Talk:Deniliquin multiple-ring feature

	Geology portal Talk:Deniliquin multiple-ring feature 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia

	Australia portal Deniliquin multiple-ring feature is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Caution with refs

After Glickson's August 2023 "layman-readable" anniversary text was published, suddenly there is a flurry of pseudo-journalism all over the internets. I say "pseudo" because all of them are regurgitating Glickson's. Therefore I would strongly caution against "refbombing" the article, unless the ref (A) comes from an expert or (B) includes opinions of another expert, or, of course, (C) new findings or on the subject are published. Well, it looks like these "couch reporters" did not bother to talk to other geoscientists. - Altenmann >talk 06:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I interviewed Glickson on my radio show. I didn't reach out to others, but I did ask how his work had been received, and he did say well and also noted his work had been peer reviewed. I'd suggest there is something worthwhile there, but as they say, I "don't have a dog in this fight", and am equally happy to let (other) sleeping dogs lie, and leave the article as is. Happy to post a reference to my own work, but also happy not to in order to avoid a conflict-of-interest situation.JohnAugust (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please post it. It appears it has a new info. This COI thingy is against abuse. - Altenmann >talk 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here it is: https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-5-aug-23-the-deniliquin-impact-structure-thermodynamics-aboriginal-astronomy/ JohnAugust (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, this is audio. I cannot handle this. Maybe someone else. - Altenmann >talk 20:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your encouragement. This is the most amicable disagreement I've had on Wikipedia so far, something I appreciate. JohnAugust (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other Name

I note the originator of the idea is calling it the "Deniliquin Impact Structure". JohnAugust (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a hypothetical impact structure. By the way, which reference do you have in mind? - Altenmann >talk 15:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article,

https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-suggests-the-worlds-largest-known-asteroid-impact-structure-is-buried-deep-in-southeast-australia-209593

below the first B&W image, the reference is to the "Deniliquin impact structure". See also my other comment above.JohnAugust (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the title says "New evidence suggests the world’s largest known asteroid impact structure <...>"; this and the whole article text means it is a hypothetical impact structure. I am excited by this find (that's why I started this wp article, after all), but I'd rather be accurate and not rename until a sci paper appears saying yes, it is proven it is an impact structure, not supervolcano, not death star hitting the Earth with a laser ray. By the way, we have a comparable article, "Tunguska event" not "Tunguska meteorite", despite the preponderance of the evidence. - Altenmann >talk 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. JohnAugust (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to Deniliquin impact structure. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]