Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor

Wording accuracy

The wording "explosion created panic among local residents" isn't accurate. It was fright rather than panic, so I propose "Its explosion caused fright among some local residents" as more accurate. 109.252.37.152 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Restoring. The wording is correct as is, "caused fright" appears to be a bad translation from another language. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Article rename

I don't see any discussion on the move, and the mechanics of the move appear to have been done incorrectly (losing all the edit history and detaching the talk page). Is there an explanation I missed? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the rename is extremely poor; other events have happened at Chelyabinsk. The meteor, while being the most spectacular recent event, is far from being the only event to ever happen there. The name is thus neither self-explanatory nor unambiguous. I expect this change to be un-done, please comment here if there is disagreement on this point. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And, after looking around some more, I came to the conclusion that this move was reversible and have done so. Please discuss here before re-attempting. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chelyabinsk meteor. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc000f7rz.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/news/Meteor%2Bexplodes%2Bover%2BRussia%2BUral%2BMountains%2Binjured%2Bshock%2Bwave%2Bblasts%2Bwindows/7968297/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4345317%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509133134/http://www.today.com/video/today/50820935 to http://www.today.com/video/today/50820935
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-russian-meteor-chelyabinsk-nova-20130327%2C0%2C853927.story

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Category: February 2013 events

Taken from user talk page: Hello FallingGravity!
Thanks for adding Category:February 2013 events in Asia to this article. I wonder though why you've removed Category:February 2013 events? The event was clearly of a "global" nature (at least judging from media coverage and scientific significance), and I believe the old category was adequate. Is there a reason to remove it, or to change it to the more regional "events in Asia"? I suggest to include the article in both categories. --Renerpho (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going off the "location" in the infobox, though including both categories seems reasonable to reflect the global nature of the phenomena (I think the eclipse articles follow a similar pattern). ^Falling_Gravity 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it back, FallingGravity. @Dhtwiki: I see you reverted the edit, maybe this is worth taking to the article talk page. --Renerpho (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit I just reverted was based on the discussion on FallingGravity's user page. I think adding the article to both categories is the best solution, but if you disagree I am happy to discuss it here. --Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Heavier than the Eiffel Tower"

does that phrase add anything? I would have thought that most people would not have any feeling for how heavy the Eiffel Tower is in the first place, so I don't see how it adds to understanding. Adpete (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The tower is a massive construction, with a wide recognition across the Earth - this comparison helps the lay person get a grasp of mass of the object.104.169.21.238 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am totally fine with adding comparisons to aid with understanding, but I agree with Adpete here. The problem is, I don't have any intuition for the mass of the Eiffel tower. It is both a very massive and a very light-weight construction. The point of comparisons like this is to compare not with something that is easily recognised, but with something for which a lay person may have an intuitive understanding. Renerpho (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that comparison to something like the Eiffel Tower is not helpful since most people have no sense of its overall weight. If the comparison was to a car, for example, that might be reasonable, but it would be better just to give the mass/weight with proper unit conversions and leave it at that. --Masem (t) 15:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I take that as a consensus, and have removed it. Adpete (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)