Talk:Chesapeake Bay impact crater

Speed?

(I'm not a geologist) This article reports a speed of 60 km/s, which requires a nearly head-on crash. The Collins/2005 ref listed (https://doi.org/10.1130/G21854.1) says the very reasonable (even mild) impact velocity of "the impact velocity was 17.8 km/s ". My brief search was unable to find any support for the 60 km/s speed, and many repeats of 17 km/s. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkirkman (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bolide?

Why is the term "bolide" being used in this article in opposition to the much more familiar term "asteroid"? --Cyde Weys 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bollide is used because no one is quite sure what the object was. It was completely vaporised on impact, so we can't be sure whether it was an asteroid or comet. Other articles on impacts use the term impacting body", or "impactor" if the objects identity isn't known. --Planetary 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which "asteroid" would not be the proper term either, as that refers to a small(ish) rocky body in space. Bolide is a generic term for a space-borne object crashing to Earth. --Jquarry 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the term extraterrestrial bolide is redundant, if folks wish to know what a bolide is they can click the link. If there are no objections I will remove extraterrestrial from the summary.--Kent Witham 08:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is, to flatter the ego of the writer. Scientists, and science enthusiasts, with rate exceptions, skipped the first step in science, which is to understand oneself. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:C4D8:E39E:E0C0:523A (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still the largest in US?

After updating Beaverhead crater based on newer research, I'm not sure if the Chesapeake Bay crater can continue claiming to be the largest impact crater in the US. The size of Beaverhead is now estimated to be 75 to 150 km (contrary to older data in the Earth Impact Database), with 100 km often cited. Once source explicitly said that Beaverhead is the largest in the US. Can someone check me on this. Might want to add a weasel word to the intro. --GregU 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in a note. --Wetman 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am bothered to a certain extent that the Chesapeake Bay impact crater is definitively listed in the Wikipedia article as the second largest in the United States. Through my surfing of the internet, I have come to the conclusion that the Beaverhead crater is most likely the largest, but I certainly can not make such a claim that it is undoubtedly the largest with as little concurring evidence as I’ve found, and what has been referenced in the article. Please remember that the discoveries of these craters have been relatively new, and that it will take much longer to accurately judge the full size of both. I am definitely not well acquainted with any subject related to extraterrestrial objects and their collision with earth as you may be; however, I am somewhat familiar with scientific procedure and its appropriate implementation. It seems that there is great variation in the approximation of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater’s size as well as the Beaverhead crater’s size. Many sources I’ve found have listed diverse ranges for the craters that leave the determining of rank in size almost impossible. I feel that it is only through recurring and supporting data that rank can be determined, regardless of what the “newest” data may suggest. The author(s) of the Wikipedia Beaverhead article suggests the possibility of the Beaverhead being the largest, and this seems to be the most suitable way to inform the Wikipedia reader of these craters’ relative size. I highly respect your judgment concerning this issue, as you are probably more experienced in the subject of impact craters, but I hope you may at least consider my words and take any proper action if you feel such is required. I am sorry for my oversized petition. Thanks.

P.S. This may be unrelated, but I was wondering if referencing another Wikipedia article is reputable? Perhaps adding this link to the "See Also" section is better. Rlboyce (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding tags to a topic, it's best to check the references - not the Wikipedia topics. Looks like someone's improved Beaverhead by a substantial margin over the ref here. Tedickey (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your expediency in "correcting" the issue. I am not trying to create any sort of contention, but I see nothing wrong with my actions, if you are refering to the tags I'd placed. I checked the references multiple times, and never once used a Wikipedia topic to come to any conclusion. As you may have noticed above, the information in the reference that I assume you have used to authoratively edit the article has been somewhat scrutinized by two other wiki users. Instead of changing the article to reflect my opinion as you have, I simply added tags to let a more informed person become aware of the issue and take action if necessary so as to show respect to these other two users. I would have changed the article text to state that this crater is larger to mirror data from the reference, but my whole monologue was to point out that saying so (for either crater) is near impossible with such conflicting data. Since you've already changed the only thing I disliked concerning the article, I have no beef with you, although I see much more trouble on the horizon. Have a good one. 207.255.205.167 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add Crater Infobox?

Someone may want to apply crater template {{Infobox crater | crater_name = {{SUBST:PAGENAME}} | image_crater = | alt_crater = | caption_crater = | image_bathymetry = | alt_bathymetry = | caption_bathymetry = | location = | coords = {{coord|89|59|59|N|179|59|59|W|region:ZZ_type:waterbody|display =inline,title}} | type = | basin_countries = | length = | width = | area = | depth = | max-depth = | volume = | rim = | elevation = | cities = | reference = }}

--YakbutterT (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put in {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}}. Couldn't find the template you mention, although there is an Infobox crater data. But the one I found looks just right. Interesting that it doesn't have a depth parameter, though. Donpayette (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units

Gods own Units (yes, I am kidding)
I realize that English units may not be favored in the world, but in writing about a meteorite impact within the current United States of America, could we at least display both Metric and English Units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviltroll99 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depth?

As written, the paragraph on Discovery is worded as if the crater is 180 miles deep, which doesn't agree with the other dimensions shown. Perhaps 180 miles wide, though the "below" could also mean south (but that wouldn't agree with the map). TEDickey (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add citation?

It would be helpful to add a citation that proves that the information stating tektites and shocked quartz are "unmistakable signs of a bolide impact" is indeed correct. Gntroutman (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar problem in Effects on Local Rivers (?) section

This passage: "Most important for present-day inhabitants of the area, the impact disrupted aquifers." is not a complete sentence. Needs to be reworded.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chesapeake Bay impact crater. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on infobox diameter

The diameter in the infobox gives only the total diameter (central crater and annular trough), but the List of Impact Craters on Earth article gives only the diameter of the central crater. While both are technically correct, when I first read this I assumed one or even both were wrong until I read the abstract of the cited USGS report. Is there a reason why the infobox doesn't give two diameters—both the central crater and the combined central crater and trough? Failing that, should not the same metric be used? If only one value may be listed, should it not be just the central crater? The abstract explicitly states that the annular trough was formed by the collapse of weakened sediments from the impact, and not the impact itself. While it's always good practice to check sources on Wikipedia, people shouldn't be required to do so to resolve conflicting information between articles. Consistency is much valued here on Wikipedia, after all. Thank you in advance for any responses. General Kipicus (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch most of that. I should've read the whole article instead of skimming through the thing. Those details are further down, so I could have resolved it that way. I just assumed there had been a mistake rather than just separate metrics being used. However, I still stand by listing both diameters. General Kipicus (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]