Talk:Chicxulub crater

Unreliable sources

Can we find a more reliable source for the estimate of the energy released by the impact than an ArXiv preprint that has apparently never been published in a journal? There are also too many references to newspapers when we should be citing the papers they are reporting on directly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chicxulub-Anomaly.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Redirect from Chicxulub

I redirected Chicxulub to the town of Chicxulub Pueblo which is what that word refers to. But User:Hemiauchenia reverted my edit arguing that nobody is looking for the town. Isn't it a policy that redirects should prioritize geographic locations over things named after them? Perhaps a disambiguation page is pertinent? What is the policy on these matters? --Homo logos (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

72 teratonnes or 100 teratonnes of TNT?

I remember the article declared that the explosion was around 72 teratonnes of power, instead of 100. What changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawlison (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Change name of article to "Chicxulub impact"

This article seems to be more about the impact event in general than just the crater. It would require that the page that host the redirect from "Chicxulub impact" be deleted so this page could be moved there, and would require updating the lead. However, the title would be more accurate to the content of the article. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, given that there's extensive discussion of the geology and morphology of the site. The impact and its effects are mostly the first half. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Dash v. Hyphen

Peter M. Brown in this edit you are citing the Wikipedia article, dash, but Wikipedia has its own house Manual of style, with coverage of this matter at MOS:PREFIXDASH. Thank you for the correction, and for educating me, but I thought you might want to cite Wikipedia's MOS for future such corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Point taken. When you want to create a new talk-page section, though, it's best to click the "New Section" link at the top of the page. Your contribution showed up in the Watchlist as

Change name of article to "Chicxulub impact": dash v hyphen

though it had nothing to do with the article's name. Peter Brown (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Science isn't settled

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.

---

The article's lead claims that "it is now widely accepted that...the impact was the cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event..." First this OBVIOUSLY needs an authoritative reference. Second, "accepted" seems to be too strong - "believed" would be more accurate (amongst experts). Third, there are very strong arguments made that while it was a contributor to that mass extinction, it was NOT "THE" cause. (and some argue it wasn't even the most important cause.)174.131.48.89 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Third, there are very strong arguments made that while it was a contributor to that mass extinction, it was NOT "THE" cause. (and some argue it wasn't even the most important cause.) and where precisely is your evidence for this? You complain about the lack of citations (there is no need for citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, provided it is supported by the article body), but you are just pontificating your personal opinion. I can't think of a single paper I've read from the last decade that doesn't consider Chicxulub to be the primary cause of the extinction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

this one is interesting.

Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400396101 122.62.227.55 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The article body mentions meta-analysis of the past few decades' worth of research that it's the likely cause of the extinction event, and mentions the alternate hypotheses, which are not as well-supported. I don't see the issue—"accepted" is a common-enough term for held scientific consensus, because it's not based on belief alone but evidence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:52, 27 July 2022 (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.

"The crater was named for the nearby town of Chicxulub"

When I read the the lead claim, my clarity alert immediately went off:

Its center is offshore near the communities of Chicxulub Puerto and Chicxulub Pueblo, after which the crater is named. Does this mean it is named after Chicxulub Pueblo only, or both? And what is the actual claim?

Sure enough, all we have down in the article body is "The crater was named for the nearby town of Chicxulub". So does this mean the Puerto or the Pueblo, because I find it unlikely that Western scientists cared enough about Mexican geography details to reference both settlements in the naming process. Could this be the overeager correction actions of a Wikipedian unfamiliar with the need to source our claims?

I strongly suspect we should in the lead only say:

Its center is offshore near the community of Chicxulub, after which the crater is named.

...and leave it at that. More specificity than that likely requires a source asking Hildebrand, Penfield, or someone else that was there at the time. CapnZapp (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This morning, I corresponded by email and on the phone talked with Glen Penfield. He pointed me to:

Penfield, G. 2019. UNLIKELY IMPACT, The Unexpected Discovery of the Paleogene-Cretaceous Impact Crater. AAPG Explorer. December 2019. pp. 20-23.

It states:

"My Mayan wife, Erendira, and I, along with Alan, decided to name the crater after the town of Chicxulub located near its center, partly to give the academics and NASA naysayers a challenging time pronouncing it after a decade of their dismissals, since “Yucatan crater” was too easily pronounced."

On the phone, Penfield assured me, that in that article, "town" means "pueblo" and definitely not "port" (puerto). He also noted that Pueblo Chicxulub is the nearest town to the PEMEX well from which came the crucial samples containing evidence of impact metamorphism. Paul H. (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That source is in the article, and that's what the article originally said; I've adjusted. It was changed in January to point to Puerto by Hunab 21 who seems confused that it's not named for the community directly at the center of the impact feature. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for going to all this effort to clarify this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the 2019 AAPG article disproves the premise that it is "unlikely that Western scientists cared enough about Mexican geography details to reference both settlements in the naming process." The article shows that not only did Penfield care about about Mexican geography, but also an indigenous Mayan, Penfield's wife, was directly involved in the naming of the Chicxulub Crater. Paul H. (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)