This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chicxulub crater article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Chicxulub crater is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 8, 2008, and on October 6, 2022. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Can we find a more reliable source for the estimate of the energy released by the impact than an ArXiv preprint that has apparently never been published in a journal? There are also too many references to newspapers when we should be citing the papers they are reporting on directly. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I redirected Chicxulub to the town of Chicxulub Pueblo which is what that word refers to. But User:Hemiauchenia reverted my edit arguing that nobody is looking for the town. Isn't it a policy that redirects should prioritize geographic locations over things named after them? Perhaps a disambiguation page is pertinent? What is the policy on these matters? -- Homo logos ( talk) 23:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I remember the article declared that the explosion was around 72 teratonnes of power, instead of 100. What changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawlison ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be more about the impact event in general than just the crater. It would require that the page that host the redirect from "Chicxulub impact" be deleted so this page could be moved there, and would require updating the lead. However, the title would be more accurate to the content of the article. aaronneallucas ( talk) 01:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Peter M. Brown in this edit you are citing the Wikipedia article, dash, but Wikipedia has its own house Manual of style, with coverage of this matter at MOS:PREFIXDASH. Thank you for the correction, and for educating me, but I thought you might want to cite Wikipedia's MOS for future such corrections. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
though it had nothing to do with the article's name. Peter Brown ( talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Change name of article to "Chicxulub impact": dash v hyphen
The following discussion 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.
The article's lead claims that "it is now widely accepted that...the impact was the cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event..." First this OBVIOUSLY needs an authoritative reference. Second, "accepted" seems to be too strong - "believed" would be more accurate (amongst experts). Third, there are very strong arguments made that while it was a contributor to that mass extinction, it was NOT "THE" cause. (and some argue it wasn't even the most important cause.) 174.131.48.89 ( talk) 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Third, there are very strong arguments made that while it was a contributor to that mass extinction, it was NOT "THE" cause. (and some argue it wasn't even the most important cause.)and where precisely is your evidence for this? You complain about the lack of citations (there is no need for citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, provided it is supported by the article body), but you are just pontificating your personal opinion. I can't think of a single paper I've read from the last decade that doesn't consider Chicxulub to be the primary cause of the extinction. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
When I read the the lead claim, my clarity alert immediately went off:
Its center is offshore near the communities of Chicxulub Puerto and Chicxulub Pueblo, after which the crater is named.
Does this mean it is named after Chicxulub Pueblo only, or both? And what is the actual claim?
Sure enough, all we have down in the article body is "The crater was named for the nearby town of Chicxulub". So does this mean the Puerto or the Pueblo, because I find it unlikely that Western scientists cared enough about Mexican geography details to reference both settlements in the naming process. Could this be the overeager correction actions of a Wikipedian unfamiliar with the need to source our claims?
I strongly suspect we should in the lead only say:
...and leave it at that. More specificity than that likely requires a source asking Hildebrand, Penfield, or someone else that was there at the time. CapnZapp ( talk) 06:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chicxulub crater article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Chicxulub crater is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 8, 2008, and on October 6, 2022. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Can we find a more reliable source for the estimate of the energy released by the impact than an ArXiv preprint that has apparently never been published in a journal? There are also too many references to newspapers when we should be citing the papers they are reporting on directly. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I redirected Chicxulub to the town of Chicxulub Pueblo which is what that word refers to. But User:Hemiauchenia reverted my edit arguing that nobody is looking for the town. Isn't it a policy that redirects should prioritize geographic locations over things named after them? Perhaps a disambiguation page is pertinent? What is the policy on these matters? -- Homo logos ( talk) 23:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I remember the article declared that the explosion was around 72 teratonnes of power, instead of 100. What changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawlison ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be more about the impact event in general than just the crater. It would require that the page that host the redirect from "Chicxulub impact" be deleted so this page could be moved there, and would require updating the lead. However, the title would be more accurate to the content of the article. aaronneallucas ( talk) 01:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Peter M. Brown in this edit you are citing the Wikipedia article, dash, but Wikipedia has its own house Manual of style, with coverage of this matter at MOS:PREFIXDASH. Thank you for the correction, and for educating me, but I thought you might want to cite Wikipedia's MOS for future such corrections. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
though it had nothing to do with the article's name. Peter Brown ( talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Change name of article to "Chicxulub impact": dash v hyphen
The following discussion 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.
The article's lead claims that "it is now widely accepted that...the impact was the cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event..." First this OBVIOUSLY needs an authoritative reference. Second, "accepted" seems to be too strong - "believed" would be more accurate (amongst experts). Third, there are very strong arguments made that while it was a contributor to that mass extinction, it was NOT "THE" cause. (and some argue it wasn't even the most important cause.) 174.131.48.89 ( talk) 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Third, there are very strong arguments made that while it was a contributor to that mass extinction, it was NOT "THE" cause. (and some argue it wasn't even the most important cause.)and where precisely is your evidence for this? You complain about the lack of citations (there is no need for citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, provided it is supported by the article body), but you are just pontificating your personal opinion. I can't think of a single paper I've read from the last decade that doesn't consider Chicxulub to be the primary cause of the extinction. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
When I read the the lead claim, my clarity alert immediately went off:
Its center is offshore near the communities of Chicxulub Puerto and Chicxulub Pueblo, after which the crater is named.
Does this mean it is named after Chicxulub Pueblo only, or both? And what is the actual claim?
Sure enough, all we have down in the article body is "The crater was named for the nearby town of Chicxulub". So does this mean the Puerto or the Pueblo, because I find it unlikely that Western scientists cared enough about Mexican geography details to reference both settlements in the naming process. Could this be the overeager correction actions of a Wikipedian unfamiliar with the need to source our claims?
I strongly suspect we should in the lead only say:
...and leave it at that. More specificity than that likely requires a source asking Hildebrand, Penfield, or someone else that was there at the time. CapnZapp ( talk) 06:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)