Template talk:Meteorites

	Astronomy Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Geology: Meteorites Template‑class

Template talk:Meteorites is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Meteorites task force.

Do we need to add primitive enstatite achondrite per Itqiy meteorite and Zaklodzie meteorite? -Arb. (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two meteorites are difficult. I'm not really a specialist on meteorites so the debate is somewhat beyond my current understanding. MetDB says that Itqiy is "an enstatite chondrite (EH group), petrologic type 7, anomalous". Busfield 2008: "anomalous enstatite achondrite". Most others since 2008 "enstatite achondrite". Most "enstatite achondrties" are aubrites, but I guess some don't fit into the aubrite group. MetDB lists 6 "enstatite achondrites" so I think we can certainly add that group.

MetDB lists Zaklodzie as an "enstatite achondrite ungrouped". The term primitive enstatite achondrites is defined by Izawa as "primitive enstatite achondrites’ that are analogous to the acapulcoites-lodranites, but that have resulted from the partial melting of enstatite chondrites rather than ordinary chondrites."

Two other "primitive enstatite achondrites" from literature are in MetDB as "enstatite chondrite of the EH group which has been impact melted", and "enstatite chondrite of the EH group that is petrologic type 7".

I think we can fill out the infobox for both meteorites with something like "EH7-? or Enstatite Achondrite-? (Ongoing scientific debate)". It is not elegant but also not misleading, which is probably the most important thing for Wikipedia. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite specialist or not your understanding is certainly much deeper than mine. A couple of questions though. From the way you've added it to the navbox, Enstatite Achondrite appears to be at a different level of the classification to Enstatite chondrite. Is that correct? Also, the spelling, would not a lower case "a" in "achondrite" better match the rest of the navbox? -Arb. (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a big grey zone between chondrites and achondrites. I think that is why many authors use the term "primitive achondrite" for this grey zone. So I guess it could also go into that section. The chondrite section would not be wrong either because it could be a high grade petrologic type. I will try to find some info on that. Your definitely right about the spelling. I will fix that right now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that all makes sense but you seem to be missing my point which, now I think about it, may not have been expressed very clearly. The navbox row "Classification by type, class, clan and group" was originally intended to be subdivided by "columns" into type, class, clan and group (well, less clan in the original conception; that's a recent improvement by you but you get my drift). Type is OK (Chondrite, Achondrite, Iron, Stony-iron) but then what; are Carbonaceous chondrite, Ordinary chondrite, Enstatite chondrite ... Mesosiderite all classes and also the complete set of classes? And are the things in the white, right most column a mixture of clans, groups and sub-groups. If the system of classification is hierarchical (is it?) we need a new column for clan and perhaps another for group. And (back to my original point) is not Enstatite achondrite a class? It feels as though it ought to be though that doesn't make it so. -Arb. (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean now. And again it is difficult to answer. There is a lot of disagreement over assignment to types, classes and clans. Right now the columns are all mixtures of some sort. The white column is currently a mix of complexes (HED), groups and grouplets. I don't know where we should put "Enstatite achondrites" right now (or the "primitive enstatite achondrites"). The only solution I can think of is to cite a source of classification and stick to it. Anything else would anyway violate

WP:NOR. Until somebody publishes a complete revision of the classification scheme we have to stick with the older one, even if that means that some groups are not a good fit. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe capital letters would be better. Most of the other templates seem to go all caps. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an idea what we should do with Kaidun meteorite? Our table currently is sorted by groups and not by parent body, but we do have a lunar and martian subdivision for achondrites. There are multiple issues as Kaidun is not from Mars but from one of its moons, and that is probably not established beyond doubt. The other issue is that Kaidun is a chondrite. Because it seems kind of a notable oddball, we could add it like this "Sorted by --> Source --> Phobos --> Kaidun"? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]