Talk:Hiawatha Glacier

Infobox

How do I put a red dot on the map? There are other photos and graphics from NASA which are in the public domain, but it is way past my bedtime right now. So please help and get them in here. Thanks Nick Beeson (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed by User:One Salient Oversight - the problem was that the original coords in the copy/pasted infobox template were for Tenerife. Bahudhara (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Younger Dryas Connection: Kennett’s failed prediction

Since the Hiawatha Crater is 58 million years old, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Younger Dryas. If the YDIH is mentioned in the context of this crater, I recommend that it only be in connection to the list of failed predictions. The Kennett quote is one of the best examples of failed YDIH predictions & should be restored. 66.27.194.90 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The mention of the YDIH seems like a non sequitur. There is nothing to connect this glacier to the YDIH other than a period of speculation and wishful thinking soon after the crater under it was discovered. The discovery of a possible 2nd crater has nothing to do with the Hiawatha Glacier (it's in a different part of Greenland) so why does a mention of it even belong here? Perhaps move it to a WP page on possible impact craters? Proxy data (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Naming?

Because of the significance, it may also be good to name the article Hiawatha Crater, for now there is a redirect. prokaryotes (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hiyawatha Crater should have its own page; it is notable in its own right; there are much smaller impact craters with their own pages, and it is one of the 25 largest impact craters on earth, as well as being the first confirmed crater beneath an ice sheet (none of the Antarctic possible craters have been confirmed). It's definitely a notable crater in its own right. In my view the Hiyawatha Glacier page should contain information on the glacier with a short mention of the Impact Crater beneath it and a link to a Main Article for the crater. The secondary crater section also needs to be rationalised into the first, and some decision regarding the meteorite content taken. Espatie (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the material on Hiawatha Crater is outside the scope of this page and should be taken out and put on its own page. Previous comment is incorrect about it being a confirmed crater, however. It is neither confirmed nor dated. 75.161.68.140 (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Layout issues

The glacier template, the crater template, and the images have different widths. However, in graphic design you usually stick to one width, because it looks more professional. Also you stick to either centered text, or left aligned. If someone could adjust these templates, that would be great, thanks! prokaryotes (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ping article contributors: @User-duck:, @Deor:, @Anthony Appleyard:, @Titus III:, @Nwbeeson:, @X1\:, @One Salient Oversight:, @Bahudhara:, @Tomruen:, @Trodemaster:. prokaryotes (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've made the infoboxes roughly equal in width by adjusting the image size in the impact site one. I don't really see any problem with the widths of the stand-alone images being slightly less. Deor (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My involvement with this article was cite maintenance to correct errors/issues. As a new article I want it to get started on the right foot. My observations:

• I assumed the was already an article about the impact crater (my mistake for assuming) since the info for the crater is well developed. I have no issue with the crater being part of this article. However all crater info should be in one section with subsections as needed.
• Be careful of scope-creep, there already is an article "Cape York meteorite", no need to repeat its content in this article here. From my point-of-view the second paragraph is very good but the first is unneeded, a Wikilink to the article allows the reader to find out more if they want. The article should also be added to a "See also" section. The section "Pleistocene craters" should probably be its own article since its scope is much more than the "Hiawatha Glacier Crater".
• Standard sizes should be used. Standard sizes do not mean same size. The standard (default) size for thumbnails is smaller than images in infoboxes. The fact that objects like "infoboxes" have different defaults is very annoying to me. Good work adjusting the sizes.
• Image should be place close to text. This can be difficult on short articles.

There is much more info in Help:MOS (Manual of style) -- User-duck (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Pleistocene Craters

What does this have to do with the Hiawatha Glacier? There's already a section on the impact crater. 45.46.138.162 (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

See it's the whole article, agree with above, the current name doesn't match the content. 45.46.138.162 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur that the "Pleistocene craters" section seems off topic. What's not extraneous there is duplicative of material elsewhere in the article (the dating between 12,000 and 3,000,000 ya). This article is about a particular glacier and crater, not about Pleistocene/Pliocene impact craters in general. Deor (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Captions are misleading, wrongly suggest the figures are showing photos

The figure captions are misleading and should be qualified as to the images being purely synthetic, not photos. They are figments, essentially color cartoons based on radar measurements. The sources call them "visualizations", which is disingenuous. It's like you made a plaster scale model of terrain, painted it, took a photo of that, and called it an image of the land. Yes it's a photograph, yes it is not fiction, yes it is an image (TIF file), but it is not what those terms qualify. Richard J Kinch (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No suggestion is made that the images are photos. These results of image rendering are visualizations, which is the proper technical term. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Richard J Kinch that the use of the term "still image" implies to many people that it is some sort of imagery, e.g. satellite image. It is actually a computer graphic representing the elevation of the bedrock beneath that part of the Greenland Ice Sheet. This type of computer graphic is known as a digital elevation model. Paul H. (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Separate article for the impact structure

Hiawatha impact structure now exists and the content about it in this article has therefore been reduced substantially. This appears to match with feelings expressed by other editors in previous discussion sections on this talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)