Talk:Meteorite classification

Why are there so many classification schemes?
I believe it is important to explain why it seems so difficult to come to consensus on the classification of meteorites. As it stands, there are a zillion systems shown, and numerous examples, but there should be specific explanation for all of this.Patrick Fisher 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksfisher2 (talk • contribs)

Comment
This article needs a section on petrologic types.

Inappropriate link removal
I do not agree with users Mannheim_34 and Ohnoitsjamie with their removal of any link to webpages hosted on a commercial website (almost any .com domain). I expressed my opinion here and here. I ask to the community: are these in your opinion links to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising"? I don't want to start an edit war so if you agree with my point of view please restore any suitable reference removed from this article. Thanks. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meteorite Classification List - a _very_ useful list of meteorites by type.
 * Meteorites classification - pretty informative and well written page

Weathering
The weathering addition is not relevant to this page. Meteorite classification is about putting meteorites into groups of related samples, which is a tool for understanding their origins. There are many other properties one can measure for meteorites: weathering, shock, ages, degree of alteration, metamorphism, color, density, and on and on. While one can divide each of these into "classes" the way the weathering scale does, this is not what is meant here by classification. These are secondary processes and can be discussed elsewhere, perhaps in a new article. JeffG (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, a new article sounds reasonable. Let's use more these talkpages... -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 07:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent improvements
I'm really appreciating your work on Meteorite classification and related topics Tobias; it's beginning to be understandable even to this layman. One small point, you removed magmatic/non-magmatic from from Meteorites (which is fine) yet it's still used in Meteorite_classification in a way that makes it look useful. If we're going to go with the Weisberg et al. scheme then perhaps you should restructure Meteorite classification so that the Weisberg scheme comes first and is fully described while the traditional scheme takes a less staring role? If so, then perhaps the history section should come earlier in the article too (second or third as it does in many articles). -Arb. (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you find my writing understandable. Sometimes my English sentences sound a little weird :). I removed the terms because Weisberg finds them very misleading. Both categories involve magmatic processes. The nonmagmatic meteorites pretty much just got translated into the primitive achondrite meteorites and grouped with the acapulcoites, lodranites, winonaites, urelites and brachinites.


 * It is a little hard to find out if the older term was fully abandoned. I can find 94 papers that used "non-magmatic meteorite" since 2008. The term "primitive achondrite" is used 836 times. The "Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 1: Meteorites, Comets and Planets" also use "primitive achondrites" and finds the term "nonmagmatic" misleading.


 * I think we might as well use the Weisberg classification in the template and the "meteorite classification" article. It is the newest published classification and in wide use. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Meteoritical Bulletin Database, note 6: The Type field shows the classification of the meteorite. If the meteorite was published in both the Catalogue of Meteorites and MetBase (see columns NHMCat and MetBase), both classifications will appear if they do not agree. If the meteorite was just published in one of these sources, the classification from that source will be listed. If the meteorite was published in neither, the classification comes from the Meteoritical Bulletin (approved names) or from unreviewed reports (provisional names)."
 * Catalogue of Meteorites (2000), 5 ed, ISBN:9780521663038, pp. 696, Cambridge University Press
 * MetBase
 * Material: stone (ST), iron (IR), stony-iron (SI)
 * Chemical Main Groups:
 * Ordinary chondrites: H, L, LL, H/L, L/LL
 * Enstatite chondrites: E, EH, EL
 * Carbonaceous chondrites: C, CI, CH, CK, CM, CO, CR, CV
 * Rumuruti type chondrites R (known also as Carlisle Lake type)
 * Ungrouped chondrites (CHUNGR)
 * Achondrites: AUB, AEUC, ADIO, AHOW, ANGR
 * Achondrite subgroups: Polymict, monomict or cumulate achondrites
 * Primitive achondrites: ALOD, ACAP, ABRA, AURE, AWIN
 * SNC group achondrites: ACHA, ANAK, ASHE, AOPX
 * Lunar meteorites: ALUN-A, ALUN-B, ALUN-G
 * Pallasites (PAL)
 * Mesosiderites/ Mesosiderites Subgroups: MES, MES-A, MES-B
 * Iron meteorites: IAB, IC, IIAB, IIC, IID, IIE, IIF, IIIAB, IIICD, IIIE, IIIF, IVA, IVB
 * Ungrouped and Anomalous Meteorites
 * Petrographic Types (chondrites)
 * 1 to 2 (unequilibrated chondrites, carbonaceous chondrites only)
 * 3.0 to 3.9 (unequilibrated chondrites)
 * 4 to 6 (equilibrated chondrites)
 * 7 (equilibrated chondrites with achondritic texture)
 * I think that we should mainly follow NHMCat and MetBase too. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have access to Metbase you could add the classification scheme as a collapsible template to the article in a similar way like in the history section. It would be very informative to have a few newer catalogs in the article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is from the User's Manual only ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * O, I see :). I don't have access either. The classification looks similar to the Geochemstry treatise, and also Rubin 2000 (this article). It groups all the irons together, even those that have silicate inclusions which are often classified with the primitive achondrites. Of course we have to modify all the schemes a little because of the new martian meteorite group (NWA 7034) and the IIG and IIF meteorites. But I think that a classification like this one is surely the way to go for the infobox and the bottom template. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)