Talk:Chicxulub impactor

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicxulub impactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/w4937/Readings/Schulte.etal.2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos of the Crater

Where are the photos of this? Misty MH (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the crater itself is buried under 1,000 metres of rock, but perhaps photos of cenotes marking the crater rim may be available. GeoWriter (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Size of the Impactor

Sources seems to vary. That's bad because the size given in this article was contradicting the size given in Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Unless the sources are better, the range 10-15 should be kept.

Whatever you do, keep the two article in line with each other. 217.248.54.67 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I just updated the article Maastrichtian. All three articles should be kept in line with each other.CuriousEric 14:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Better artwork

That impact artwork looks like the cover of a cheesy 1970s sci-fi paperback. In reality, the moment of impact would have been accompanied by an ultraviolet heat-flash so intense that anything capable of seeing it would have been immediately blinded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.123.48 (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Asteroid or comet

This article states the impactor was an asteroid, but I see some research papers stating it could have been a comet. The Wikipedia Chicxulub crater article states it could have been either. While I agree that a probable candidate for the impactor is a carbonaceous asteroid, unless the cometary origin has been disproven, we should add the comet hypothesis here as well.

• https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/327/1/126/1281356
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921818194900205
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98JE02496/full
• http://www.ela-iet.com/EMD/Kring2007ChicxulubK-TReview.pdf
• https://geoweb.princeton.edu/research/keller/pubs/Ward_et_all_1995_geology.pdf
• http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/article00980.html
• http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21709229

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent NOVA episode has many facts not in this article

This recent NOVA episode has many facts not in this article:

• https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/day-the-dinosaurs-died/
• https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/drilling-for-the-dinosaurs-end/

Best — Lentower (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a tertiary source. While Nova is better than average, it's still weak sourcing, and we generally do not use TV documentaries as sources, because they are extremely derivative and often very biased (e.g. present primary research as fact, offer talking-head opinions from charismatic "TV scientists" that diverge from current mainstream science, gloss over important details, etc., etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested merge with a larger more detailed article

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

MathewMunro (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Most sections of this article quickly get off the topic of the impactor itself (and I'm partly to blame for that). A lot of the trouble is that relatively little is known about the impactor, so the page ends up being a lot of "here are some theories" with little that can be stated firmly.

I'm a Wikipedia noob, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I'd say the most reasonable approach would be to make a central Chixculub impact page with three major sections: (1) the crater and the history of research into it, i.e. the impact's trace, (2) models of the impact event and consequences in the first hours of the Paleogene, i.e. the impact's process, and (3) research into the composition and origin of the impactor, i.e. the impact's cause. (The divisions and order are obviously debatable; this is just a sketch.) The existing pages, like this one and the one on the crater, would redirect to those sections.

This would put the topics that are strictly connected to the impact together on one page, preventing each page from having to lengthily summarize the others, which led to problems like size estimates falling out of sync. The K–Pg extinction page, including coverage of debates about whether the impact was the only cause of the extinction, would remain separate and untouched. So would the pages on the scientific history of the Alvarez hypothesis. I understand that what I'm proposing is a major change and would take a lot of time and work, but it's what makes sense to me, so I'm suggesting it. Indanthrene (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support There's very little to say about the impactor itself other than speculation. There's no reason to have it separate from the crater article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but merge into the FA, carefully so as not to affect its FA status. (That said, it's more important to have a complete article than to satisfy the people at the FAC wikiproject.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There is enough to differentiate the two subjects imo. I am also skeptical that it can be merged into an FA without affecting its quality. ~ HAL333 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

citation 14 produces a "not found" error

i clicked on it and it said it is not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.156.79 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Undertaking the Merger

THIS SECTION IS USED AS DISCUSSION FOR MERGER. Consensus was reached last month the the articles Chicxulub impactor and Chicxulub crater should be merged into one article called the Chicxulub impact. I was wanted to ask if any person would want to undertake this project or could offer assistance in doing so? aaronneallucas (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Merger not done, so proposing reinstatement of the page

Almost nothing has in fact been merged to Chicxulub crater, so the merger proposal does not seem to have been thought through, or else it was not achievable with an FA. In effect, the page has been deleted, even though there are enough sources for the impactor to comply with WP:N. Does anyone object to the page being reinstated? Moonraker (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)