Talk:Chelyabinsk meteorite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology / Meteorites  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Chelyabinsk meteorite 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Name[edit]

This BBC report [1] quotes a Russian scientist as saying "We have just completed the study, we confirm that the particulate matters, found by our expedition in the area of Lake Chebarkul indeed have meteorite nature," Mr Grohovsky was quoted by Russia's Ria Novosti news agency as saying. "This meteorite is an ordinary chondrite, it is a stony meteorite which contains some 10% of iron. It is most likely to be named Chebarkul meteorite," he added. Bold and italics are my emphasis - ie it is not certain, from this news report at least, that the name is settled yet. 86.133.209.129 (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou. If you want to work on the wording a bit you can dive right in :). If it turns out to be a meteorite I'm pretty sure it will keep the name. You can look at the naming guidelines at: http://meteoriticalsociety.org/index.php?page_id=59. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Chelyabinsk This is an OFFICIAL meteorite name.
Ordinary chondrite (LL5), shock stage S4, weathering W0. "An ordinary chondrite from the LL group that is petrologic type 5."
Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Russia (Vernad)
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ice thickness[edit]

Do any of the sources state the thickness of the ice that a fragment may have impacted/fallen through? -- Kheider (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I am also looking for the depth of the lake under the hole. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
They are walking on it, quite thick I'd assume (15-30 cm?). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In a personal communication I have been told, "I think the thickness is about 15-20cm, depth is 2.3m - 12m." -- Kheider (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Should this article exist?[edit]

By its own admission, this is about one tiny piece and named by a proposed name for that one tiny piece. Currently this violates wp:notability and I tend to think that this should not currently be a separate article. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As one of the main contributors of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites I can confirm the notability of this article. An observed fall is currently always notable by our guidelines. Meteorite articles are often short, which doesn't make them any less important. I'm sure the science behind this is legit. The person on a photo is sitting next to an electron microprobe, so he didn't make up the meteoric iron content and the presence of olivine. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the science. Wikipedia notability requires substantial in-depth coverage of the topic by suitable sources. Not meaning to talk just policy, this is just one tiny piece of many that have already been found from this event. Another common-sense test is that only about 10% of this article is about it's subject! North8000 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is quite useful to have an article on the destructive events and a scientific article on the meteorite chemistry and morphology. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article cites a few very reputable newspapers that quote the mineralogy from what is essentially a piece of gravel. From the standpoint of mineralogy/geology/geochemistry this is huge. Not even a publication in a top-level science journal gives you that kind of an impact factor. The other thing to consider is that now the level of information is low, but interest in the subject is high. By the time the peer reviewed science is in, the public will have forgotten this has ever happened. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There are already 53 fragments known. This article should evolve to become the main article about the fragments (meteorites) from the meteor event itself. Larger fragments will be found. Will any be larger than your fist? That I can not answer. -- Kheider (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Usually fragments receive Roman numerals (e.g. Cranbourne meteorite) and naturally this article will cover all the fragments of the strewn field. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This article may eventually have to be moved to Chebarkul meteorites or Chebarkul meteorite fragments, depending on the size or amount of the total recovered.--Auric talk 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that an article about the found pieces (53 now, probably a zillion later) would be good, while an article about just ONE of the little found pieces is a bad idea. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
No (to the renaming), because now that is has reached earth it is one meteorite (Chebarkul (TBD)) consisting of many fragments (Roman numerals). Maybe all the specimen from the lake are going to be called Chebarkul I and another fragment will come down somewhere else and be named Chebarkul II (a fragment can also fragment further on impact). --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article reads (my emphasis added) "Chebarkul meteorite is the proposed name for ONE of the fragments. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I get it now. That was probably poor wording on my behalf. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
With that first sentence changed, I think that the subject is broad enough to be an article. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of pieces[edit]

53 pieces were delivered to the lab actually according to Russian press. --ssr (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free photo of many: http://cs403623.userapi.com/v403623027/6995/UxC0qzx_MYo.jpg --ssr (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It is quite interesting to note their different colors. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Rocks that you can hold in your hand. Still not fist-sized, but getting there. -- Kheider (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

After washing the ural.ka.ru site through Google translate, the image of the meteorite that is on an improvised litter is the Tsarev meteorite" found in 1989. Everything reported so far has been small fragments, pocket change size or smaller.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "So far, scientists have been able to gather dozens of meteor fragments weighing up to 1kg in total and ranging between 1 and 7mm." Source: Russia Today [10] (22 Feb. 2013). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That is a nice piece. I hope we get some pictures of that. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1kg meteorite piece found in Russian Urals, biggest chunk yet discovered (February 25, 2013 12:38) -- Kheider (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Bulletin here mentions total officially recovered exceeds 100kg. Doubtless the same again or more has been unofficially collected by the public. -- 212.139.104.186 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Images with advertisement[edit]

What exactly is our policy regarding pictures with watermarked advertisement? I think we should remove them. Credit is already given in the description on Commons. Watermarking an image just goes over the line and Wikipedia is not a platform that photographers can use for generating traffic to their website. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • They are "discouraged", see commons:Template:Watermark. I have warned the author on that, but he did not provide non-watermarked images, and they are still tolerable, as, e.g. here. I will inform the author about this discussion, it will be up to him whether to provide alternatives, and anyone here can also contact him by any means of communications provided in his credentials, e.g. by public LiveJournal or Facebook comments, as well as anyone here can initiate removal of these images from the article if we are sure this is very unacceptable. --ssr (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would rather get rid of those images. The meteorite task force relies on collectors donating images of their most prized specimen for the articles. If one person starts adding watermarks many people will feel cheated because they didn't add one when they uploaded their image. I have also always made that clear to collectors I asked for images, after all we are all donating without any second interest in personal gain. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It was author's decision and these versions are the only ones available for now. They are not just items from collectors but university specimens. Watermarks are not strictly forbidden so pictures shouldn't be deleted from Commons and the question of them being placed in the article is up to community as far as I can see for now. --ssr (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that you are the the person that takes care of these images on Commons. I could have saved myself a trip :). I guess if Commons allows that kind of stuff it is ok. I will just take them out of the article so that the meteorite task force stays consistent and people that want to look at more images can click on the commons category. Does that sound good? --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I will support community's decision. As I am not the regular author of the article, not very aware of science aspects of the topic, I only take care of pictures and communications with the author who is not familiar with Wikipedia editing, I regard you as a representative of the community. I will not edit-war over removal of photos from the article. --ssr (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope the author of the images won't feel singled out. I'm just a little concerned that mineral and meteorite collectors will mass-watermark their images if they see that some people do it. Collectors are often of the very overprotective kind. I would like to keep the standards for meteorite pictures level. We might get less pictures through that standard, but all of them fully belong to the public and can be used in lectures, books and other publications. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The author insists these are the only studio macro photos of a cut piece for now. He is also a professional studio photographer, not just a man with camera, so he has his own concerns about the work and promotion. Anyway, I think this case will show what the priorities are, for future references. The final attitude is up to Commons community I think, they definitely have corresponding experience. --ssr (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI: See another curious watermarked specimen related to this meteorite. --ssr (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that Commons should keep blurry cellphone pictures, especially if they have an unknown watermark. I would rather have no image on Wikipedia and just do an image search with a search engine than compromise the spirit of creative commons with images like that. Plus if we delete it somebody with a better picture might be inclined to upload his. Afterall these images are going to be practically worthless in about a month when no news organization is going to buy them anymore. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I on my side personally think if an image is informative and "encyclopedic" no matter what quality it's of, cellphone also works. But the thing with this particular image is that "AFP" watermark means Agence France-Presse, but there are no copyright concerns about it because it was released by Voice of America website which contents are always public domain (and yes it was most probably found on Google). The only concern with it is watermark, but this is not the reason to delete the whole image, only to crop the watermark if there's someone persistent enough to demand that from Commons cropper robot. And the image does have documental and historical value because this is the meteorite hole in the ice and there are only non-free mass media images of it available on the web. After non-authority/press people, that can produce free media, got to the site, the hole got frozen ([11]) but I think the initial hole image is important to understand the process of the meteorite descending. --ssr (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Official name given[edit]

The meteorite has been given a unique code LL5S4WO and officially named "Chelyabinsk". A couple of references in Russian here and here. There will probably be more appearing soon, likely in English as well. 195.151.26.214 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See bulletin here -- 212.139.104.186 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Foreign-language references[edit]

I'm not sure whether it's various limitations in reflinks that resulted in this edit adding an incorrect title, language and publisher to the reference or whether it's the Google Translate-prefixed URL that's the root cause of the issue.

The data has been manually fixed some five months later.

The Russian language reference is routed through Google Translate. Elsewhere on the same page, the two German language references are not. Which is the correct method to use here? -- 79.67.240.88 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the "root cause of the issue" here. Are we talking about bare references covered by Relinks? You said: "When adding Google Translate URLs to the English Wikipedia, it's probably a good idea to use google.com rather than google.de." Here in Prague Google appears as Cz, not my choice though! I use Expand Citations to replace .cz by .com, but that only works for books, not websites. The issue... was fixed for good, thanks to you! Krenakarore TK 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Weight[edit]

We definitely need to carefully select the information sources. 570 kg was the reading on weighing scales just before they failed, so we shouldn't rely on this value. The raised fragments (as weighted an hour later) have a total weight of 654 kg (unfortunately when Google translates the specified source from Russian, the russian word for kilograms becomes pounds in English, so it should be read as kilograms anyway). 128.69.235.82 (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The word will spread in the press and can be adjusted. For now, a single source in Russian language is not that useful in an English language encyclopedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we can clearly see on video that (1) there are more than one fragment in the bundle and that (2) the scales fail after this reading (570 kg), when the weight is not taken off the ground completely. And, of course, you can find more sources by searching e.g. Chelyabinsk meteorite 654 kg with your favorite search engine. 128.72.203.143 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The "9,100 tonnes (10,000 short tons)" is obviously rubbish because the Russians say10,000 tons and no Russian (like no one outside the US) ever refers tons to short tons but tonnes (metric tons). Most likely the precision in the estimate are less accurate than +- 1,000 tons. This English page should refer to SI units because Britain is today metric. So about "10,000 tonnes would be the best writing. And no recalculation to short tons because the accuracy is lower than the exchange factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)