Talk:Fulgurite

Glass Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Petrified Lightning (as html)

This is an invalid link, I removed it but placed it here in case anyone can fix it if possible.

Also, does this next sentence sound right to anyone? I think it needs some grammatical cleanup.

"Petrified lightning featured in the movie Sweet Home Alabama where the lead male character 'Jake' attempts to manufacture fulgurite by placing metal poles into the sandy beach during a thunderstorm to channel the lightning into the ground"

It takes a couple of readings to make sense I would suggest a comma after "Alabama"

I think a comma after Alabama would make it OK.IceDragon64 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still wouldn't be a complete sentence. An example of the above sentence completed would be: "Petrified lightning was featured in the movie Sweet Home Alabama, where the lead male character 'Jake' attempts to manufacture fulgurite by placing metal poles into the sandy beach during a thunderstorm to channel the lightning into the ground." Though in that sentence, my preference would be for "in which the lead male character...". Somerut (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the Museum of Science in Boston there is a fulgurite that's pretty long. I can't recall where it's from though. Anyone know? Should it be included in this article?--66.30.84.242 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a question. Is there another name for Fulgerite... ??somethingTUBE or something like that?

Spellings?

Though Chambers Dictionary spells it this way, other people spell it fulgarite- I would have- and fulgerite. If you look on the internet its there. "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Mineral Kingdom" by Dr Alan Wooley spells it Fulgarite. Is there a way one should deal with varient spellings?IceDragon64 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen it spelled Fulgurite. But the question of variant spellings is a valid one. Are the variants widely used, or limited to mistakes or mis-transcription? Mgmirkin 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if we're talking notability, check adsabs.harvard.edu. Do a basic search on fulgurite. 16 entries referring to it. Fulgarite: 0. Fulgerite: 0. To me that seems relatively conclusive? Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with the Google test: try typing in 'fulgurite research' and varying the spelling of fulgurite. 'Fulgurite research' generally returns scientific sites, mining sites, papers as top results. 'Fulgerite research' and 'fulgarite research' on the other hand both tend to turn up "personal" sites, or "vanity sites" written by laymen. To me, that also argues for the user of 'fulgurite' as the correct spelling, and other transcriptions as possibly erroneous? My 2c, of course. Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way to deal with an alternate spelling is to mention it at the beginning of the article ("fulgurites (also fulgarite)") and create a redirect. A citation to the alternative spelling would be nice, too. --Eyrian 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, edit conflict. I've slightly altered the section. As noted above, I think the "alternates" are typos, generally from not-as-notable sources? From a quick basic survey of reputable sources (adsabs.harvard.edu, and several rock/mineralogy sites online), fulgurite seems to be the preferred spelling. If there can be shown to be a number of "notable" variants (not just occasional typos, but systemic uses of variant spellings), then an "alternate spelling" section might be appropriate. As is, I'd still redirect from the other spelling so that concurrent articles don't get written and have to be merged later, adding time and effort (or dividing it, as the case may be). Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addedd a "Fact" tag, as I think those "alternates" are actually just typos. So, if there are notable citations for the alternates, please provide them. Else, they should probably be removed. Most of the technical literature uses 'Fulgurite.' Did add a redirect from 'Fulgerite' to the proper 'Fulgurite' spelling, with a comment on why, as noted above. That should be pretty non-controversial. Though, I think the "alternates" might be. Typos probably aren't notable, unless widely / intentionally used (why create confusion over what the correct spelling should be? Not that WP is a dictionary, mind you.). Just my 2c. Mgmirkin 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an amusing note, the intro even states that 'fulgurite' is based on the Latin 'fulgur'. 2 u's in fulgur... Coincidence that the correct spelling of fulgur-ite uses 2 of them as well? Mgmirkin 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a few weeks, and I don't see a citation. So, for now, in absence of evidence of the alternates being in wide use (aside from typos), I'm going to be bold & remove them for he time being. If someone can cite a large body of notable sources (papers or whatnot) that use the "alternate" spelling, then perhaps we can add them back in. Otherwise I'll assume for now that they're just typos, and we shouldn't sew confusion by listing typos as "alternates." Mgmirkin 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've added a "references" section and a references tag, so it should work right. See WP:FOOTNOTE for syntax on using it. But, let's please use it. IE, cite some notable sources for the materials used herein. I've added one for the term "exogenic fulgurite," which is used for the black glass created by the external melting of rocks from a lightning strike. Mgmirkin 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

finest?

> Possibly the finest fulgurite sample on display can be seen in Philadelphia, USA, at the Academy of Natural Sciences. It was discovered in 1940.

why is it the finest? Elvis 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pah! The best specimen is in the Natural History Museum in London, cos my mum works there! (Joke). No, seriously, its about 4-5 Metres long and is in three sections. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

There are two inconsistencies. At one paragraph the article claim the fulgurites can reach a length of 15 meters, implying there have been one found with that length. Further down the article I read the longest one found is around 5 meters. Which one should it be?

"Fulgurites have often deep penetrations, sometimes appearing up to 15 meters (50 feet) below the lightning-struck surface."

"The longest fulgurite found is approximately 4.9 to 5 meters (17 feet) in length, and was found in northern Florida, USA."