![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
is Houston in a 100Myo crater? Has anyone noticed that there is a diameter-50-mile ring ridge around Houston? If the ring was a clock face on a north-up map, downtown houston would be at the tip of the hour hand at three o'clock. 2605:6000:3D13:1300:40F5:25AB:8C18:F853 ( talk) 02:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
With center in Parker Meadow 43°13'54.9"N 121°29'58.9"W a great circular structure with 23 miles (some like 37.5 kilometers) of diameter is very noticeable on any aerial or satelital image at northeast of the Crater Lake National Park, without proof of how this structure was created we could see clearely how erosion and other climatic circumstances try to erase the particular form but perfectly looks as a old crater.
Agree it does look pretty crater-y at least on satellite photos. One thing to keep in mind though is that area has a lot, and I mean a lot, of Volcanic craters. Literally on the outer rim of the structure in question are Big Hole and Hole In The Ground, a pair of quite large volcanic Maars 2 and 1.2 km in diameter respectively that practically scream "astrobleme" but most definitely aren't. Within 2 diameters in either direction we have crater lake, the Newberry Volcano with it's two crater lakes. Further still, the central area is still elevated above the surrounding terrain. That means that if there is indeed a crater there the impactor would've had to flatten out some mountainous terrain rather than making a hole in flat terrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 ( talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of unconfirmed 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hiawatha Crater (name?) - 19km. [1] Fig ( talk) 21:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason I changed the age of Hiawatha crater to "less than 1,985 million years" in the table is because according to the authoritative reference Kjaer et al. (2018) [1] "We can confidently assume that the structure is younger than the 1.985 to 1.740 Ga old Paleoproterozoic bedrock that outcrops in the immediately adjacent foreland." This is an actual age constraint and is not tentative or merely inferred from indirect evidence. There is no mention of 2.58 Ma in the paper. KosmicMuffin ( talk) 17:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
There are numerous problems with this page, which appears to have been hastily assembled. The title "List of unconfirmed impact craters on Earth" is already a problem. First, it implies that it is a list of craters when many of the listed geographic features are not craters at all by any definition. Second it suggests that listed features are impact craters that just haven't been formally designated yet. Third, there are lists of other things on the page besides unconfirmed impact craters (undiscovered but inferred, formerly unconfirmed, and mistaken identity). I suggest the following. Rename the page something like "List of misidentified, contested, or unconfirmed impact features on Earth". Consolidate everything into a single list and add a column stating the status of the scientific consensus, with citations. KosmicMuffin ( talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "formerly unconfirmed" section is out of place and redundant. Out of place because this page is supposed to be a list of *unconfirmed* craters and these are *confirmed* craters. Redundant because they are already listed on the confirmed impact crater page. If there are no objections I think this section should be deleted. KosmicMuffin ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that the possible impact structure named by one article as the Winton crustal anomaly is the same as the site named by Tisquesusa as the Diamantina River craters. The sheer size of the Winton site surely puts the lie to that. The three tiny craters shown in the reference included with that modification each barely measure 100 m across, but the Winton crustal anomaly's diameter is more like 130 km. The webpage used as a reference ( here) also does not give coördinates, making it impossible to confirm whether those that are included with the entry indeed point to these little holes. Now, I know, because I wrote the Winton crustal anomaly article, that the coördinates used there (which have been copied here) are only designed to point roughly at the centre of that cane-shaped bit of the upper Diamantina, and are hardly pinpoint-accurate, using a fineness only down to a tenth of a degree. Tisquesusa (or somebody else) would need to find a position for those three craters in the now removed reference. I suspect, though, that those craters would turn out to be another entry.
Please also note the little inline advisory in the "Unnamed impact" entry: "Winton crustal anomaly" is simply an unofficial name that I have given it, because it needed one to have an article about it. That article may be moved if Geoscience Australia comes up with an official name.
But thus far, it doesn't seem to have. Kelisi ( talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked up some of the big, young craters and there are some truly horrendous errors in size. The discredited one near Tunguska claims 50 km in diameter on this page (which is absurd because a 50 km crater would be 1/10th chicxulub energy or 1/1000th Shiva, I think that would probably completely depopulate central Siberia at minimum). The lake is not 50 km in diameter. It's 50 meters in depth.
Similarly, the 5000 B.C. Zerelia structures in Greece claim they are 20 and 10 km in diameter. They are plainly visible dual crater lakes on satellite imagery and the visible portion is more like 0.3 and 0.2 km respectively. 20 km impact would make the thing a new bay to the Aegean and probably give neolithic mediterraneans a new deluge myth from the trauma.
There are more. Probably at least half a dozen errors by a factor of more than 10. Someone with more time and better understanding of how to edit please do a thorough sweep of these and check sizes with sources and if possible satellite photos. Merewether also may not be as big as it says but it's somewhat difficult to know if the article is talking about a small (like, hundred ish meters) circular lake or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
E.g., the Nördlinger Ries in Germany is missing in the list. (It is listed at the end of the page in the categories section.) As it is above 20 km in diameter, well researched, and since this crater was even historically important for the development of the impact crater theory as far as I remember, that one is very bad to miss out on the list, and makes me wonder how many else are missing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.106.136 ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
My (perhaps incorrect) understanding is that confirmed craters do not belong on this page. If that is the case, then the certainty "0" craters (which would include Nördlinger Ries, were it here) should be removed. 2600:1700:FD0:E9E0:68A1:BA2F:2F81:B2D5 ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know what level of expertise that Anna Mikheeva has in the study of extraterrestrial impacts? Why is "The Complete Catalog of the Earth's Impact structures" (ICM&MG SB RAS) cited in this article as if it a reliable secondary source unlike similar seemingly self-published lists of impact craters?
I ask, because in her list, there are some widely implausible "impact" structures given high probabilities by her of being impact structures for which enough is currently known about their geology to completely discredit them as being valid impact structures. One example is the "Kilimanjaro (Tanzanian nuclear, Vostochno-Africanzkaya-D=800km, Lake Victoria, Lac Victoria, Victoria Njansa-D=250km) * Africa., which two perceived features are given a rating of 1 and judged to be "probable" impact structures. This and other examples argues for this being a personal compilation of any feature that at one time or the other have been proposed an impact structure without much though as to the the quality of the evidence supporting the claim. A map of such features is Yandex map of impact structures. From what I can find, this list is a blatantly unreliable, self-published source that should not be used / mentioned in Wikipedia. Paul H. ( talk) 04:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton VerifyTruth927 ( talk) 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how to edit hyperlinks on here, but the link for Nadir redirects to the wrong page, not the one about the crater 2003:CC:272B:9D00:61AF:596D:91E3:842F ( talk) 22:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
List articles (like this one) should have clear inclusion criteria. The lede of this article lists three databases that contain possible impact structures:
Do editors believe that these databases are reliable and authoritative? If so, then we can include a structure that occurs in at least 2 of these three databases. That will fulfill the notability criteria. Further references for each included structure could be useful, but we wouldn't have to attempt to validate the reliability of hundreds of references to support inclusion.
What do other editors think? pinging relevant editors ( Doug Weller— Paul H.— Hemiauchenia— Licks-rocks) — hike395 ( talk) 14:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
I don't see why Wikipedia needs both a List of impact craters on Earth and a List of possible impact structures on Earth. To me, this seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. How about if we create a merged List of impact structures on Earth that have solid support in secondary sources? Namely, any such structure should be listed in at least two of the following databases:
We can keep the current sub-lists in List of impact craters and append a new sub-list which contains a trimmed-down version of List of possible impact structures on Earth that passes the secondary source filter. — hike395 ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
is Houston in a 100Myo crater? Has anyone noticed that there is a diameter-50-mile ring ridge around Houston? If the ring was a clock face on a north-up map, downtown houston would be at the tip of the hour hand at three o'clock. 2605:6000:3D13:1300:40F5:25AB:8C18:F853 ( talk) 02:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
With center in Parker Meadow 43°13'54.9"N 121°29'58.9"W a great circular structure with 23 miles (some like 37.5 kilometers) of diameter is very noticeable on any aerial or satelital image at northeast of the Crater Lake National Park, without proof of how this structure was created we could see clearely how erosion and other climatic circumstances try to erase the particular form but perfectly looks as a old crater.
Agree it does look pretty crater-y at least on satellite photos. One thing to keep in mind though is that area has a lot, and I mean a lot, of Volcanic craters. Literally on the outer rim of the structure in question are Big Hole and Hole In The Ground, a pair of quite large volcanic Maars 2 and 1.2 km in diameter respectively that practically scream "astrobleme" but most definitely aren't. Within 2 diameters in either direction we have crater lake, the Newberry Volcano with it's two crater lakes. Further still, the central area is still elevated above the surrounding terrain. That means that if there is indeed a crater there the impactor would've had to flatten out some mountainous terrain rather than making a hole in flat terrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 ( talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of unconfirmed 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hiawatha Crater (name?) - 19km. [1] Fig ( talk) 21:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason I changed the age of Hiawatha crater to "less than 1,985 million years" in the table is because according to the authoritative reference Kjaer et al. (2018) [1] "We can confidently assume that the structure is younger than the 1.985 to 1.740 Ga old Paleoproterozoic bedrock that outcrops in the immediately adjacent foreland." This is an actual age constraint and is not tentative or merely inferred from indirect evidence. There is no mention of 2.58 Ma in the paper. KosmicMuffin ( talk) 17:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
There are numerous problems with this page, which appears to have been hastily assembled. The title "List of unconfirmed impact craters on Earth" is already a problem. First, it implies that it is a list of craters when many of the listed geographic features are not craters at all by any definition. Second it suggests that listed features are impact craters that just haven't been formally designated yet. Third, there are lists of other things on the page besides unconfirmed impact craters (undiscovered but inferred, formerly unconfirmed, and mistaken identity). I suggest the following. Rename the page something like "List of misidentified, contested, or unconfirmed impact features on Earth". Consolidate everything into a single list and add a column stating the status of the scientific consensus, with citations. KosmicMuffin ( talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "formerly unconfirmed" section is out of place and redundant. Out of place because this page is supposed to be a list of *unconfirmed* craters and these are *confirmed* craters. Redundant because they are already listed on the confirmed impact crater page. If there are no objections I think this section should be deleted. KosmicMuffin ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that the possible impact structure named by one article as the Winton crustal anomaly is the same as the site named by Tisquesusa as the Diamantina River craters. The sheer size of the Winton site surely puts the lie to that. The three tiny craters shown in the reference included with that modification each barely measure 100 m across, but the Winton crustal anomaly's diameter is more like 130 km. The webpage used as a reference ( here) also does not give coördinates, making it impossible to confirm whether those that are included with the entry indeed point to these little holes. Now, I know, because I wrote the Winton crustal anomaly article, that the coördinates used there (which have been copied here) are only designed to point roughly at the centre of that cane-shaped bit of the upper Diamantina, and are hardly pinpoint-accurate, using a fineness only down to a tenth of a degree. Tisquesusa (or somebody else) would need to find a position for those three craters in the now removed reference. I suspect, though, that those craters would turn out to be another entry.
Please also note the little inline advisory in the "Unnamed impact" entry: "Winton crustal anomaly" is simply an unofficial name that I have given it, because it needed one to have an article about it. That article may be moved if Geoscience Australia comes up with an official name.
But thus far, it doesn't seem to have. Kelisi ( talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked up some of the big, young craters and there are some truly horrendous errors in size. The discredited one near Tunguska claims 50 km in diameter on this page (which is absurd because a 50 km crater would be 1/10th chicxulub energy or 1/1000th Shiva, I think that would probably completely depopulate central Siberia at minimum). The lake is not 50 km in diameter. It's 50 meters in depth.
Similarly, the 5000 B.C. Zerelia structures in Greece claim they are 20 and 10 km in diameter. They are plainly visible dual crater lakes on satellite imagery and the visible portion is more like 0.3 and 0.2 km respectively. 20 km impact would make the thing a new bay to the Aegean and probably give neolithic mediterraneans a new deluge myth from the trauma.
There are more. Probably at least half a dozen errors by a factor of more than 10. Someone with more time and better understanding of how to edit please do a thorough sweep of these and check sizes with sources and if possible satellite photos. Merewether also may not be as big as it says but it's somewhat difficult to know if the article is talking about a small (like, hundred ish meters) circular lake or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
E.g., the Nördlinger Ries in Germany is missing in the list. (It is listed at the end of the page in the categories section.) As it is above 20 km in diameter, well researched, and since this crater was even historically important for the development of the impact crater theory as far as I remember, that one is very bad to miss out on the list, and makes me wonder how many else are missing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.106.136 ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
My (perhaps incorrect) understanding is that confirmed craters do not belong on this page. If that is the case, then the certainty "0" craters (which would include Nördlinger Ries, were it here) should be removed. 2600:1700:FD0:E9E0:68A1:BA2F:2F81:B2D5 ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know what level of expertise that Anna Mikheeva has in the study of extraterrestrial impacts? Why is "The Complete Catalog of the Earth's Impact structures" (ICM&MG SB RAS) cited in this article as if it a reliable secondary source unlike similar seemingly self-published lists of impact craters?
I ask, because in her list, there are some widely implausible "impact" structures given high probabilities by her of being impact structures for which enough is currently known about their geology to completely discredit them as being valid impact structures. One example is the "Kilimanjaro (Tanzanian nuclear, Vostochno-Africanzkaya-D=800km, Lake Victoria, Lac Victoria, Victoria Njansa-D=250km) * Africa., which two perceived features are given a rating of 1 and judged to be "probable" impact structures. This and other examples argues for this being a personal compilation of any feature that at one time or the other have been proposed an impact structure without much though as to the the quality of the evidence supporting the claim. A map of such features is Yandex map of impact structures. From what I can find, this list is a blatantly unreliable, self-published source that should not be used / mentioned in Wikipedia. Paul H. ( talk) 04:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton VerifyTruth927 ( talk) 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how to edit hyperlinks on here, but the link for Nadir redirects to the wrong page, not the one about the crater 2003:CC:272B:9D00:61AF:596D:91E3:842F ( talk) 22:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
List articles (like this one) should have clear inclusion criteria. The lede of this article lists three databases that contain possible impact structures:
Do editors believe that these databases are reliable and authoritative? If so, then we can include a structure that occurs in at least 2 of these three databases. That will fulfill the notability criteria. Further references for each included structure could be useful, but we wouldn't have to attempt to validate the reliability of hundreds of references to support inclusion.
What do other editors think? pinging relevant editors ( Doug Weller— Paul H.— Hemiauchenia— Licks-rocks) — hike395 ( talk) 14:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
I don't see why Wikipedia needs both a List of impact craters on Earth and a List of possible impact structures on Earth. To me, this seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. How about if we create a merged List of impact structures on Earth that have solid support in secondary sources? Namely, any such structure should be listed in at least two of the following databases:
We can keep the current sub-lists in List of impact craters and append a new sub-list which contains a trimmed-down version of List of possible impact structures on Earth that passes the secondary source filter. — hike395 ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)