Talk:Sylacauga (meteorite)

Fork

I forked the article:

1. in Hodges meteorite I left everything about the fragment that hits Mrs Hodges and the consequences of this event
2. in Sylacauga (meteorite) I put everything about the meteorite fall from a scientifical viewpoint

In my opinion this is the best solution. Basilicofresco (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the only one

There is a second known instance of a meteor striking a human. A Ugandan boy was hit with a 3 gram piece of a meteor in the Mbale strike. I've found a number of links to it, some of them on college astronomy sites.

Here's one: http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-meteor/strikes.html

I'm going to delete / modify the comment in the article about the only one, hearing no objections here. Dictouray (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I just updated the article. Thanks for pointing it out! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one in the astro.wsy.edu page states: "On September 27, 2003, a bright meteor fragmented into several pieces, which injured at least three people in the Orissa region of eastern India." so article is still incorrect. Kahkonen (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done. --Basilicofresco (msg) 09:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoax

I have removed the unproven claim (and obvious hoax) of a person allegedly hit by a meteorite earlier this month.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 June 2009‎

Self-dealing?

McKinney sold the meteorite to a lawyer from Indianapolis who later purchased it for the Smithsonian Institution.

When he purchased it for the Smithsonian Institution, who did the lawyer buy it from, himself? This sentence is simply incoherent. Felsenst (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - It looks like this has already been fixed. The lawyer bought it from Julius Kempis McKinney and donated it to the Smithsonian. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sylacauga (meteorite). 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/20140823162544/http://uanews.ua.edu/2004/11/ua-museum-to-observe-50th-anniversary-of-hodges-meteorite/ to http://uanews.ua.edu/2004/11/ua-museum-to-observe-50th-anniversary-of-hodges-meteorite/

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Requested Photograph

The Hodges/Sylacauga meteorite at the Alabama Museum of Natural History on October 21st, 2024.

Howdy, all!

Per the photo request on this article, I've uploaded an image of the meteorite at the Alabama Museum of Natural History on the Wikimedia Commons, which can be found here through the linked thumbnail. I've never made a Wikipedia edit before, so I figured I would leave the decision to crop the image to those who might know better. If a better quality photo is needed, please let me know so I can go back and take another sometime soon!

All the best,
ResistivKai (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead, be bold, and include a cropped version in the main infobox of the article, while moving the old image into the body of the article.

If I made any mistake or if the latter image can be better positioned, please help me out and let me know what I can do better next time!

All the best,

ResistivKai (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ann Elizabeth Fowler Hodges into Sylacauga (meteorite)

There's a good bit of information here, but the bulk of it is focused on the incident which made Mrs. Hodges temporarily famous. If that were stripped away, what would remain would not be enough for notability for an individual, and it would be quite a small article as well. I think it may, in fact, be small enough to be merged into a section of Sylacauga (meteorite). The two articles are inextricably linked and there's plenty of room for both on the same page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems fair as neither the person nor the meteorite seems particularly noteworthy, but rather the event of the meteor striking Ms. Hodges. Maybe it could be renamed to Sylacauga (First recorded human-meteor impact)? EulerianTrail (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Or Hodges meteorite impact? EulerianTrail (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Surely the meteorite is still the notable subject being discussed though. Can't have a meteorite impact without one. Don't see much point in renaming. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

In the same way Hodges is notable. So maybe they should stay as separate articles. EulerianTrail (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

But Hodges's notability is dependent entirely on her connection to the meteorite, so having a separate article on her is redundant to that of the meteorite. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Same with the meteorite, the meteorite notability is dependent on its connection with Hodges. EulerianTrail (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

But the meteorite is the primarily notable subject here, so why shouldn't it be the primary subject of the article? What you're suggesting is a convoluted rename with a wholly unnecessary (and way outside of standards) disambiguator, when the current title gets all the most necessary information accross succinctly. Your suggestion could be resolved with an edit to the short description if you really think it's necessary, though I would disagree with that as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that is convoluted or unnecessary or out of standards. As long as something is notable, it is allowed to have its own article on wikipedia. EulerianTrail (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:1E; note that the policy is to merge to the relevant event, which is the meteorite. Klbrain (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The meteorite impact is the event, not the meteorite, EulerianTrail (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

But the meteorite is the key subject of the event. The sources include research into the meteorite. It's central to the narrative, rather than the impact itself. And I really don't think you were making a case against merging so I would argue you're outside the scope of this discussion anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not outside of the scope of this discussion. The event of the meteor impact is the notable event. Like the example in Wikipedia:ONEEVENT there is the article on Travis Walton UFO incident With Travis in the name. This is the same situation, we should merge the two articles into one, but with a name that reflective of this. Whichever is the case we decide on, I would be willing to help with the merging of the articles. EulerianTrail (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Support merge. This is all part of the same individual topic. Sylacauga (meteorite) is a reasonable target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)