![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is part of the QR code experiment at Derby Museum. The QR code can be previewed at (rock) this site. |
The AGI may be hung up on tradition and precedence and therefore wish to perpetuate ambiguity by the dual use of dolomite. However, I see no reason for wikipedia to confuse readers and prefer dolostone for the rock. Vsmith 01:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
After some searching, I find no evidence to support the AGI statement about dolostone. So I have removed the bit here pending a reference:
I find AGI publications using the term dolostone and therefore am dubious about the not reccommended statement. Vsmith 01:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This may seem rather petty but the term “dolostone” is not recommended for the rock composed largely of the mineral dolomite. The American Geological Institute recommends that the term “dolomite” be used for both the rock and the mineral (Jackson, 1997). This is the opinion also of most European geologists and most specialists in carbonate sedimentology and petrology (see for instance Bathurst, 1971; Tucker and Wright, 1990; and see especially Zenger and Mazzullo, 1982, page 1). The term “dolomite” actually has priority for the rock. The mineral dolomite had already been described and was termed “pearl spar” when the rock, dolomite, was first described by Deodat Guy de Dolomieu in 1791 (see the discussion by Vatan, 1958).
I must also point out that Harvey Blatt (author of the text cited by Vsmith) is a sandstone petrologist, not a specialist on carbonate rocks, Bob Tracy, the co-author, is an igneous petrologist and did not write the section of the text referred. The authors cited above, with the exception of Jackson, are all carbonate petrologists and sedimentologists. Don Zenger is one of the world's foremost specialists on dolomite.
The American Geological Institute is a dynamic organization, supported by almost all practicing geologists in the United States through their numerous professional societies. They certainly are not "hung up on tradition and precedence".
Finally, I would humbly submit that I am also considered a specialist on dolomite with numerous scholarly publications to my credit on the subject. I am new to Wikipedia but I will try to post my bio and credentials shortly.
Bathurst, R. G. C., 1975, Carbonate sediments and their diagenesis: New York, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 658 p.
Jackson, J. A., 1997, Glossary of geology, Fourth edition: Alexandra, VA, American Geological Institute, 769 p.
Tucker, M. E., and Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate Sedimentology: Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 482 p.
Vatan, A., 1958, "Dolostone": Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 28, p. 514.
Zenger, D. H., and Mazzullo, S. J., eds., 1982, Dolomitization: Stroudsburg, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 426 p.
I have made several minor editorial changes to the last editorial changes of VSmith, perhaps a compromise is in order. I believe that it is inappropriate to consider Geotimes a scientific publication although it is published by AGI. It is a designed to be a popular news magazine for geologists and those interested in geology. It is not a scientific journal and is almost never referenced in the scientific literature. The Glossary of Geology, another AGI Publication, is frequently cited in the formal literature and is generally regarded as a source of scientific authority (as far as there is any authority in science). AGI publishes no scholarly journals but its constituent societies do.
In the future, unless completely thwarted by my rather overwhelming workload, I would like to edit a number of articles that have to do with, in particular, carbonate rocks and perhaps contribute a few additional articles on geology. Pro bono publico! Jay Gregg 11:39 21 August, 2005
After reading the discussion here I decided to do a bit of quick reconaissance on the use of the term.
From the AAPG online scientific paper search database (which searches over 14 peer reviewed geological publications):
780 out of ~70,000 items (articles and published abstracts) use the term Dolostone. Of which 271 items are exclusive uses (the word dolomite does not appear). Out of the 271 exclusive uses of the term Dolostone, 81 are published abstracts. From those 81 published abstracts, 3 were publised as a full length article (in one ot the journals searched, of course).
On the other hand, the word dolomite occurs in 9360 papers, of which 8830 are exclusive uses. Out of the 8830 exlusive uses for the term dolomite, 1750 are publised abstracts. Of the 1750 published abstracts 233 were later published as full papers (in the journals the database searched). As an interesting aside, 5946 of the 8830 items do not include the word mineral at all, 3552 of which are full papers.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Semantic battle aside, I cannot agree with the adverb "frequently" as a modifier to the appearance of the term dolostone in geologic literature. It's use is, at best, infrequent.
--RW, fellow geologist
A nice bit of research by RW and I imagine that similar results would be obtained for "Journal of Sedimentary Research" and "Sedimentology", so I must agree with RW on this issue. I believe that the word "frequently" was incerted at the insistance of VSmith. What about it VSmith? Can we drop the word "frequently?" Jay Gregg 15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
RW points out that the word "mineral" does not appear in the majority of these publications. Typically AAPG references to dolomite concern the rock as dolomite is an important reservoir rock. Also, AAPG Bulletin usually does not publish mineralogical articles. Jay Gregg 21:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I dropped back by to answer some questions.
I didn't read the articles on dolomite that excluded the use of the word mineral (descriptions of dolomite the mineral in journal articles usually go something like this, "the mineral dolomite" although I think it is safe to assume they discuss the rock dolomite specifically. There is also no guarantee that articles that include the words "mineral" and "dolomite" discuss the mineral dolomite. In fact, only 57 articles contain the string "mineral dolomite." So any other investigations to the words' use would require a lot of reading that simply isn't necessary.
Another interesting search is one of our companies (and a few others we've acquired over the years) internal non-published research: no documented uses of the word dolostone at all. Incidentally, it is the largest library of non-published, proprietary geologic research in the world.
I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other here. I personally don't get upset over dolostones use (if it helps non professionals and new learners, great!). However, I think that the context of the word dolomite when it is used in literature is so unambiguous that I find it puzzling that some geologists believe it causes confusion--I don't think that is entirely true. I can see it causing a bit of a headache when searching for specific contextual uses of the word (as I have done) but that situation is unlikely.
While the term is used by some geologists, I think the disclaimer on its use is entirely appropriate and I'm glad it was placed there. Thank you, Dr. Gregg.
--RW
Hi Vsmith
I think there is a real issue here. I wrote the section on "Caves in Dolomite Rock" to add to the overall Wiki knowledge on the subject. I specifically included the words "Dolomite Rock" in the section title, as this is the term used by the overwhelming majority of Speleologists and Geologists worldwide. This is so evident in the universal, world renowned book edited by Hill and Forti and published by NSS - The American National Speleological Society. This is also echoed in the publication "Encyclopedia of Caves" published in the UK with over 100 articles by world-wide experts.
The point is that the wider community overwhelmingly use the words "Dolomite rock" or just "dolomite" on its own to indicate the host rock in which caves have formed. What I had written certainly ties in with the existing title of the wiki page. If anything the title of the page should be changed to read "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" as it appears that neither the "American Geological Institute" nor the US "National Speleological Society" nor the rest of the world use this term "Dolostone". It appears to be very much a minority group using this term "Dolostone" and not universal as Wikipedia strives to achieve. Hence the sentences which you have deleted, was reinforcing that the speleological community use the term "dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to the particular chemistry of the bedrock in which caves have been created. With all alterations to Wikipedia pages, it is easy to delete, but harder to write/add to the knowledge on a page. It also take considerable time to chase up references and add them to a page. Something which is sadly lacking on the Dolomite Rock page. I would urge you to reconsider the deletions and alterations which you have made. I look forward to your comments on this subject. Kind Regards Newcaves ( talk) 07:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Correspondence below included here for continuity of discussion/thread.
Hi Vsmith
I have read through the talk page of "Dolostone and Dolomite Rock" and it appears that this issue has been brewing for some years now - but no action. I personally know several speleologists who are very active in the Union Internationale de Spéléologie (UIS) and hold positions on the council of this international speleological organisation and they have always used the terms "Dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to karst areas containing caves. This also fits in with the major literature books which are considered the bible of karst geology, caves and minerals around the world. Hence I think the move of changing the title of the "Dolostone" page to "Dolomite Rock" and the first line to "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" is a good compromise which is long overdue. This is bearing in mind that the world wide geological community also does not recommend the use of the term dolostone. I don't have the expertise to start the ball rolling to change the page name, so would be very grateful if you could instigate this. I could then change the names in the section on caves which relates to the speleological community.
Much appreciate all your thoughts on this subject and would really appreciate it if you are able to change the title of this page - I assume that there would be links from some other pages which would need to be modified. Sorry this part of wikipedia's workings is far beyond my knowledge. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves ( talk • contribs)
As pointed out in the discussion above by various contributors, both the international geological community and the international speleological community do not recommend the use of the term ‘dolostone’. One can easily draw the conclusion that the term ‘dolostone’ is just used by a minority and is possibly localised in its use.
There are a considerable number of highly regarded international speleological publications that only use the terms, ‘dolomite’, ‘dolomite rock’, or ‘dolomite in the rock form’, when referring to karst areas of this rock. Despite this it appears that a minority of uncompromising Wikepedia editors remain committed to opposing any change of the title page to ‘Dolomite (rock)’. Dolomite (Rock) would be an unambiguous and satisfactory compromise and the term ‘dolostone’ could still be retained in the first sentence of the description.
Wikipedia should use title page terms, which are most widely used internationally. Newcaves ( talk) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Although I am a complete layman in these matters, I have been on WP for some years. If I end up being more confused at the end of an article than when I started, there's usually something going on behind the scenes: and lo and behold! a naming controversy.
Having ploughed my way through these talk pages, (yay, Bender!) I wondered what other languages call the stuff. The French and Italians have different names for the mineral, fr:Dolomite, it:Dolomite and the rock fr:Dolomie, it:Dolomia, so no problem for them. Languages like German and English confusingly use the same word for both, but German WP sensibly has de:Dolomit (Mineral) and de:Dolomit (Gestein).
In order to minimize confusion in the minds of lesser, non-scientific mortals like me and other average readers of WP, I propose that what is currently Dolomite be renamed to Dolomite (mineral), and Dolostone to Dolomite (rock). I'm posting this message on both talk pages. I leave you with the stunning alien landscape of the Cirque de Mourèze. > MinorProphet ( talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ GeoWriter, Paul H., Anthony Appleyard, Ss112, MinorProphet, Pbsouthwood, Vsmith, and IntoCaves: Hello all- Just want to alert you to recent changes made, without discussion here, by an editor new to the article. Eric talk 03:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Cdecelle: Since I don't have the textbooks which you quote to hand, I would be grateful for actual quotations and page numbers from the works you cite. If this were a trivial matter, a web page or two from a US State authority might well suffice. But you have made substantial changes to WP without first discussing them on this page, and it is up to you to convince everyone else here that your changes reflect the mainstream of current scientific thought. We have been here before. MinorProphet ( talk) 23:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I need to study this some more. As I am confused Paul H. ( talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The heading currently shown as "Caves in Dolostone" should be changed immediately back to "Caves in Dolomite" as all the references in this section use the term dolomite (with no mention of dolostone). I totally agree with renaming the two articles to Dolomite (mineral) and Dolomite (rock). IntoCaves ( talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Cdecelle, the quote that you have given from Ford & Williams (2007) ("Most authors neglect ‘dolostone’ and describe both the mineral and the rock as dolomite.") seems to support giving this Wikipedia article the title Dolomite (rock) rather than Dolostone on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME, but you have used this source to do the opposite. Why do you think that Ford and Williams (2007) supports you action of changing Dolomite (rock) to Dolostone? — GeoWriter ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Cdecelle, the USGS webpage https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-lith.php?text=dolostone+%28dolomite%29 that you provided mentions dolostone 32 times but mentions dolomite 173 times. Is this supposed to show support for dolostone instead of dolomite? — GeoWriter ( talk) 19:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Cdecelle “Cave Minerals of the World” Hill, C A and Forti, P, published by NSS is considered by speleologists and geologists to be the world wide bible of speleogenesis, speleothems and cave formation. Your 'dolostone' search of NSS Journal (which publishes articles from many authors) is not considered to be the NSS view as to the name of a rock type. There are also authors which use the term Dolomite. I would consider the search of NSS Journals to be bias and not reflecting the most recognised world wide term which is Dolomite or Dolomite rock. Wikipedia is suppose to reflect international consensus not just a term used by a minority. IntoCaves ( talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I will point out that a dolomite appearing in Cave Minerals of the World, would make sense, since dolomite is the correct word for the mineral. Cdecelle ( talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
'Cave Minerals of the World', refers to "Dolomite" in the context of 'caves are formed in dolomite', which is used in the same contested as 'caves are formed in limestone', so using the logic that the book is referring to just the 'mineral' does not stand up. The book does NOT refer to 'dolostone'. 'Cave minerals of the World', deals in detail with cave development in various host rocks, including dolomite, the chemistry and everything through to speleogenisis. It is definitely considered world wide, as the most informative and accurate publication of its type. But the use of the term 'dolomite' used as a general term to describe a rock type (not just its chemistry) is widespread around the world and references to it in all manner of publications, far out number such references to dolostone. IntoCaves ( talk) 04:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The glaciers melt apace, but WP moves infinitesimally swifter. 'Ware move... MinorProphet ( talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
So moved per overwhelming consensus. Mikenorton ( talk) 15:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Eric: Do you suggest the article should be moved to Dolomite rock? Or why did you revert me? The current title is Dolomite and the disabiugator is (rock). If the mineral didn't have the same name, this article would be moved to "Dolomite" without the (rock) par. Christian75 ( talk) 15:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This section strikes me as a good poster child for giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject. The same may be said for the entire "Caves in dolomite rock" section of which it is part; this makes up much too large a percentage of the overall article. I'm inclined to reduce the Mg ion section to a single sentence, if that, and then take some of the material out of the overly large lead and expand it into proper sections (Description, Occurrences, etc.) to give the article a little better balance.
I'm wondering, though, if there is a place in Wikipedia where the detailed material would be more appropriate and could be moved rather than simply discarded? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is part of the QR code experiment at Derby Museum. The QR code can be previewed at (rock) this site. |
The AGI may be hung up on tradition and precedence and therefore wish to perpetuate ambiguity by the dual use of dolomite. However, I see no reason for wikipedia to confuse readers and prefer dolostone for the rock. Vsmith 01:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
After some searching, I find no evidence to support the AGI statement about dolostone. So I have removed the bit here pending a reference:
I find AGI publications using the term dolostone and therefore am dubious about the not reccommended statement. Vsmith 01:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This may seem rather petty but the term “dolostone” is not recommended for the rock composed largely of the mineral dolomite. The American Geological Institute recommends that the term “dolomite” be used for both the rock and the mineral (Jackson, 1997). This is the opinion also of most European geologists and most specialists in carbonate sedimentology and petrology (see for instance Bathurst, 1971; Tucker and Wright, 1990; and see especially Zenger and Mazzullo, 1982, page 1). The term “dolomite” actually has priority for the rock. The mineral dolomite had already been described and was termed “pearl spar” when the rock, dolomite, was first described by Deodat Guy de Dolomieu in 1791 (see the discussion by Vatan, 1958).
I must also point out that Harvey Blatt (author of the text cited by Vsmith) is a sandstone petrologist, not a specialist on carbonate rocks, Bob Tracy, the co-author, is an igneous petrologist and did not write the section of the text referred. The authors cited above, with the exception of Jackson, are all carbonate petrologists and sedimentologists. Don Zenger is one of the world's foremost specialists on dolomite.
The American Geological Institute is a dynamic organization, supported by almost all practicing geologists in the United States through their numerous professional societies. They certainly are not "hung up on tradition and precedence".
Finally, I would humbly submit that I am also considered a specialist on dolomite with numerous scholarly publications to my credit on the subject. I am new to Wikipedia but I will try to post my bio and credentials shortly.
Bathurst, R. G. C., 1975, Carbonate sediments and their diagenesis: New York, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 658 p.
Jackson, J. A., 1997, Glossary of geology, Fourth edition: Alexandra, VA, American Geological Institute, 769 p.
Tucker, M. E., and Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate Sedimentology: Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 482 p.
Vatan, A., 1958, "Dolostone": Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 28, p. 514.
Zenger, D. H., and Mazzullo, S. J., eds., 1982, Dolomitization: Stroudsburg, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 426 p.
I have made several minor editorial changes to the last editorial changes of VSmith, perhaps a compromise is in order. I believe that it is inappropriate to consider Geotimes a scientific publication although it is published by AGI. It is a designed to be a popular news magazine for geologists and those interested in geology. It is not a scientific journal and is almost never referenced in the scientific literature. The Glossary of Geology, another AGI Publication, is frequently cited in the formal literature and is generally regarded as a source of scientific authority (as far as there is any authority in science). AGI publishes no scholarly journals but its constituent societies do.
In the future, unless completely thwarted by my rather overwhelming workload, I would like to edit a number of articles that have to do with, in particular, carbonate rocks and perhaps contribute a few additional articles on geology. Pro bono publico! Jay Gregg 11:39 21 August, 2005
After reading the discussion here I decided to do a bit of quick reconaissance on the use of the term.
From the AAPG online scientific paper search database (which searches over 14 peer reviewed geological publications):
780 out of ~70,000 items (articles and published abstracts) use the term Dolostone. Of which 271 items are exclusive uses (the word dolomite does not appear). Out of the 271 exclusive uses of the term Dolostone, 81 are published abstracts. From those 81 published abstracts, 3 were publised as a full length article (in one ot the journals searched, of course).
On the other hand, the word dolomite occurs in 9360 papers, of which 8830 are exclusive uses. Out of the 8830 exlusive uses for the term dolomite, 1750 are publised abstracts. Of the 1750 published abstracts 233 were later published as full papers (in the journals the database searched). As an interesting aside, 5946 of the 8830 items do not include the word mineral at all, 3552 of which are full papers.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Semantic battle aside, I cannot agree with the adverb "frequently" as a modifier to the appearance of the term dolostone in geologic literature. It's use is, at best, infrequent.
--RW, fellow geologist
A nice bit of research by RW and I imagine that similar results would be obtained for "Journal of Sedimentary Research" and "Sedimentology", so I must agree with RW on this issue. I believe that the word "frequently" was incerted at the insistance of VSmith. What about it VSmith? Can we drop the word "frequently?" Jay Gregg 15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
RW points out that the word "mineral" does not appear in the majority of these publications. Typically AAPG references to dolomite concern the rock as dolomite is an important reservoir rock. Also, AAPG Bulletin usually does not publish mineralogical articles. Jay Gregg 21:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I dropped back by to answer some questions.
I didn't read the articles on dolomite that excluded the use of the word mineral (descriptions of dolomite the mineral in journal articles usually go something like this, "the mineral dolomite" although I think it is safe to assume they discuss the rock dolomite specifically. There is also no guarantee that articles that include the words "mineral" and "dolomite" discuss the mineral dolomite. In fact, only 57 articles contain the string "mineral dolomite." So any other investigations to the words' use would require a lot of reading that simply isn't necessary.
Another interesting search is one of our companies (and a few others we've acquired over the years) internal non-published research: no documented uses of the word dolostone at all. Incidentally, it is the largest library of non-published, proprietary geologic research in the world.
I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other here. I personally don't get upset over dolostones use (if it helps non professionals and new learners, great!). However, I think that the context of the word dolomite when it is used in literature is so unambiguous that I find it puzzling that some geologists believe it causes confusion--I don't think that is entirely true. I can see it causing a bit of a headache when searching for specific contextual uses of the word (as I have done) but that situation is unlikely.
While the term is used by some geologists, I think the disclaimer on its use is entirely appropriate and I'm glad it was placed there. Thank you, Dr. Gregg.
--RW
Hi Vsmith
I think there is a real issue here. I wrote the section on "Caves in Dolomite Rock" to add to the overall Wiki knowledge on the subject. I specifically included the words "Dolomite Rock" in the section title, as this is the term used by the overwhelming majority of Speleologists and Geologists worldwide. This is so evident in the universal, world renowned book edited by Hill and Forti and published by NSS - The American National Speleological Society. This is also echoed in the publication "Encyclopedia of Caves" published in the UK with over 100 articles by world-wide experts.
The point is that the wider community overwhelmingly use the words "Dolomite rock" or just "dolomite" on its own to indicate the host rock in which caves have formed. What I had written certainly ties in with the existing title of the wiki page. If anything the title of the page should be changed to read "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" as it appears that neither the "American Geological Institute" nor the US "National Speleological Society" nor the rest of the world use this term "Dolostone". It appears to be very much a minority group using this term "Dolostone" and not universal as Wikipedia strives to achieve. Hence the sentences which you have deleted, was reinforcing that the speleological community use the term "dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to the particular chemistry of the bedrock in which caves have been created. With all alterations to Wikipedia pages, it is easy to delete, but harder to write/add to the knowledge on a page. It also take considerable time to chase up references and add them to a page. Something which is sadly lacking on the Dolomite Rock page. I would urge you to reconsider the deletions and alterations which you have made. I look forward to your comments on this subject. Kind Regards Newcaves ( talk) 07:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Correspondence below included here for continuity of discussion/thread.
Hi Vsmith
I have read through the talk page of "Dolostone and Dolomite Rock" and it appears that this issue has been brewing for some years now - but no action. I personally know several speleologists who are very active in the Union Internationale de Spéléologie (UIS) and hold positions on the council of this international speleological organisation and they have always used the terms "Dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to karst areas containing caves. This also fits in with the major literature books which are considered the bible of karst geology, caves and minerals around the world. Hence I think the move of changing the title of the "Dolostone" page to "Dolomite Rock" and the first line to "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" is a good compromise which is long overdue. This is bearing in mind that the world wide geological community also does not recommend the use of the term dolostone. I don't have the expertise to start the ball rolling to change the page name, so would be very grateful if you could instigate this. I could then change the names in the section on caves which relates to the speleological community.
Much appreciate all your thoughts on this subject and would really appreciate it if you are able to change the title of this page - I assume that there would be links from some other pages which would need to be modified. Sorry this part of wikipedia's workings is far beyond my knowledge. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves ( talk • contribs)
As pointed out in the discussion above by various contributors, both the international geological community and the international speleological community do not recommend the use of the term ‘dolostone’. One can easily draw the conclusion that the term ‘dolostone’ is just used by a minority and is possibly localised in its use.
There are a considerable number of highly regarded international speleological publications that only use the terms, ‘dolomite’, ‘dolomite rock’, or ‘dolomite in the rock form’, when referring to karst areas of this rock. Despite this it appears that a minority of uncompromising Wikepedia editors remain committed to opposing any change of the title page to ‘Dolomite (rock)’. Dolomite (Rock) would be an unambiguous and satisfactory compromise and the term ‘dolostone’ could still be retained in the first sentence of the description.
Wikipedia should use title page terms, which are most widely used internationally. Newcaves ( talk) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Although I am a complete layman in these matters, I have been on WP for some years. If I end up being more confused at the end of an article than when I started, there's usually something going on behind the scenes: and lo and behold! a naming controversy.
Having ploughed my way through these talk pages, (yay, Bender!) I wondered what other languages call the stuff. The French and Italians have different names for the mineral, fr:Dolomite, it:Dolomite and the rock fr:Dolomie, it:Dolomia, so no problem for them. Languages like German and English confusingly use the same word for both, but German WP sensibly has de:Dolomit (Mineral) and de:Dolomit (Gestein).
In order to minimize confusion in the minds of lesser, non-scientific mortals like me and other average readers of WP, I propose that what is currently Dolomite be renamed to Dolomite (mineral), and Dolostone to Dolomite (rock). I'm posting this message on both talk pages. I leave you with the stunning alien landscape of the Cirque de Mourèze. > MinorProphet ( talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ GeoWriter, Paul H., Anthony Appleyard, Ss112, MinorProphet, Pbsouthwood, Vsmith, and IntoCaves: Hello all- Just want to alert you to recent changes made, without discussion here, by an editor new to the article. Eric talk 03:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Cdecelle: Since I don't have the textbooks which you quote to hand, I would be grateful for actual quotations and page numbers from the works you cite. If this were a trivial matter, a web page or two from a US State authority might well suffice. But you have made substantial changes to WP without first discussing them on this page, and it is up to you to convince everyone else here that your changes reflect the mainstream of current scientific thought. We have been here before. MinorProphet ( talk) 23:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I need to study this some more. As I am confused Paul H. ( talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The heading currently shown as "Caves in Dolostone" should be changed immediately back to "Caves in Dolomite" as all the references in this section use the term dolomite (with no mention of dolostone). I totally agree with renaming the two articles to Dolomite (mineral) and Dolomite (rock). IntoCaves ( talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Cdecelle, the quote that you have given from Ford & Williams (2007) ("Most authors neglect ‘dolostone’ and describe both the mineral and the rock as dolomite.") seems to support giving this Wikipedia article the title Dolomite (rock) rather than Dolostone on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME, but you have used this source to do the opposite. Why do you think that Ford and Williams (2007) supports you action of changing Dolomite (rock) to Dolostone? — GeoWriter ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Cdecelle, the USGS webpage https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-lith.php?text=dolostone+%28dolomite%29 that you provided mentions dolostone 32 times but mentions dolomite 173 times. Is this supposed to show support for dolostone instead of dolomite? — GeoWriter ( talk) 19:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Cdecelle “Cave Minerals of the World” Hill, C A and Forti, P, published by NSS is considered by speleologists and geologists to be the world wide bible of speleogenesis, speleothems and cave formation. Your 'dolostone' search of NSS Journal (which publishes articles from many authors) is not considered to be the NSS view as to the name of a rock type. There are also authors which use the term Dolomite. I would consider the search of NSS Journals to be bias and not reflecting the most recognised world wide term which is Dolomite or Dolomite rock. Wikipedia is suppose to reflect international consensus not just a term used by a minority. IntoCaves ( talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I will point out that a dolomite appearing in Cave Minerals of the World, would make sense, since dolomite is the correct word for the mineral. Cdecelle ( talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
'Cave Minerals of the World', refers to "Dolomite" in the context of 'caves are formed in dolomite', which is used in the same contested as 'caves are formed in limestone', so using the logic that the book is referring to just the 'mineral' does not stand up. The book does NOT refer to 'dolostone'. 'Cave minerals of the World', deals in detail with cave development in various host rocks, including dolomite, the chemistry and everything through to speleogenisis. It is definitely considered world wide, as the most informative and accurate publication of its type. But the use of the term 'dolomite' used as a general term to describe a rock type (not just its chemistry) is widespread around the world and references to it in all manner of publications, far out number such references to dolostone. IntoCaves ( talk) 04:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The glaciers melt apace, but WP moves infinitesimally swifter. 'Ware move... MinorProphet ( talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
So moved per overwhelming consensus. Mikenorton ( talk) 15:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Eric: Do you suggest the article should be moved to Dolomite rock? Or why did you revert me? The current title is Dolomite and the disabiugator is (rock). If the mineral didn't have the same name, this article would be moved to "Dolomite" without the (rock) par. Christian75 ( talk) 15:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This section strikes me as a good poster child for giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject. The same may be said for the entire "Caves in dolomite rock" section of which it is part; this makes up much too large a percentage of the overall article. I'm inclined to reduce the Mg ion section to a single sentence, if that, and then take some of the material out of the overly large lead and expand it into proper sections (Description, Occurrences, etc.) to give the article a little better balance.
I'm wondering, though, if there is a place in Wikipedia where the detailed material would be more appropriate and could be moved rather than simply discarded? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)