Talk:Meteorite fall

Suggested guide to wikilink addition

There is a temptation to add links to all geographical locations mentioned ... and some folks will likely take discouraging that as an abridgement of their editing privileges. Nonetheless, I would suggest keeping the number of off-page wikilinks to a minimum. In fact, I would suggest that the main wikilinks to add would be attached to the names of meteorites and only be placed when there is information in the target article on the named meteorite. For instance, encouraging Appley Bridge#Appley Bridge meteorite while discouraging Hungen (using a permalink as the article might change to include information later). Would you (editors of this page) generally support this guideline? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is probably the right philosophy. I would suggest that the highest priority should be links to pages about the specific meteorite. Second would be links to articles that mention the meteorite, as you describe for Appley Bridge. Links to articles with no meteorite content pretty much serve only to obscure the information a reader is likely to be searching for. --JeffG 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Meteorite Falls?

Just in case anyone is still interested in something so old-fashioned as proper English, meteorites do not travel through space; meteoroids do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:09, 21 mag 2007 - 69.121.234.204 (talk • contribs)

Meteorites indicated as "falls" are simply meteorites that were collected after someone or something see them fall from the sky. For this reason the date of the fall is usually known. Meteorites indicated as "finds" were simply find on the field. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Table philosophy

User:Hamamelis just spent a lot of time chopping the table into sections. This defeats one's ability to sort the large list by date, country, or meteorite type. The question is, which is more important: convenience in editing plus quicker finding of specific names, or being able to, say, find all meteorites that fell in India or fell in the 1980s? I would say the latter and would like to revert. --JeffG (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of explanation for the different categories would be helpful, at least. what is a santa barbara tonk, for example?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.6.140 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical Relativism

History changes nations, how to account for this in the table? The 1492 Ensisheim fall occurred when the Alsace was part of Germany but the country is now listed as France. Elbogen in 1400 was the German name of a city in Kingdom of Bohemia, a part of the Holy Roman Empire, but now in the Czech Republic, an entity that did not then exist. hgwb (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

St Just

Added on 14 November 2013 from a report in my local newspaper. Read as follows: °At midnight on Thursday a long tail of fire was seen in the sky at St Just, somewhat resembling a shooting star. Soon after a meteorite fell on the house of Mr Daniel in Cape Cornwall Street. It was pickedup by Mr W Chenalls, and later sent by Mr HF Olds to the curator of the Geological Museum for inspection.° Seems strange that most of these sightings do not have a reference.Jowaninpensans (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with your view.

What do you think of today's (10/02/24) suggestion on this Talk page in the topic "'Others' table?" I see a citation is in the Meteorcritical Bulletin column for St Just.

Btw, is the 2013 The Cornishman report any more precise about the date in 1913 that the report appeared in (I suppose?) The Cornishman?

Protalina (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meteorite fall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223220959/http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/ to http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Rivolta d'Adda meteorite

The official name seems to be Rivolta de Bassi. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=22614 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Meteorite harvest

https://www.imo.net/3-fireballs-3-meteorites-in-a-row/

This page is so incomplete you could make an entire wiki category just for these events. 2.44.139.28 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

'Others' table: proposed additional column to encourage addition of citations and notes

I suggest an additional column on the right, called References & notes (or Refs. & notes for concision), where articles in academic journals & RS newspapers, etc, could be cited, and scope-notes (as footnotes) added.

Example for the Dresden, Ontario fall below.

Others

Meteorite name	Fall observation date	Country	State, province, or region	Class	Instrumentally observed orbital data	Meteoritical Bulletin(s)	References & notes
Aachen	1880	Germany	North Rhine-Westphalia	L5	No
Dresden	11 July 1939	Canada	Ontario	H6	No
Zvonkov	2 September 1955	Ukraine	Kyiv	H6	No	06

Notes

Protalina (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Major Update - Dec 2025

I have started giving this article a much needed update. I would appreciate to get some input on a few issues this article has been criticized for in the past.

The two main issues were:

1. the article is outdated (since at least 2021)
2. with all the tables it is simply too long to be useful.

1 Updates:

Topics: I have started to inlcude some topics that seem relevant to me, such as the role of automated devices, video cameras and astronomical observations before impact, that have all led to an increase in the chances of turning an observed fireball-event into finding a rock on the ground, making it an actual meteorite fall.

There are still a few topics missing such as the role of radars, seismic data & infrasound sensors, satellite detections and IMO/AMS meteor reporting websites, that in many cases collect hundreds of accounts of eyewitnesses on a single fireball. I might expand the article on these topics.

Statistics: I have also updated the statistics table on the average number of falls per year - with the most current data from the Meteoritical Bulletin Database.

Tables: I have also started to update the table with observed falls, that obviously did not get much attention in the past few years, since it was missing almost all falls since 2021. The tedious manual update of this table is not finished yet, and i am happy if someone is willing to join the effort of adding new lines to the table (especially for the years 2022 and 2023 - but also completing missing falls earlier)

2 Dealing with Tables:

Where i would be interested in feedback is the question on how to proceed with these enormous long tables listing every single meteorite fall ever recorded in the history of humankind.

Are these tables useful?

Yes, I think they can be useful. The authorative source for these tables is obviously the Meteoritical Bulletin Database - and I think there is actually some additional value in having a list of all falls also here on wikipedia, as these tables can provide sorting functionality and include information in an overview-format that currently are not available on the Meteoritical Bulletin Database, such as the exact date of the fall, a wiki-link to the actual meteorite where available and information on whether the fall has been observed with instruments and a pre-impact orbit could be determined, which is incredibly valuable for understanding on where in the solar system that rock came from.

Column on 'instrumentally observed' falls

This is why I have decided to add a column for 'instrumentally observed' also in the table listing the more recent falls (since 2010). Until recently only the table for falls before 2010 used to have this column. It is however more relevant for the more recent falls, as the number of intrumentally observed falls has increased significantly over the last few years. I have not done it yet, but would suggest to include a reference to a scientific paper published on the instrumental obsvervation/determined orbit for each entry with a yes in this column, as i did for example for meteorite Križevci. I would also suggest, to always include the exact date of the fall (not just the year, as is current practice for many entries). That makes the sorting function of the table much more valuable. I have started adding exact dates, but have not finished this endeavour yet.

Column for meteorite location

Since meteorites are by default named like the place where they fell, I am not convinced that having the very first column (currently named ‚Meteorite name (location)‘), with a link to the placename is actually useful. Why not just have the second column (currently called ‚meteorite link‘), fill in the name of the meteorite without any link to the placename and only link to existing articles on the meteorites, whenever they exist? That would also save space in the table width.

Arbitrary segmentation of tables

Currently the tables are devided into 3 sections: before 1600 | before 2010 | since 2010

This seems a bit arbitrary to me. Why is the division exactly at these random points in time?

Why not - for example - devide the tables into these sections?

1) Before the publication of Ernst Chladni book, "On the Origin of the Iron Masses..." in 1794 - that was basically the point in time when meteoritics as a discipline of science started.

2) Before the first instrumentally observed fall of Přibram-meteorite in 1959 - that was the era, when meteorite falls could only be observed by human eyes (and ears)

3) All falls since Přibram - marking the beginning of the era of instrumentally observed falls.

A segmentation of tables into before and after Přibram would also have the advantage, that the table for older falls would not need a column for instrumentally observed falls with pre-impact orbits, as this option did not exist before Přibram. It would also move around 300 meteorites from the era beteween 1959 and 2009 in the more recent section.

The table of Pre-Chladni-Meteorites would then include around 40 meteorite falls - here an additional column could be added on the certitude and form of tradition on the fall and whether material of the meteorite still exists today.

Sorry for the long post - hoping to find some collaborators for the update and happy to read some of your thoughts! Jawei (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic work on the Meteorite fall article this month! Massive improvements. To me, efforts like this are the soul of wikipedia. A few thoughts:

- Including data from "radars, seismic data & infrasound sensors, satellite detections and IMO/AMS meteor reporting websites" - I'm all for it

- I think perhaps a collapsing table may be the best way to fold in the tabular data of this article because I agree the tables must absolutely be there.

- The first column (Meteorite name) I vote should stay. Unless/until the second column (Meteorite link) is filled.

- Strong agree on your proposal for temporal segmentation based on Chladni's publication and Přibram. Far better to have a reason-based segmentation versus an arbitrary one.

- The new fall map is excellent, I would only include in the image a scale or annotation explaining the link between circle size and mass recovered. Right now a user must read the description of the image on the image page for that to be clear.

- This point is just a brainstorm idea, not an endorsement, but if the tables become segmented as per your suggestion, perhaps three additional maps, one for each table, could better display those data. This would be especially relevant for the post-Přibram data, as the color-coded dating would be more apparent/decipherable.

- In the bar graph of per year observations, there is an interesting disjunct following the "1930s" bar. I have suspicions about why these observations followed this pattern, but have not looked for sources. It might be worth a treatment in the article text or the graph caption. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I highly appreciate all the thoughs and suggestions, a few of them have already been implemented:

- Collapsing table functionality has been added for all tables in this article.

- I also added a legend to the map on falls, explaining the size of the circles.

- Reason-based temporal segmentation of tables has already been implemented a few days ago!

- After having worked with the tables over the last few days, I now also agree with keeping the 'Meteorite name' column.

Have to say however, I don't fully understand the reason why in the past, it was practice to extensively link to provinces and countries each time in those two columns.

- Good observation on the rise and sudden drop of falls around the 1930s. I have briefly reviewed some literature but did not write it down yet.

- Similar for including radar, infrasound etc - I have a general overview, but did not write it down yet.

- I also like the idea of additional maps for each of the tables. I had a quick look at it, and I was thinking of maybe preparing an animated version of the map, with a timelapse of all falls by decades or quarter-century periods, since zoomable and interactive maps (like the one I originally designed with datawrapper) are not an option here.

Especially the map for the 40 historic falls would need some more work, as I had excluded the 11 meteorites from the vizualisation, that did not have a value for mass in the dataset, and it would need to be a triple map, zoomed in to Europe, Japan & India. Jawei (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jawei is the mass column reflecting total known collected mass of these falls?

I haven't delved into the MBD - are any mass data available for recent falls? Darkskysunflowers (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The masses I put into the table for historic falls are all from MBD. According to MBD the masses listed there in most cases, 'represent the total known weight of the meteorite'. So for the 40 falls from before 1794 I am pretty sure, this is the best data available.

MBD does also list masses for almost all meteorites in the recent falls table (~5 are missing). However MBD also states: the masses shown here should not be considered as authoritative, and may be rounded off. See here: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/notes.php?note=16

One caveat on the example of the Muonionalusta-meteorite (not a fall but a find): The mass at MetBull is listed with 230 kg. That might have been the total known mass about 20 years ago - however with all the Muonionalusta fragments recovered by meteorite hunters since 2001 the total mass of Muonionalusta fragments recovered so far now is not known exactly. In 2005 there was one piece found with 303 kg, another one with 950 kg in 2006 and another one with 1185 kg in 2008. Bringing the total known mass to at least 2.7 tons - estimates go more into 4 to 5 tons.

So as this example shows, masses are not regularly updated at MBD over time, and therefore I am afraid, there is no reliable source on the total known mass for many falls. Jawei (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

- @Jawei I thought that the list headings "Historic", "Older", and "Recent" were somewhat ambiguous so I changed "Older" to "Falls before automated monitoring". I am by no means married to this particular phrasing, but I do think that the list headings should be titled in a way to fully disambiguate the temporal segmentation you implemented yesterday.

- The lists as they are right now go:

• 5.1 Historic falls (861 – 1794)
• 5.2 Largest falls
• 5.3 Recent falls (1959 – 2025)
• 5.4 Falls before automated monitoring (1794 – 1959)

and I think they should should go in chronological order from "Historic" to "Older falls/Falls before automated monitoring" to "Recent falls" with "Largest falls" at the beginning or end, with my preference having it at the end. I tried to implement this but got a bunch of reference warnings as seen in this diff and didn't want to break anything, so I reverted it.

- For the "Largest falls" list, I don't like the column heading "tonnes", as that designator can be ambiguous. Is there still access to the primary sources for those data? I'd prefer it listed in kilograms.

- In a similar vein to the idea of reordering of the lists from oldest to most recent, it may make sense to reorder the major subsections from where it is currently:

• Observation methods
• Historic methods of meteors and meteorites
• Beginning of scientific meteorite research

to:

• Historic methods of meteors and meteorites
• Beginning of scientific meteorite research
• Modern automated observation methods

- A bunch of material here needs more citations; I've taken a stab at adding some and will continue to try to get more in there.

Darkskysunflowers (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

- @Darkskysunflowers Thanks you for the thoughtful exchange! :)

- I totally agree on using more descriptive and meaningfull list headings, reflecting and explaining the temporal segmentation. I also like 'Falls before automated monitoring (1794 – 1959)'

- I previously also thought about putting the 'Largest falls' section somewhere else, with a tendency to put it further up - because it is short and serves well to provide a quick overview on dimensions. I was thinking maybe between Significance and Observation methods could be a good place. There it would follow on nicely from the sentence on detailed statistics on falls towards the end of the 'Significance' pargraph and expand on it.

- On the column heading "tonnes" for largest falls, I don't have a firm opinion. For my European brain, tons are a relativly unambiguous unit. I compared with MBD: For the 6 falls listed in the largest fall table (all with masses of 1000 kg or more), the mass at MBD is also given in the unit 't' and is exactly the same as listed here on wikipedia. See for example the entries on Sikhote-Alin or Chelyabinsk. So in general, at MBD the entries for masses are mixed between 'g', 'kg' and 't' and I kept this practice of mixing grams and kilograms, when adding the masses for the historic falls the other day, while making sure in the background, that despite using different units, the table is sortable correctly.

- I am not so sure about putting the rest of the tables in chronological order. It seems more practical to me, to keep them in reverse chronological order (that is: the most recent falls on top). It prioritizes what readers might typically be looking for: Recent meteorite falls are more likely to be discussed in current news coverage or relevant to ongoing research and updates. Placing the latest falls at the top lets readers find the newest, most relevant information immediately, without scrolling through decades of older entries. This structure also improves maintenance. New falls can easily be added at the top and frequent updates remain visible where readers expect them. Therefore I think, having the latest fall on top makes the article easier to navigate and also keeps updates efficient and visible.

- Analogously, it seems more practical to me to keep the order of the major subsections in reverse chronological order, with the most recent developments further up and the historical overview further down. However, I could imagine separating out the 40 'pre-scientific falls' and integrating them around the “Beginning of scientific meteorite research” section.

- What also crossed my mind was adding another section dealing with 'recovery methods' - as a logical complement to the section on 'observation methods', where a few examples of hammer falls and directly witnessed impacts could be mentioned - like Sylacauga (woman), Peekskill (car), Aguas Zarcas (doghouse) - as well as accidental finds and organized searches for meteorites, including with tools such as metal detectors or drones. Jawei (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jawei

- Regarding "tonnes", I don't like it because our colleagues from USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and elsewhere represent a significant percentage of the english wikipedia userbase, and certainly in USA and to a more limited extent in other ex-British territories, "tonnes" is definitely ambiguous. To you and I, 1 ton/tonne = 1000 kg, but to others the same language can mean a long ton (1016 kg) or a short ton (907 kg) or several other cases. So I think the "ton/tonne" label should either be amended to show a parenthetical (1000 kg) or simply replaced with (1000 kg) or perhaps (least good option) link to what wikiton we're talking about.

- With regard to chronology of the subsections and tables, most wikipedia articles I read, whether about plants or medicine or physics or astronomy, they begin with history and progress through later years of knowledge acquisition as you scroll further through the article. I can't cite any [WP:ESSAY] that shows this as an editorial preference but I do know it is fairly standard practice, and I assume all of the arguments have been hashed out. But maybe not. That said - I really don't have any strong opinion about this matter, so be bold and do whatever you think is right.

I do think the prose and the tables should be consistent with each other's temporal progressions. If early to late in the prose, early to late in the tables, and vice virca.

- I like the idea of moving the "Largest Falls" table to below "Significance"

- There is zero chance that a "Recovery Methods" section would not add value to this wikipedia. @ me when you add them plz Darkskysunflowers (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent Massachusetts meteor

I don't know enough details about this yet to include an entire row for it in the table yet, but in case anyone else is interested, here's a source:

• Staff and wire reports (1 June 2026). "Meteor explodes over Massachusetts. What we know and where it landed". nbcboston.com. NBC Universal Media. Retrieved 1 June 2026.

Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)