Talk:List of impact structures on Earth

Adding

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)

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)

Missing

• The Nördlinger Ries Crater is missing. With 25km, I think it should be in the list. LordofHavoc 15:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

The impact crater of Söderfjärden is missing. El Ucca (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there may be two, huge, impact craters not recognized. One is the very circular structure on the northwest of Hudson's Bay, Canada, approximately 700 km across. The second is the smaller very nearly perfectly circular structure, on the southeast portion of Hudson's Bay, approximately 500 km across. Beelcher Islands are volcanic, and may have resulted from the impact penetrating the crust sufficiently to enable lava to reach the surface. Another possible large crater is Ungava Bay, 200km across, in northern Quebec, Canada. (Roger Bryenton, Sep 8, 2011)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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. 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorting by crater age?

Does anyone know how to fix the "age" column so it can be sorted properly, say, from oldest to youngest crater? I tried removing the billion/million units and instead expressed them in megayears, but it still doesn't sort it correctly. :-( Titus III (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I need list of impacts by time with size, type of object: comet, solid, multiple fragmrnts; and subsequent events. The sort by size is not very useful. Is it ok to sort impacts by time. Where, how ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I see there is a way to sort it but the value have to be numeric or expresed as 000n.d Ma to be sorted as alpha.

Shiva Crater

I wonder why Shiva crater is not mentioned in the list. Is there some reason or oversight?

Raama (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's regarded as unconfirmed (see List of impact craters in Asia), because it isn't listed in the Earth Impact Database. Mikenorton (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria narrowed: confirmed by EID, >20km diameter

I tightened up the inclusion criteria for this top-level list. Rather than leave it up to everyone's varying perceptions of what is notable, I made the list everything 20km or larger listed on the Earth Impact Database. That roughly equates to the current top 50, but will grow over time as more >20km craters are discovered and confirmed. I filled in a lot of craters that were missing from this list above 20km. I removed everything below 20km. Sorry - Woodleigh is back to 40km because that's what it's listed EID. Publish a paper if you want them to change it. Wikipedia uses EID's numbers. Ikluft (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox for craters

Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Infobox for craters. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lonar Crater

The Lonar crater lake is not listed or mentioned anywhere in this article though it's a part of it. Please do confirm and add it properly. Further references are available at [2] and at [3] विशाल तेलंग्रे (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lonar crater is tiny and WAY too small to be included here (only 1.2 km..). Does anyone know why or when it was added to this list which specifically only features craters 20km and larger? This lake should be removed from this list as it does NOT fit the requirements, and should not be part of it. --98.191.121.244 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed Lonar crater lake from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for N 44° 36' W 113° 0' is the location the Earth Impact Database gives for Beaverhead impact crater. Certainly looks like a crater there in Google Earth. http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/beaverhead.html Bizzybody (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC) —Bizzybody (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Earth Impact Database sometimes rounds off the coordinates. Santa Fe Impact Structure's coordinates are wrong too. I never bothered fighting it when someone "corrected" my GPS-measured position in that article with the incorrect coordinates on the other side of Santa Fe from EID. The only solution is to find another Wikipedia-acceptable source. Otherwise just give up because Wikipedia's reference zombies will come to devour you. Ikluft (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually the best solution would be to report the correction to the Earth Impact Database and get them to update the listing, which could then be used here without getting reverted by the zombies. But good luck on that. Ikluft (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists?

I was just checking on the lists within WikiProject Geology and I came across this list: List of impact craters on Earth and its sub-lists. They seem to be well-organised and complete, what more needs to be done before they become featured lists? Nwhit (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for a featured list are given at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. One criterion that is clearly not met is that it should have an engaging lead. Also, the notability criteria for stand-alone lists need to be met. In particular, this list needs to cite some source that establishes the notability of the list as a group. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorting

I fixed the sorting of one of the tables, but it was painful. If someone adds a new entry, they should add a sort template, where the first paramter is the value divided by 10,000; make sure to use a decimale point and exactly five positions, then use whatever for the second parameter. I didn't make the same change for the unconfirmed list, if someone wants to do it, it should work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sphilbrick, why do you use the total diameter of the structures, and not the estimated sizes of the craters - which is what EID uses? For comparative purposes, that seems more realistic. Some craters are the collapsed transient craters, while others represent the entire multi-ring structure (Vredefort). Why don't you use the numbers from EID; they represent a much more realistic comparison. Take the Bosumtwi crater, for example, it may have a ring structure about 20 km wide, but the crater is 10½ km wide. The crater diameter is invariably claimed to be 10½ km in Wikipeadia and elsewhere, but if the same principle as is used for the Vredefort crater is used for the Bosumtwi crater, then it is 20 km wide.

Ps : "Is Ries crater typical for its Size?" by K. Wünnemann, J. V. Morgan & H. Jödicke, 2005. That can be read here: http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/384/67.full.pdf That paper describes the impact structure/impact crater size confusion, although there are other papers which describes this phenomenon as well. http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/index.html 2.104.66.152 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Numbers in section "All craters listed alphabetically"

User:Titus III recently added numbers after each wiki link as follows:

See:

• List of impact craters in Africa (19)
• List of impact craters in Antarctica (19)
• List of impact craters in Asia
• List of impact craters in Australia (26)
• List of impact craters in Europe (47)
• List of impact craters in North America (64)
• List of impact craters in South America (8)

I removed the numbers (temporarily) because of some counting errors and also because I think the significance of the numbers is not clear enough (yet). Presumably the numbers are the number of confirmed impact craters in each continent? First the errors: there are no confirmed impact craters in Antarctica, so the number should be 0. The number for Asia should be 19 not blank. The number for North America should be 61 not 64. I suggest that the numbers need clarification, even if it is perhaps only adding the word "craters" after each number, or (my preferred version) "xx confirmed craters and yy unconfirmed craters". Another possibility could be a very brief explanation at the start of the section before "See". GeoWriter (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:GeoWriter: I had assumed that the Wiki articles per continent, since they start by citing the Earth Impact Database (EID), were correctly updated. Unfortunately they were not. Some unconfirmed craters were added, and some confirmed ones were missing. So I had to laboriously (sigh) check each article against the EID. After some effort, I'm happy to say they now have the same number as the EID, and they total to 188. I have also made a table in the main article for the convenience of those who wish to see the statistics at a glance. Titus III (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good that the information in this section is now consistent with the EID database. Yes, it's a laborious task but I think that this article and the other list articles that you corrected are now better as a result of that cross-checking. GeoWriter (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

30 Km Wide Impact Western Australia 3.5 Billion Years Ago

Articles for details:

• Phys dot Org: (May 16, 2016) Clues to ancient giant asteroid found in Australia
• SpaceDaily dot com (May 18, 2016): Clues to Ancient Giant Asteroid Found in Western Australia
• Universe Today: (May 18, 2016) 30 km Wide Asteroid Impacted Australia 3.4 Billion Years Ago

---Radical Mallard (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of impact craters on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816123552/http://web.eps.utk.edu/~faculty/ifsg.htm to http://web.eps.utk.edu/~faculty/ifsg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of impact craters on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306140004/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between tables and interactive map

I just noticed something: the figures displayed in the Earth Impact Database map and the tables in the article itself don't match. This is the case for multiple craters, and the error ranges from being spot on (Ries crater) to being almost a factor of two out (Vredefort). I am putting a self-contradictory template at the top of the article to draw attention to this. How did this happen?--EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 15:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Falkland (Malvinas) Plateau anomaly"

This "impact structure" (Rocca et al., Geophysical evidence for a large impact structure on the Falkland (Malvinas) Plateau) is highly dubious and should not be contained in the table of unconfirmed craters (see https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12284 and https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12285), unless these latter two critical papers are also cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.196.53 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiawatha Glacier crater in Greenland

More info here and at Hiawatha Glacier. Looks cool and should be added somewhere. -- GreenC 22:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hiawatha Glacier/Crater

Add Hiawatha Crater of Hiawatha Glacier, per current research? It appears to be in the Top 25 in size. X1\ (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It is in List of unconfirmed impact craters on Earth until confirmed in the Earth Impact Database. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Kamil crater

Note by a reader:

-I have noticed that Kamil crater - which has its own wikipedia page - is missing in this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamil_Crater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.169.12.80 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

List of impact craters on Earth → List of impact structures on Earth – A substantial number of the pages listed here are the deeply eroded remains of craters and "impact structure" is a more accurate description for all of these features. Mikenorton (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per common name. The structures are familiar to readers as 'craters' and not 'structures'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And per site consistencty, see both the page title and the associated lists at Impact crater#Lists of craters. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I note that the Impact crater article also says "Where such processes have destroyed most of the original crater topography, the terms impact structure or astrobleme are more commonly used." One of the lists shown there is list of possible impact structures on Earth if we're talking about consistency. Mikenorton (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Many of the listed items are no longer craters e.g. Vredefort, and therefore it makes sense to use the broader and more encompassing term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, the common name IS impact structures, with crater being a specific subset.--Kevmin § 17:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A redirect from "List of impact craters on Earth" redirecting to the article's proposed new title "List of impact structures on Earth" would cater for users searching by "impact crater" instead of "impact structure". GeoWriter (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Volcanoguy 17:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ramgarh crater in India

List can include recent confirmation of third impact crater (10 km dia) of India in Ramgarh, Rajasthan.

http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/New%20website_05-2018/Ramgarh.html

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lmi2019/pdf/5007.pdf

 Ohsin  11:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Antarctic Crater

The instructions say to hover over the crater to obtain information about it. The Antarctic crater does not do this. It is also one which the line around it is continuous. Jokem (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Nadir crater

Nadir crater seems all but confirmed as an impact structure now [4], but it's not currently on the EID list. I assume that means we should continue to exclude it until it's properly listed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Although we have held to that as a standard for inclusion, I would be prepared to add this one as an exception, with a note that it was not yet included in the EID list. The evidence is exceptionally strong. The two 2D seismic lines were pretty convincing, but the 3D data appears to be pretty much unequivocal, in my experience as seismic interpreter of complex structure (for what that's worth). Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)