![]() | Astronomy Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Geology: Meteorites Template‑class | |||||||||
|
Do we need to add primitive enstatite achondrite per Itqiy meteorite and Zaklodzie meteorite?-Arb. (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MetDB lists Zaklodzie as an "enstatite achondrite ungrouped". The term primitive enstatite achondrites is defined by Izawa as『primitive enstatite achondrites’ that are analogous to the acapulcoites-lodranites, but that have resulted from the partial melting of enstatite chondrites rather than ordinary chondrites.』
Two other "primitive enstatite achondrites" from literature are in MetDB as "enstatite chondrite of the EH group which has been impact melted", and "enstatite chondrite of the EH group that is petrologic type 7".
I think we can fill out the infobox for both meteorites with something like "EH7-? or Enstatite Achondrite-? (Ongoing scientific debate)". It is not elegant but also not misleading, which is probably the most important thing for Wikipedia. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be "Meteorites and meteoritics" or "Meteorites and Meteoritics"? -Arb. (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an idea what we should do with Kaidun meteorite? Our table currently is sorted by groups and not by parent body, but we do have a lunar and martian subdivision for achondrites. There are multiple issues as Kaidun is not from Mars but from one of its moons, and that is probably not established beyond doubt. The other issue is that Kaidun is a chondrite. Because it seems kind of a notable oddball, we could add it like this "Sorted by --> Source --> Phobos --> Kaidun"? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]