Template talk:Infobox meteorite

Proposal

I don't know if this would be a good idea but how about adding the fields (in bold):

• |Name =
• |Alternative names =
• |Image =
• |Image_caption =
• |Type =
• |Class =
• |Clan =
• |Group =
• |Subgroup=
• |Parent body =
• |Structural_classification =
• |Stony/Iron/Stonyiron = or Compositional_classification
• |Composition =
• |Shock =
• |Weathering =
• |Country =
• |Region =
• |Lat_Long =
• |Observed_fall =
• |Fall_date =
• |Found_date =
• |TKW =
• |Image2 =
• |Image2_caption =

A lot of meteorites have subgroups. Clans are currently missing but are a part of classification. Parent body is proposed for a number of meteorites. I think a lot of readers would benefit from explicit mentioning if a meteorite is stony iron or stony-iron. Especially for primitive achondrites that have an overall iron composition. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That all makes sense; indeed, it explains in some measure why I had trouble understanding the classification section of the infobox in the first place. You are far and away the most knowledgeable person working on meteorite classification in Wikipedia at the moment so if you think that's the best approach go right ahead... -Arb. (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm very happy to see other users working on this topic! Let's take a look at the proposal.

• Stony/Iron/Stonyiron: according to the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Meteorites, the modern classification (called Prior classification) divides meteorites into 5 main groups: Chondrites / Achondrites (Ca-poor) / Achondrites (Ca-rich) / Irons / Stony-irons. I simplified a bit grouping toghether achondrites, so within the field "type" we have 4 groups. Why should we indroduce also this field?
• Parent body: well, actually parent bodies are more related to the meteorite class than to the specific meteorite. I mean: all the lunar achondrites -> Moon, all the martian anchondrites -> Mars, asteroidal achondrites -> a wild guess based upon spectral data, all the rest -> unknown or no parent body. In my opinion it is a bit pointless to add this field within the infobox of a meteorite.
• Clan: eg. CM-CO. Is it widely used? Are we going to use it only with carbonaceus chondrites?
• Subgroup: eg. CV-oxA. Is it widely used? Is it not a bit overspecific?

Basilicofresco (msg) 09:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Basilicofresco! The Stony, Iron and Stony-Iron classification I am referring to is the one used by Nevil Story Maskelyne. It has the great advantage that it is easy to understand even for people unfamiliar with meteorite classification. Another shortfall of the current template is that it equates Stony meteorites with Chondrites (primitive stony meteorites), which ignores the fact that there are differentiated stony meteorites (Eucrit, Howardite, Ureilite, SNC).

The Prior-Mason classification used in the "Cambridge Encyclopedia of Meteorites" is in many respects outdated. Modifications of the Prior-Mason classification were published by Weisberg 2006 (Chondrite, Primitive-Achondrite, Achondrite) and are in wide use. To sum it up I think that stony/iron/stony-iron and differentiated/primitive are a great way of making classification accessible to laymen and should be separate from chondrite/primitive-achondrite/achondrite.

Your absolutely right about Parent body being speculative. I also understand that it is obvious to some people that Martian meteorites are from Mars. But I rather like the explicit approach of an infoboxes.

Clan and Subgroups might also be to detailed. I don't know if you would agree, but we could just put the fields in and see if anyone adds them to the infobox. If nobody does it, we can still get rid of them.

I would be happy to hear back from you! --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The current template does not equate stony meterotites with chondrites: as you can see in "type" field we have iron, stony-iron, chondrite (the primitive stony meteorites) and achondrite (the differentiated stony meteorites). I mean the "Stony/Iron/Stonyiron" is already present and it is the "type" field. However, in order to show the word "stony" within the infobox, we could change the template in order to show:

• type=iron -----> Type   Iron
• type=chondrite -----> Type   Stony, Chondrite
• type=achondrite -----> Type   Stony, Achondrite
• type=stony-iron -----> Type   Stony-iron

As you can see there is no need to add an additional "type" parameter. I feel Clan and Subgroups fields unnecessary within a infobox (there are many meteorite infoboxes longer than the article itself), nevertheless they do not make any harm so if you are going to use them... About parent body I'm still doubtful: I believe the wikilink to the class (eg. Mars meteorite) is enough and it takes the reader to a page where the matter is well explained. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey again and happy new year! Can you tell me which classification you are using? The on I'm looking at says that Martian meteorites are a clan and not class (That's why I wanted to add them to the infobox). It would be a good idea if we would all be using the same classification and then use it consistently. I'm sure we are just misunderstanding each other a lot. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For the infobox I was using the modified Prior-Matson classification, showed in table 1 here. It is pretty simple and very "traditional". The problem is that a number of different schemes have been proposed over the years and the hierarchy terms (eg. "clan", "group", etc) are not consistent. For this reason I would avoid to be over-specific within the infobox about clans, subgroups, superclans and so on. Everybody agrees that Allende meteorite belongs to the CV group ("class", "clan", "type" or whatever), everybody agrees that CV meteorites are a kind of carbonaceous chondrites, everybody agrees that carbonaceous chondrites are a kind of chondrites. I suggest to avoid within the infobox any unnecessary hierarchy level: it is just a synoptic box and there is not enough consensus among scientists. If you want to use a more modern classification scheme, we could adopt the A. E. Rubin (2000) classification. I would avoid the Weisberg classification (at least as reported in the book Meteorites And the Early Solar System II and in this this image) because it is the very first time I see iron and stony-irons classified as achondrites (!!): it is _very_ confusing! As far as I know nobody would define Canyon Diablo an achondrite! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have to note that the Rubin classification does seem to also group the Irons with the Achondrites as differentiated. But that again implies melting and crystallization, a meaning that has been adapted to achondrites too. I still think we should have all the other groups within three columns "chondrite, primitive ahcondrite and achondrite". --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Documentation

Now that new fields have been added would some kind soul update Template:Infobox meteorite/doc to match and also for clarity. It'll help us non-specialists use the fields correctly. -Arb. (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Strewn field

I do not understand the meaning of the new strewn field parameter... what does it mean? Potentially any meteorite has got its own strewn field. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It's any with a documented (in the literature) strewn field. Falls often have one though not all do. Finds tend not to. Template documentation clarified. -Arb. (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but I have to stress that it does not make any sense. A strewn field is "An elliptical field defining the distribution of meteorite specimens from a multiple meteorite fall". Who cares if a strewn field is documented or not? Any meteorite had got its own strewn field. How do you define a strewn field "documented"? Any meteorite with a number of recovered fragments >= 2 ? Any meteorite with the words "strewn field" within its Meteoritical Bulletin pubblication? Any meteorite with a map with some red dots? Uhmm.... ;) It sounds like epicenter = yes/no for earthquakes. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that is totally true. Some meteorite don't fragment during their atmospheric passage. A strewn field is still something noteworthy because if you find it, you known the meteorite really impacted at that place and was not displaced in a river or some other transportation process. I think we should keep strewn field entry in the infobox. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Italics for image caption

I've removed the italics style for the image captions. There's no reason to italicize them since we should italicize text in the specific cases outlined at WP:ITALICS. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Map?

How is there coordinates in this box but no map? --awkwafaba (📥) 02:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)