This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Geology of the Falkland Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
should we use brit or american spellings in this article?
arguments in favor of british spellings: the wiki manual of style (default to dialect of the place of the subject), cultural sensitivity over an area claimed by argentina and held by the U.K.(people killed each other over it), balance or 'equal time' for brits in an area that has many place-names in spanish used by english speakers (like the U.S. southwest), the brits may already be rubbed raw by this. or maybe they could care less.
arguments in favor of american spellings: maybe they are more globally understood, used and accepted than the british. maybe editors will constantly try to change the 'incorrect' brit. to the 'correct' amer. spelling. maybe editorial inertia will decide for us.
personally i think amer. is clearer. (but my inner child feels brit. is fun for a change although my outer adult thinks this is a violation of NPOV).
this issue will continue throughout the life of this article so reaching a consensus might be helpful.
please give your input and also vote one way or the other. thanks AnFu 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
metre, meter; kilometre, kilometer; colour, color; licence, license; dyke, dike; organisation, organization.
see Terms Relevant to this Article. AnFu 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
inferior is lower and superior is upper and early (lower?) and late (upper?) are used but i can't remember which are used in what way.
So we'll let the geologists at it.
AnFu 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Capitalized: Albian, Aptian, Berriasian, Cambrian, Cenomanian(?), Cenozoic, Cretaceous, Devonian, Jurasic, Paleocene, Paleozoic, Pre-Cambrian, Permian, Silurian, Siluro-Devonian, Tithonian, Triassic, West Falklands Group, Valanginian, Carboniferous glaciation,
Capitalized: Cape Meredith Complex, Lafonia, Lafonia Group,
group:
formation:
AnFu 08:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Barlovente = windward / upwind (side of something). Bioestratigráfica = biostratigraphic Cuenca = basin, also river basin or lake basin. Fluvio = fluvial or riverine or river (adjective). Hundimiento = sinking, subsidence (geological). Lacustre = lacustrine or lake (adjective). Laminas = sheets?, layers?, (planchas). Levantamiento = uplift, tectonic uplift. Litoestratigráfica = lithostratigraphy Palinológico = palynological. Paleontológico = paleontological. Peñascos = boulders, large rocks? Sotavento = leeward or downwind (side of something). Tectono = tectonic Unidad = unit or geologic unit (a specialised term).
AnFu 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A Spot For Future Notes By The Translators.
A 'basin' ('cuenca' in Spanish) can be a river basin or a lake basin. Also it can be both a river basin and a lake basin at different time periods in geological history. That is the case with the basins in this article about the Falklands. Therefore maybe it's better to call them just 'basins'. Also that may reduce the reader's confusion when looking for, or thinking about, a 'river basin' that presently is under the sea. For more information please see: Drainage basin (watershed), Sedimentary basin, Structural basin, and Depression (geology) (AnFu) AnFu 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC).
In the statement "When the Falkland Islands government granted licences licenses in 1996, seven companies agreed upon a drilling campaign" the Spanish article implied* ( *"Durante la oferta de licencias en 1996" = "During the 'offer/offering' of licences in 1996") there was a limited time period during which drilling or exploratory licences were granted, but didn't clearly state that. Maybe in the future some editor can research, elaborate & clarify about that licence-granting offer time period and any conditions or restrictions it might have had. [maybe later move this to its own section] (AnFu)
AnFu 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
After the initial survey that indicated there might be oil deposits, the Falklands government wasn't willing to grant drilling and exploration licences. That's always piqued my curiosity. Maybe in the future some editor can research and add an explaination as to why the Falklands' government didnt want to go ahead with drilling and exploration. [maybe later move this to its own section] (AnFu) AnFu 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
These are potential 'categories' or related topics to add to bottom of the article. I'm going to dump them here for now and sort/evaluate them later.
AnFu 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Geology of the Falkland Islands
Category:Economic geology Category:Petroleum Category:Depressions Category:Soil mechanics Category:Geology Category:Stratigraphy Category:Geomorphology Category:Hydrology Category:Earth sciences Category:Geology Paleontology Category:Biology Category:Fossils Category:Historical geology Category:Geological processes Category:Fossil fuels Category:Sedimentology Category:Seismology Category:Petroleum Category:Sedimentary rocks Marine geology
see also: British Geological Survey
Regional geology Geology of the United Kingdom
Paleozoic Mesozoic
im looking for advice, authoritative input, and consensus on geological terminology. im just going to spill this out quickly w/the intention of tyding later.
i'll assume British Geological Survey is acceptably abbreviated as BGS.
should we use source rock or host rock for "roca fuente"? the bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshore_intro.htm site uses source rock.
is 'mature rock' (per BGS) translated from 'roca madura' a geol. accepted term?
is there a geological abbreviation for 'below sea level'? bsl? b.s.l.?
thank you for your endevours to make this a better entry. AnFu 03:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith has geology background. My geology background is from the Discovery Channel. AnFu 15:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose to change occurances of "Great Falkland" to "West Falkland" and "Soledad Island" to "East Falkland", as I believe these are the names English language speakers will recognise. In general our coverage of the Islands' geography is rather poor, and I don't beleive we have a page that names the geographic features of the islands in English and Spanish. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The word "dock" isn't used in English by geologists (I think). If this means "a big crack in the ground that is filled up with magma, leaving a hard granite wall" then the English word is dyke. Is this what you mean here? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that much of this article started off in English from a British Geological Survey publication as stated at the end. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshoredef.htm seems to have some of the phrases and some of the rest may be linked from it. But then there is the danger of copyvios. -- Henrygb 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
i have two questions which are not rhetorical. is it worth it to translate into english a spanish article whose source documents are in english? is there the danger of the game of "telephone"?
in spanish (from the spanish wiki) the article seems too vague, ambiguous, and general for an article on a scientific topic, which made me wonder how much it's been edited, translated or simplified. perhaps it's been strained thru too many brains such that the substance has been tossed in the bin.
the spanish article has elements and wording that are very, very similar to the english language falklands site noted in the first entry in this discussion. however, the spanish article also contains much more info than that site.
so is translation worth it or should people just build the entry from scratch (using source documents already in english)? Anfu AnFu 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to inform other contributors that I'm contining to translate parts of this article. Mainly this means I'm trying to modify the English translation to more accurately reflect what the Spanish version (as of 3 March 2006) states (I'm calling this process 'matching'). I have also found phrases and even long sections from the Spanish that are missing in the English. I think, since it is being translated as a source for the English Wiki, it is important that the Spanish information is accurately represented. My concern is that 1) inadequate translations still are present, 2) editors, working with an inadequate translation, edited words and passages into something other than their original meaning or feeling, and 3) that, presented with passages of nonsense, editors decided to delete them. If, however, editors have made changes based on additional information not in the Spanish version, then I apologize and encourage them to reinstate their modifications. I will try to indicate changes so that others may find, review, and modify them if justified. I will again apoligize ahead of time for any toes I may inadvertantly step on. 3 march 2006 (forgot to sign) AnFu 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the first mention of geographical names should have the Spanish name also. Thereafter maybe only the english name should be used. The rational for including the spanish names is basically because of a shared english-spanish heritage as noted above. AnFu 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Presently, in Wikipedia there's no article for 'source rock' there's only an article about
Maturity (geology) which is actually 'mature source rock', that is, it's a type of source rock. There's also
Petroleum geology but it's 'source rock' section needs to be improved. It doesn't address the levels of maturity. Maybe someone (with a greater interest in geology than me) who reads this can create a 'source rock' article, or modify the 'mature rock' article, or improve the 'source' (source rock) section of
Petroleum geology. (AnFu)
AnFu 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
a proper summarising introduction might be a future project. the way it begins now seems a bit abrupt and not introductory at all. AnFu 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a vague spot in the text in the section "Tectonic-Stratigraphic Structure of the North Falkland River Basin: Post-Exploratory-Well Analysis:"
"Also, the lithostratigraphical units are useful to describe the stratigraphy only of individual wells, but are not useful to make comparisons, since there are lateral lithological variations between the units."
With regard to the word 'comparisons', comparisons of what or between what? The wells? Or the geological units? The Spanish article did not specify. However, as it is now it is vague and therefore confusing. To answer this question it may be necessary to do more research, or it may require an editor with some background in geology, or both. Any responses can be posted below. Thank you. (AnFu) AnFu 05:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the switching of the units from metric first to Imperial first was ill-advised.
Michael Glass ( talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My reason for starting this thread was to state my objection to your change of the units in this article. My reasons for this protest are stated above. Changing articles against the sources and against British usage is a provocative act, and you can expect a protest every time you do it. I do concede that you made this change before I had proposed that we have a moratorium on further changes, and if you have decided to cease doing this it would be a great help. Then both of us could concentrate on more productive endeavours. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, Please refrain from offensive expressions and personal attacks. Three people have raised their voices in protest at your action in changing the units in this article. Each one has raised different and separate issues. When you argue consensus as a response to dissent it begins to sound like nonsense. Please take note of the concerns that have been expressed. Michael Glass ( talk) 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few points:
Hope this helps. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
In second paragraph, line 3, you mention "...dikes... that lie principally in the southern part of East Falkland". This unfortunately is in contradiction with the following Geological Map, which clearly pinpoints these dikes in the Western Falkland.
In second paragraph, line you mention "...dikes... that lie principally in the southern part of East Falkland". This unfortunately is in contradiction with the following Geological Map, which cle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.249.62 ( talk) 15:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geology of the Falkland Islands. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Geology of the Falkland Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
should we use brit or american spellings in this article?
arguments in favor of british spellings: the wiki manual of style (default to dialect of the place of the subject), cultural sensitivity over an area claimed by argentina and held by the U.K.(people killed each other over it), balance or 'equal time' for brits in an area that has many place-names in spanish used by english speakers (like the U.S. southwest), the brits may already be rubbed raw by this. or maybe they could care less.
arguments in favor of american spellings: maybe they are more globally understood, used and accepted than the british. maybe editors will constantly try to change the 'incorrect' brit. to the 'correct' amer. spelling. maybe editorial inertia will decide for us.
personally i think amer. is clearer. (but my inner child feels brit. is fun for a change although my outer adult thinks this is a violation of NPOV).
this issue will continue throughout the life of this article so reaching a consensus might be helpful.
please give your input and also vote one way or the other. thanks AnFu 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
metre, meter; kilometre, kilometer; colour, color; licence, license; dyke, dike; organisation, organization.
see Terms Relevant to this Article. AnFu 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
inferior is lower and superior is upper and early (lower?) and late (upper?) are used but i can't remember which are used in what way.
So we'll let the geologists at it.
AnFu 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Capitalized: Albian, Aptian, Berriasian, Cambrian, Cenomanian(?), Cenozoic, Cretaceous, Devonian, Jurasic, Paleocene, Paleozoic, Pre-Cambrian, Permian, Silurian, Siluro-Devonian, Tithonian, Triassic, West Falklands Group, Valanginian, Carboniferous glaciation,
Capitalized: Cape Meredith Complex, Lafonia, Lafonia Group,
group:
formation:
AnFu 08:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Barlovente = windward / upwind (side of something). Bioestratigráfica = biostratigraphic Cuenca = basin, also river basin or lake basin. Fluvio = fluvial or riverine or river (adjective). Hundimiento = sinking, subsidence (geological). Lacustre = lacustrine or lake (adjective). Laminas = sheets?, layers?, (planchas). Levantamiento = uplift, tectonic uplift. Litoestratigráfica = lithostratigraphy Palinológico = palynological. Paleontológico = paleontological. Peñascos = boulders, large rocks? Sotavento = leeward or downwind (side of something). Tectono = tectonic Unidad = unit or geologic unit (a specialised term).
AnFu 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A Spot For Future Notes By The Translators.
A 'basin' ('cuenca' in Spanish) can be a river basin or a lake basin. Also it can be both a river basin and a lake basin at different time periods in geological history. That is the case with the basins in this article about the Falklands. Therefore maybe it's better to call them just 'basins'. Also that may reduce the reader's confusion when looking for, or thinking about, a 'river basin' that presently is under the sea. For more information please see: Drainage basin (watershed), Sedimentary basin, Structural basin, and Depression (geology) (AnFu) AnFu 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC).
In the statement "When the Falkland Islands government granted licences licenses in 1996, seven companies agreed upon a drilling campaign" the Spanish article implied* ( *"Durante la oferta de licencias en 1996" = "During the 'offer/offering' of licences in 1996") there was a limited time period during which drilling or exploratory licences were granted, but didn't clearly state that. Maybe in the future some editor can research, elaborate & clarify about that licence-granting offer time period and any conditions or restrictions it might have had. [maybe later move this to its own section] (AnFu)
AnFu 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
After the initial survey that indicated there might be oil deposits, the Falklands government wasn't willing to grant drilling and exploration licences. That's always piqued my curiosity. Maybe in the future some editor can research and add an explaination as to why the Falklands' government didnt want to go ahead with drilling and exploration. [maybe later move this to its own section] (AnFu) AnFu 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
These are potential 'categories' or related topics to add to bottom of the article. I'm going to dump them here for now and sort/evaluate them later.
AnFu 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Geology of the Falkland Islands
Category:Economic geology Category:Petroleum Category:Depressions Category:Soil mechanics Category:Geology Category:Stratigraphy Category:Geomorphology Category:Hydrology Category:Earth sciences Category:Geology Paleontology Category:Biology Category:Fossils Category:Historical geology Category:Geological processes Category:Fossil fuels Category:Sedimentology Category:Seismology Category:Petroleum Category:Sedimentary rocks Marine geology
see also: British Geological Survey
Regional geology Geology of the United Kingdom
Paleozoic Mesozoic
im looking for advice, authoritative input, and consensus on geological terminology. im just going to spill this out quickly w/the intention of tyding later.
i'll assume British Geological Survey is acceptably abbreviated as BGS.
should we use source rock or host rock for "roca fuente"? the bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshore_intro.htm site uses source rock.
is 'mature rock' (per BGS) translated from 'roca madura' a geol. accepted term?
is there a geological abbreviation for 'below sea level'? bsl? b.s.l.?
thank you for your endevours to make this a better entry. AnFu 03:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith has geology background. My geology background is from the Discovery Channel. AnFu 15:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose to change occurances of "Great Falkland" to "West Falkland" and "Soledad Island" to "East Falkland", as I believe these are the names English language speakers will recognise. In general our coverage of the Islands' geography is rather poor, and I don't beleive we have a page that names the geographic features of the islands in English and Spanish. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The word "dock" isn't used in English by geologists (I think). If this means "a big crack in the ground that is filled up with magma, leaving a hard granite wall" then the English word is dyke. Is this what you mean here? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that much of this article started off in English from a British Geological Survey publication as stated at the end. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshoredef.htm seems to have some of the phrases and some of the rest may be linked from it. But then there is the danger of copyvios. -- Henrygb 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
i have two questions which are not rhetorical. is it worth it to translate into english a spanish article whose source documents are in english? is there the danger of the game of "telephone"?
in spanish (from the spanish wiki) the article seems too vague, ambiguous, and general for an article on a scientific topic, which made me wonder how much it's been edited, translated or simplified. perhaps it's been strained thru too many brains such that the substance has been tossed in the bin.
the spanish article has elements and wording that are very, very similar to the english language falklands site noted in the first entry in this discussion. however, the spanish article also contains much more info than that site.
so is translation worth it or should people just build the entry from scratch (using source documents already in english)? Anfu AnFu 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to inform other contributors that I'm contining to translate parts of this article. Mainly this means I'm trying to modify the English translation to more accurately reflect what the Spanish version (as of 3 March 2006) states (I'm calling this process 'matching'). I have also found phrases and even long sections from the Spanish that are missing in the English. I think, since it is being translated as a source for the English Wiki, it is important that the Spanish information is accurately represented. My concern is that 1) inadequate translations still are present, 2) editors, working with an inadequate translation, edited words and passages into something other than their original meaning or feeling, and 3) that, presented with passages of nonsense, editors decided to delete them. If, however, editors have made changes based on additional information not in the Spanish version, then I apologize and encourage them to reinstate their modifications. I will try to indicate changes so that others may find, review, and modify them if justified. I will again apoligize ahead of time for any toes I may inadvertantly step on. 3 march 2006 (forgot to sign) AnFu 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the first mention of geographical names should have the Spanish name also. Thereafter maybe only the english name should be used. The rational for including the spanish names is basically because of a shared english-spanish heritage as noted above. AnFu 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Presently, in Wikipedia there's no article for 'source rock' there's only an article about
Maturity (geology) which is actually 'mature source rock', that is, it's a type of source rock. There's also
Petroleum geology but it's 'source rock' section needs to be improved. It doesn't address the levels of maturity. Maybe someone (with a greater interest in geology than me) who reads this can create a 'source rock' article, or modify the 'mature rock' article, or improve the 'source' (source rock) section of
Petroleum geology. (AnFu)
AnFu 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
a proper summarising introduction might be a future project. the way it begins now seems a bit abrupt and not introductory at all. AnFu 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a vague spot in the text in the section "Tectonic-Stratigraphic Structure of the North Falkland River Basin: Post-Exploratory-Well Analysis:"
"Also, the lithostratigraphical units are useful to describe the stratigraphy only of individual wells, but are not useful to make comparisons, since there are lateral lithological variations between the units."
With regard to the word 'comparisons', comparisons of what or between what? The wells? Or the geological units? The Spanish article did not specify. However, as it is now it is vague and therefore confusing. To answer this question it may be necessary to do more research, or it may require an editor with some background in geology, or both. Any responses can be posted below. Thank you. (AnFu) AnFu 05:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the switching of the units from metric first to Imperial first was ill-advised.
Michael Glass ( talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My reason for starting this thread was to state my objection to your change of the units in this article. My reasons for this protest are stated above. Changing articles against the sources and against British usage is a provocative act, and you can expect a protest every time you do it. I do concede that you made this change before I had proposed that we have a moratorium on further changes, and if you have decided to cease doing this it would be a great help. Then both of us could concentrate on more productive endeavours. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, Please refrain from offensive expressions and personal attacks. Three people have raised their voices in protest at your action in changing the units in this article. Each one has raised different and separate issues. When you argue consensus as a response to dissent it begins to sound like nonsense. Please take note of the concerns that have been expressed. Michael Glass ( talk) 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few points:
Hope this helps. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
In second paragraph, line 3, you mention "...dikes... that lie principally in the southern part of East Falkland". This unfortunately is in contradiction with the following Geological Map, which clearly pinpoints these dikes in the Western Falkland.
In second paragraph, line you mention "...dikes... that lie principally in the southern part of East Falkland". This unfortunately is in contradiction with the following Geological Map, which cle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.249.62 ( talk) 15:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geology of the Falkland Islands. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)