a meteorite, possibly from Wabar in Saudi Arabia. A look at the Wabar page doesn't mention this crater, and it's not on your list. I don't feel competent to add it - any takers? Here's a relevant website: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/jwynn/3wabar.html Jasper33 16:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - just found it under Asia. Must get my eyes checked ... I'll change the links on the Kabaa/Black Stone pages so they point to the right Wabar page Jasper33 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should move unconfirmed impact craters to a separate table at the end

These excellent lists contain mainly confirmed impact sites as listed on the Earth Impact Database, widely recognized as an authoritative (and to some degree conservative) listing. So far so good, but they also contain a few unconfirmed sites, some little more than wild speculation inflated by media hype, and the general reader won't know the difference. I'd suggest we move the following to a separate table at the end entitled Unconfirmed proposed impact sites

  • Kebira - looks somewhat promising but reported from remotely sensed data only
  • Gatun structure - looks somewhat promising but to my knowledge no definitive evidence published
  • Wilkes Land - very speculative
  • Shiva - very speculative
  • Mahuika - very speculative
  • Silverpit - looks very promising but not drilled, so remote data only
  • Panther Mountain - looks somewhat promising but to my knowledge no definitive evidence published
  • Snows Island Crater - only information comes from an unpublished draft manuscript

Could also add Bedout and Sirente crater, simply because they already have their own wiki pages, but both are controversial. There are many other unconfirmed impact craters, some with way better evidence than most listed above (they just haven't had the media hype), but I wouldn't propose adding any more, just sticking to the ones that already have wiki pages.

Silverpit is a tricky one. Most impact specialists seem to believe that it will turn out to be a genuine (and excellently preserved) impact crater, but there is a long tradition of not confirming impact craters on geophysical (in this case seismic) or other remotely sensed data alone. Impact is confirmed on solid mineralogical and/or geochemical data only, which in the case of Silverpit would require drilling beneath the sea floor.

If no loud complaints or better ideas I'll do the appropriate moving shortly – Zamphuor 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-expert... this makes sense to me. By the way, I've run across some inaccuracies in the Earth Impact Database. Based on that and on what you say, my impression is that it is most authoritative on if the crater is confirmed or not, but slightly less authoritative on the exact details (coordinates, size) of the craters. In some cases the coordinates don't match (are a bit off from) the image displayed immediately below on the same page. Would you agree with that assessment of its value as a source? --GregU 11:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi GregU, for lots of impact sites, particularly those deeply eroded or buried, the original size and age are open to interpretation and different research papers may give different (sometimes wildly different) estimates. The way I understand it, the Earth Impact Database is operated on the basis consensus among the committee members based on all the sources available to them at the time. It is up to individual researchers to bring new findings to their attention for consideration and possible inclusion. As such it is common for some of the figures given in the database to be different from those in any particular paper. Also it appears that the committee doesn’t meet all that often, so significant new finding may take a while to get in. As for coordinates, they seem to be rounded off to the nearest minute, or in some cases nearest 10 minutes (perhaps as given in the original papers), which doesn’t make much difference for big craters, but can make a lot of difference for small ones. If the crater is clearly visible on Google Maps I think it’s acceptable to point the coordinates in Wikipedia right at the center. One final thing about the Earth Impact Database is that the committee tends to be quite conservative and some craters that look pretty good (like Silverpit) stay out until diagnostic criteria are properly documented; I think this is a good scientific approach, even if it upsets a few hopeful crater hunters – Zamphuor 12:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. If any of these sites reach confirmed status, we can move them back into the main tables. -- Zamphuor 13:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments over whether Bedout is an impactor or not should preclude it, however Bedout being so contentious should deserve a mention as a 'possible' petedavo 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Bedout is now listed in the "unconfirmed" table --Zamphuor 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Woodleigh

Woodleigh is constantly being misquoted as being 40km in size when the facts are proven that it is an extinction event crater of an estimated diameter of 120 km, the multi-ring Woodleigh impact structure is arguably the largest proven impact structure in Australia and the fourth largest on Earth. [1]petedavo 07:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More work and lots of papers and conference abstracts have now been written on Woodleigh since the GSWA references you list. The size is still controversial, though the authors of the particular paper that said 40 km have now upped their estimate to 60 km. Most authors agree it is somewhere between 60 and 120 km, some adamant it is 120 km, but the problem is that the crater is both eroded and buried, so estimating the original size comes down to how you interpret the rather poor quality geophysical data and very limited drill hole information. The inferred age keep changing too, as new techniques are tried, with some authors not yet convinced that the age problem has been solved. -Zamphuor 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to 60-120 km, ranking it using the conservative value. This should be better at least. Also I'm not sure if a References section is appropriate for "List of" articles like this. The reference is implied to be the individual articles themselves which should have their own reference sections. If we tried to add direct references to all facts in this list it would eclipse the actual information. --GregU 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.doir.wa.gov.au/GSWA/594A90F2EB2643BCA0B9D5EB66505AEC.asp WA Geological Survey

[edit] Incomplete lists

Should this list still be flagged as "incomplete"? I think it contains most everything in the Earth Impact Database now doesn't it? Even though we are still finding the occasional glaring mistakes -- slow work to verify all the entries. --GregU 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can now dispense with the "incomplete" tag. The one part that is incomplete is the listing by size which does not yet duplicate all the sites listed by locality, but this is an internal ordering problem. I've been intending to expand the size table, but haven't had the time. There are some other unconfirmed sites that I know have wiki pages, that I've been intending to add to the "unconfirmed" table; might get to that today. --Zamphuor 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking of the "list by size" as a summary of the comprehensive listings below. Only those confirmed craters over a certain size, or which are otherwise notable. In some cases the numbers in this list are simplified from the numbers below. I'm not sure it's worth it to try to maintain every entry in both sections -- it almost doubles the maintenance burden since most craters don't make the top list. If we do add everything to the top list then my guess is we'll then want to split it out onto a separate page. Another option would be to try to do it all in one list that you can sort by size or by an additional continent column. But then you lose the ability to have section headings and a ToC which I like... --GregU 05:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps it should be titled "selected craters listed by size" or "notable craters listed by size" and perhaps the size table should follow the "by continent" listings, which remain the main resource. BTW, for some reason someone just nominated Obolon' crater in Ukraine as an "article considered for deletion". I've quickly added a few references to it and a Keep vote, but you might like to add your opinion. --Zamphuor 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-dividing

I've just sub-divided this article, partly to overcome a coordinate template bug, but also because it's very long anyway. I've also changed the coordinate templates to the new {{coord}}, which lets users choose the preferred display style (DMS or decimal) and has the added advantage of marking up each location with a Geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed intro text to reflect your splitting of the article. If you do this I think "Unconfirmed Craters" should also be split off; they are less important than confirmed sites, so why stay on the main page. Also the "Mexico" list is actually to Canadian craters - can you fix? --Zamphuor 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[Canada/Mexico; unconfirmed] All done; please check. Andy Mabbett 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and good work. I think splitting the unconfirmed craters under their regions works well. The only remaining small problem I can see is that Iturralde (unconfirmed crater in Bolivia) should be in unconfirmed under South American craters. --Zamphuor 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Kebira (unconfirmed in Egypt) should be under Africa. --Zamphuor 15:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Both done, thanks. Andy Mabbett 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. --Zamphuor 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hCard

I've now applied the hCard microformat to this page (but not, yet, the sub-pages - I may need to tweak it). hCard effectively wraps the Geo microformat and adds a name field. It can also include the location, but I don't think that's going to be possible inside the wiki-table markup. See Project Microformats for more about microformats. Andy Mabbett 23:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Such lists of coordinates can be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:
http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth
The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map
I've requested a template which will generate such links, for any page on which it appears. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The template {{kml}} was created - and promptly nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The title of this list is very misleading. I thought it would list all the impact craters on earth. It should be 'List of notable impcat craters on earth'. 81.159.88.164 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)