Geology: Meteorites Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Should the task force page include links to some Commons categories? For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meteorite ?
I had {{
WikiProject Geology}} modified to include the fields |meteorite=
and |meteorite-importance=
. This is not exactly as requested on the task force page, but it is consistent with the way the articles have been tagged. Articles in this task force are now grouped in the category
Category:Meteorites articles.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've similarly modified {{
Infobox meteorite}} to populate
Category:Wikipedia infobox meteorite articles without coordinates if Lat_Long= is omitted or blank. The new category is grouped in
Category:Meteorites articles.
-Arb. (
talk)
13:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Almost forgot... modified some days {{
Infobox meteorite}} ago to populate category
Category:Meteorites by name, most easily accessed from the {{
Meteorites}} navbox.
-Arb. (
talk)
23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Only Meteoritics & Planetary Science is listed in {{ Meteorites}}. Are there any others of note? -Arb. ( talk) 12:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Ended up as Category:Meteoritics publications (discussion elsewhere) with three entries at present but scope for many more. -Arb. ( talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule, it's good to have an infobox at the top of any article that is part of a set. To that end I've built a list of all meteorite articles that lack one. The first three groups are listed for information / completeness. The last three merit discussion.
No infobox required
Done
No infobox required except...
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocks_and_minerals#Category:Meteorite_minerals
Some questions for folk with domain knowledge:
This is the most interesting one. Some questions for folk with domain knowledge:
-Arb. ( talk) 13:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done The discussion took place elsewhere but infoboxes have been added and categories amended to resolve this as far as is possible at present. -Arb. ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Recent findings and creations:
Should Tektites be included? -Arb. ( talk) 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody know if we can get this picture for the Nevil Story Maskelyne article ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/mopa1/5710965695/)? He is one of the creators of the modern meteorite classification. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we need a category "meteoritics scientist" or whatever that would be more elegantly called? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I fiddled with the template a bit to conform to modern classification but also include other and older approaches. The template can be viewed here. I still have to research a couple of more terms before it is ready to go live ( User:Tobias1984/Sandbox_6) Feedback would be nice. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Has meteoric iron reached c-class? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Done User:Vsmith was so nice, to take some time for this. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've derived a new template {{ Infobox meteorite group}} from {{ Infobox meteorite}} and used it on IAB meteorites and IVB meteorites. Please check that the values used there make sense.
It generates Category:Meteorite groups a sub-category, for now, of Category:Meteorite types (but see next thread).
It includes the following fields for which I've found no use. Should they be removed?
|Clan =
|Number_of_specimens =
|TKW =
And are there any fields obviously missing?
Update: {{ Infobox meteorite class}} and {{ Infobox meteorite type}} to follow.
-Arb. ( talk) 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change part of "our" category tree. Discussion welcome.
Question. Does this account for everything currently in Category:Meteorite types and if not, what's left?
-Arb. ( talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
How about we generalise "Template:Meteorite group" to cope with all the variants in terminology without trying to impose structure on them (that seems to be a square peg, round hole task):
These output categories (including the existing but re-purposed "Category:Meteorite types") would all be sub-categories of your proposed "Category:Meteorite subdivisions" or whatever we settle on. Thoughts? -Arb. ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Done {{ Infobox meteorite subdivision}}
Suggestions any one?
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites#Focus for the month
-Arb. ( talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The meteorite article names seem to come in three forms:
Does anyone know the background to this and what, if anything, is the significance of each variant. -Arb. ( talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I created several articles about meteorites and I usually followed these rules:
It sounded a good approach (I suggested it here and there were no objections). I preferred "Officialmeteoritename" or "Officialmeteoritename (meteorite)" over "Officialmeteoritename meteorite" because in my opinion they are more precise. I mean: it should be clear that Toluca (meteorite) is not the "meteorite of Toluca", it is just the "meteorite called Toluca". Moreover usually the official name is not something like C/1995 O1, but it is the name of the nearest geographic location, so it is not "obscure". We have Mercury (planet)/ Mercury (element) and not Mercury planet/ Mercury element or Quartz and not Quartz mineral. Nevertheless some people found "Officialmeteoritename meteorite" more natural... well it is not a really "wrong" name and english is not my mother tongue so I respected these opinions. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Meteorite subdivision names are almost all singular which sounds very strange to my ear; they should be plural being a group. This is confirmed by the fact that most of them lead with the plural form in bold! Given the status-quo we are stuck with the singular but I will create plural redirects for them all so we can use either form as seems best in a particular circumstance. This will, incidentally, deal with the fact that a couple of the plurals I tried redirect to a subsection of another article entirely (I forget which).
-Arb. (
talk)
18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we nominate Northwest Africa 7034 for DYK? It was started today by User:Jokestress. I expanded it a bit and it has a picture and looks pretty neat. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I just thought that we could should maybe make a list of largest meteorites. Maybe sorted by type and continent. --
Tobias1984 (
talk)
19:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of some recent edits I did some research into the whole achondrite debate. The best two quotes I could find are:
Unless somebody comes up with a more reputable source I think we should stick to this scheme:
I think at the moment the thing that our collection of articles lacks the most is consistency. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Well any book I read about meteorites defines achondrites as stone chondrites. The above definitions probably relate to stone meteorites. For example the A.E. Rubin classification (2000) divides differentiated meteorites in:
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines achondrite "any stony meteorite containing no chondrules". Within the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Meteorites, irons and stony-irons are "differentiated meteorites", not achondrites. Almost any website (eg. The Natural History Museum) defines achondrites as stony meteorites. Almost any book on Google books (eg. 1 2 3 etc.) does not define iron meteorites as achondrites. The Meteoritical Bulletin Database defines achondrite: "A stony meteorite that lacks chondrules and originated on a differentiated parent body". On Wikipedia we have to " assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The use of the word "achondrite" in order to indicate all the non-chondrite meteorites is deprecable because it creates a lot of confusion and it is not consistent with the widespread meaning of the word "achondrite". On the "Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 1: Meteorites, Comets and Planets" (winner of GSIS Mary B. Ansari "Best Reference Work Award" 2004.) by Andrew M. Davis, Heinrich D. Holland and Karl Karekin Turekian, at page 84 there is the table with the modern classification of meteorites: it divdes meteorites between chondrites and nonchondrites. Within the same page you can read: "Based on their bulk compositions and textures, meteorites can be divided into two major categories, chondrites and nonchondritic meteorites; the latter include the primitive achondrites and igneously differentiated meteorites." (This phrase is taken from Krot et al. 2003) If we want to use these modern classification schemes that divide meteorites in chondrites and nonchondritic, then I strongly suggest to use the word nonchondritic (Krot et al. 2003) or differentiated (A.E. Rubin, 2000). -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 11:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We could also adopt the Geochemistry treatise scheme. It think it would look like this:
Of course the infobox would need to be adapted to this new scheme. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've recently started using WikiProject Military history/Assessment and in particular their Assessment/B-Class (and B-Class FAQ) as recommended at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Using these criteria a *lot* of our articles are underrated. At some point we should have a drive reassess them all; perhaps February's focus? In March we might expand all stubs... Then it's spring and the Wikipedia season is over till October or there about :) -Arb. ( talk) 14:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
IIAB meteorites is good to go for DYK. Are you going to nomination procedure Arb? We are really generating a lot of publicity for our task force. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Done
Do we need an article that covers dense collection areas? The meteoritical society has a page dedicated to those areas ( http://meteoriticalsociety.org/index.php?page_id=61). The article could cover a few places like NWA, QUE, etc.. and explain why meteorites are so easy to find in those places. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 10:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Meteorites and Meteoritics task force |
I thought we that we need our own infobox. I am still open to suggestions, as I am not very good with design. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This user supports the Meteorites and Meteoritics task force |
In case you're not watching WP: Museums I wanted to let you know that I've started this article per your request. I don't read German and English sources are thin on the ground so hope someone will come along and help us both out. Good luck with your creation drive -- User:Star Mississippi
Category:People associated with meteorites: mineral buseckite in honour of Prof. Peter Buseck, Arizona State University. He could be another person in your to do list. [2] -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Geology: Meteorites Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Should the task force page include links to some Commons categories? For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meteorite ?
I had {{
WikiProject Geology}} modified to include the fields |meteorite=
and |meteorite-importance=
. This is not exactly as requested on the task force page, but it is consistent with the way the articles have been tagged. Articles in this task force are now grouped in the category
Category:Meteorites articles.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've similarly modified {{
Infobox meteorite}} to populate
Category:Wikipedia infobox meteorite articles without coordinates if Lat_Long= is omitted or blank. The new category is grouped in
Category:Meteorites articles.
-Arb. (
talk)
13:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Almost forgot... modified some days {{
Infobox meteorite}} ago to populate category
Category:Meteorites by name, most easily accessed from the {{
Meteorites}} navbox.
-Arb. (
talk)
23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Only Meteoritics & Planetary Science is listed in {{ Meteorites}}. Are there any others of note? -Arb. ( talk) 12:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Ended up as Category:Meteoritics publications (discussion elsewhere) with three entries at present but scope for many more. -Arb. ( talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule, it's good to have an infobox at the top of any article that is part of a set. To that end I've built a list of all meteorite articles that lack one. The first three groups are listed for information / completeness. The last three merit discussion.
No infobox required
Done
No infobox required except...
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocks_and_minerals#Category:Meteorite_minerals
Some questions for folk with domain knowledge:
This is the most interesting one. Some questions for folk with domain knowledge:
-Arb. ( talk) 13:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done The discussion took place elsewhere but infoboxes have been added and categories amended to resolve this as far as is possible at present. -Arb. ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Recent findings and creations:
Should Tektites be included? -Arb. ( talk) 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody know if we can get this picture for the Nevil Story Maskelyne article ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/mopa1/5710965695/)? He is one of the creators of the modern meteorite classification. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we need a category "meteoritics scientist" or whatever that would be more elegantly called? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I fiddled with the template a bit to conform to modern classification but also include other and older approaches. The template can be viewed here. I still have to research a couple of more terms before it is ready to go live ( User:Tobias1984/Sandbox_6) Feedback would be nice. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Has meteoric iron reached c-class? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Done User:Vsmith was so nice, to take some time for this. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've derived a new template {{ Infobox meteorite group}} from {{ Infobox meteorite}} and used it on IAB meteorites and IVB meteorites. Please check that the values used there make sense.
It generates Category:Meteorite groups a sub-category, for now, of Category:Meteorite types (but see next thread).
It includes the following fields for which I've found no use. Should they be removed?
|Clan =
|Number_of_specimens =
|TKW =
And are there any fields obviously missing?
Update: {{ Infobox meteorite class}} and {{ Infobox meteorite type}} to follow.
-Arb. ( talk) 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change part of "our" category tree. Discussion welcome.
Question. Does this account for everything currently in Category:Meteorite types and if not, what's left?
-Arb. ( talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
How about we generalise "Template:Meteorite group" to cope with all the variants in terminology without trying to impose structure on them (that seems to be a square peg, round hole task):
These output categories (including the existing but re-purposed "Category:Meteorite types") would all be sub-categories of your proposed "Category:Meteorite subdivisions" or whatever we settle on. Thoughts? -Arb. ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Done {{ Infobox meteorite subdivision}}
Suggestions any one?
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites#Focus for the month
-Arb. ( talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The meteorite article names seem to come in three forms:
Does anyone know the background to this and what, if anything, is the significance of each variant. -Arb. ( talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I created several articles about meteorites and I usually followed these rules:
It sounded a good approach (I suggested it here and there were no objections). I preferred "Officialmeteoritename" or "Officialmeteoritename (meteorite)" over "Officialmeteoritename meteorite" because in my opinion they are more precise. I mean: it should be clear that Toluca (meteorite) is not the "meteorite of Toluca", it is just the "meteorite called Toluca". Moreover usually the official name is not something like C/1995 O1, but it is the name of the nearest geographic location, so it is not "obscure". We have Mercury (planet)/ Mercury (element) and not Mercury planet/ Mercury element or Quartz and not Quartz mineral. Nevertheless some people found "Officialmeteoritename meteorite" more natural... well it is not a really "wrong" name and english is not my mother tongue so I respected these opinions. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Meteorite subdivision names are almost all singular which sounds very strange to my ear; they should be plural being a group. This is confirmed by the fact that most of them lead with the plural form in bold! Given the status-quo we are stuck with the singular but I will create plural redirects for them all so we can use either form as seems best in a particular circumstance. This will, incidentally, deal with the fact that a couple of the plurals I tried redirect to a subsection of another article entirely (I forget which).
-Arb. (
talk)
18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we nominate Northwest Africa 7034 for DYK? It was started today by User:Jokestress. I expanded it a bit and it has a picture and looks pretty neat. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I just thought that we could should maybe make a list of largest meteorites. Maybe sorted by type and continent. --
Tobias1984 (
talk)
19:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of some recent edits I did some research into the whole achondrite debate. The best two quotes I could find are:
Unless somebody comes up with a more reputable source I think we should stick to this scheme:
I think at the moment the thing that our collection of articles lacks the most is consistency. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Well any book I read about meteorites defines achondrites as stone chondrites. The above definitions probably relate to stone meteorites. For example the A.E. Rubin classification (2000) divides differentiated meteorites in:
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines achondrite "any stony meteorite containing no chondrules". Within the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Meteorites, irons and stony-irons are "differentiated meteorites", not achondrites. Almost any website (eg. The Natural History Museum) defines achondrites as stony meteorites. Almost any book on Google books (eg. 1 2 3 etc.) does not define iron meteorites as achondrites. The Meteoritical Bulletin Database defines achondrite: "A stony meteorite that lacks chondrules and originated on a differentiated parent body". On Wikipedia we have to " assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The use of the word "achondrite" in order to indicate all the non-chondrite meteorites is deprecable because it creates a lot of confusion and it is not consistent with the widespread meaning of the word "achondrite". On the "Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 1: Meteorites, Comets and Planets" (winner of GSIS Mary B. Ansari "Best Reference Work Award" 2004.) by Andrew M. Davis, Heinrich D. Holland and Karl Karekin Turekian, at page 84 there is the table with the modern classification of meteorites: it divdes meteorites between chondrites and nonchondrites. Within the same page you can read: "Based on their bulk compositions and textures, meteorites can be divided into two major categories, chondrites and nonchondritic meteorites; the latter include the primitive achondrites and igneously differentiated meteorites." (This phrase is taken from Krot et al. 2003) If we want to use these modern classification schemes that divide meteorites in chondrites and nonchondritic, then I strongly suggest to use the word nonchondritic (Krot et al. 2003) or differentiated (A.E. Rubin, 2000). -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 11:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We could also adopt the Geochemistry treatise scheme. It think it would look like this:
Of course the infobox would need to be adapted to this new scheme. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've recently started using WikiProject Military history/Assessment and in particular their Assessment/B-Class (and B-Class FAQ) as recommended at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Using these criteria a *lot* of our articles are underrated. At some point we should have a drive reassess them all; perhaps February's focus? In March we might expand all stubs... Then it's spring and the Wikipedia season is over till October or there about :) -Arb. ( talk) 14:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
IIAB meteorites is good to go for DYK. Are you going to nomination procedure Arb? We are really generating a lot of publicity for our task force. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Done
Do we need an article that covers dense collection areas? The meteoritical society has a page dedicated to those areas ( http://meteoriticalsociety.org/index.php?page_id=61). The article could cover a few places like NWA, QUE, etc.. and explain why meteorites are so easy to find in those places. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 10:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Meteorites and Meteoritics task force |
I thought we that we need our own infobox. I am still open to suggestions, as I am not very good with design. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This user supports the Meteorites and Meteoritics task force |
In case you're not watching WP: Museums I wanted to let you know that I've started this article per your request. I don't read German and English sources are thin on the ground so hope someone will come along and help us both out. Good luck with your creation drive -- User:Star Mississippi
Category:People associated with meteorites: mineral buseckite in honour of Prof. Peter Buseck, Arizona State University. He could be another person in your to do list. [2] -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)