Talk:Wolfe Creek Crater

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Wolfe Creek Crater 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Wolfe Creek Crater 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

electromagnetic activity?

"The crater was featured in the 2005 horror film Wolf Creek, the plot of which included unusual electromagnetic activity in the surrounding area."

How true is this statement?... And would this statement be true for surrounding area's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.wills (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

For some reason, the coordinates link is spot on for Google Maps, but about 30 km off for Google Earth. I tried to correct it, but to no avail. Can anyone help? Iantnm (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect photo!?

I'm definitely not an expert for this. But the "Wolfe Creek crater from the air" photo looks very different from what the satellite modes of Google Maps or Bing Maps show (opened those via the coordinates link in the article).

E.g. on the satellite photos there is no sign of the rocky area which is being visible on the right site of the crater on the photo. And the crater on the photo looks like much bigger than 800 meters (if I had to guess, I would say the crater on the picture has about 10 KM of diameter - have a look at the rivers).

As said: I'm no expert on this. Maybe the rocks god just covered by bad weather and mudd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolfe_Creek_crater_from_the_air.jpg

KolAflash (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information with the Satellite photo states that the image is about 6.45km across and scaling from the image the crater is about 11% of the image width. This would make the diameter about 720m diameter, which is close enough, given measurement inaccuracies, from a small image. Lkingscott (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New age estimate

The following Science Daily article has just appeared . . .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191121121811.htm

It's based on the following from the University of Portsmouth (UK) . . .

https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/wolfe-creek-crater-younger-than-previously-thought

The new "most-likely" estimate is 120,000 years old, down from 300,000. (In passing, the same technique(s) increase the age estimate of the Barringer aka Meteor Crater by over 10,000 years to 61,000 years old.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to the Portsmouth University research has moved:

https://www.port.ac.uk/node/32306 Lkingscott (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct weight?

There are two very different weights given in the article, so which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C63:9680:E5FD:3F5B:183D:191C (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated weight according to size and Portsmouth university reference. Lkingscott (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated weight and expanded age explanation

As many other sources still show the 300,000 year old age, I expanded the age explanation, with reference to the Portsmouth University research.

Note also that the weight according to the same research is 14,000 tonnes which better matches the diameter. I.e. a spherical iron meteorite with 7.874 tonnes/m³ density of iron would be slightly more than a 15 metres diameter sphere.Lkingscott (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]