Talk:Fault block is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Fault-block is the more general term and this article talks about both the general concept and the specific instance of fault-block mountains. This move will also allow
block (geology) to redirect to
fault-block without a double redirect. Not all blocks form mountains. --relisting. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Bejnar (
talk)
00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - The term 'fault-block mountain' is somewhat antiquated (in a similar way to the term
fold mountain), so I think that this move would be a good idea, a section on the term would be adequate to cover this older usage I reckon.
Mikenorton (
talk)
15:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
That's true, but I don't see that it would prevent an article titled 'Fault-block' from discussing fault-block mountains in a separate section, I'm just not sure that there's enough here to justify a standalone article.
Mikenorton (
talk)
15:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Anthony Appleyard is correct, there are many fault-blocks which cause no geographical effect on the surface. That is why the article should be about fault-blocks and not about fault-block mountains. Right now fault-block redirects here because of the merger above. After the move we can cleanup the text. --
Bejnar (
talk)
01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)reply
At the moment the article is all about the effects on surface geography. If we are to extend the article to discuss the underground part of block-faulting, how would that differ from discussing faulting in general?
Anthony Appleyard (
talk)
05:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't understand the topic, which is probably why I don't understand the objection. Are there fault-blocks that are not landforms, and so "fault-block" would not be correct? I see the lede indicates more than mountains, which is why the current title is not correct. If fault-block is too broad and fault-block mountain is too narrow, would "fault-block landform" be accurate for this topic? --
JHunterJ (
talk)
22:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Beneath the surface there are many fault blocks that have no topographic expression, or only do so because of later erosion. A common term in areas of crustal extension is 'tilted fault block'(
Google Scholar search), blocks that have been tilted between pairs of extensional faults - such blocks host a significant proportion of the world's oil and gas reserves, as in the
Gulf of Suez Rift.
Mikenorton (
talk)
10:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose this precise move; support a move to
Fault block (currently a redirect to this article). It appears that the article is indeed about fault blocks generally, a topic that is well identified in a Googlebook search on
"fault block". Style considerations would rule out the hyphen (see
WP:HYPHEN at
WP:MOS) in a simple noun phrase "fault block". The hyphen would only be used if the phrase is turned to attributive use, as in the present title or anything of the form "fault-block X". The same Googlebook search shows that Wikipedia style is (as usual) in accord with other best-practice publishing. (I have fixed a couple of attributive uses that lacked hyphens in the article.) NoeticaTea?23:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Talk:Fault block is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Fault-block is the more general term and this article talks about both the general concept and the specific instance of fault-block mountains. This move will also allow
block (geology) to redirect to
fault-block without a double redirect. Not all blocks form mountains. --relisting. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Bejnar (
talk)
00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - The term 'fault-block mountain' is somewhat antiquated (in a similar way to the term
fold mountain), so I think that this move would be a good idea, a section on the term would be adequate to cover this older usage I reckon.
Mikenorton (
talk)
15:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
That's true, but I don't see that it would prevent an article titled 'Fault-block' from discussing fault-block mountains in a separate section, I'm just not sure that there's enough here to justify a standalone article.
Mikenorton (
talk)
15:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Anthony Appleyard is correct, there are many fault-blocks which cause no geographical effect on the surface. That is why the article should be about fault-blocks and not about fault-block mountains. Right now fault-block redirects here because of the merger above. After the move we can cleanup the text. --
Bejnar (
talk)
01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)reply
At the moment the article is all about the effects on surface geography. If we are to extend the article to discuss the underground part of block-faulting, how would that differ from discussing faulting in general?
Anthony Appleyard (
talk)
05:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't understand the topic, which is probably why I don't understand the objection. Are there fault-blocks that are not landforms, and so "fault-block" would not be correct? I see the lede indicates more than mountains, which is why the current title is not correct. If fault-block is too broad and fault-block mountain is too narrow, would "fault-block landform" be accurate for this topic? --
JHunterJ (
talk)
22:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Beneath the surface there are many fault blocks that have no topographic expression, or only do so because of later erosion. A common term in areas of crustal extension is 'tilted fault block'(
Google Scholar search), blocks that have been tilted between pairs of extensional faults - such blocks host a significant proportion of the world's oil and gas reserves, as in the
Gulf of Suez Rift.
Mikenorton (
talk)
10:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose this precise move; support a move to
Fault block (currently a redirect to this article). It appears that the article is indeed about fault blocks generally, a topic that is well identified in a Googlebook search on
"fault block". Style considerations would rule out the hyphen (see
WP:HYPHEN at
WP:MOS) in a simple noun phrase "fault block". The hyphen would only be used if the phrase is turned to attributive use, as in the present title or anything of the form "fault-block X". The same Googlebook search shows that Wikipedia style is (as usual) in accord with other best-practice publishing. (I have fixed a couple of attributive uses that lacked hyphens in the article.) NoeticaTea?23:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: